dpw. i appreciate that dpw is overwhelmed by this. it is a large program they are not used to. it has been in the city before. the police department had it. it is not completely new for them to implement it. they have failed to implement it and consider the factors that they have heard. have you all heard what the officers told you tonight and as you have noted, we do not have a record of the hearing officer, what she did, and how she weighed things. another interesting thing that was mentioned is that we should allow this conditionally approved a permit to go for because we can always revoke it. it is not the purpose of issuing permits and going through a process where you involve the public and have a protest hearings to say, we are going to let this happen. and then we will decide to revoke it. the purpose of this program and the oversight exercise is to identify the impact of front and come up with conditions to address them or decide that the permit was not proper to be issued at this location. they have other locations and that is what this portrait modify the permit to t

bless the dpw for taking on this horrendous issue. no one else has stated that the old ordinance covered by the police department -- the permits were $10,000 per year. under the new ordinance, and they are $500 per year. a big difference. maybe that is why there were no food trucks operating prior to this amended ordinance. there are grandfathered food truck set a $500 -- rather, $10,000 under the police department. the new ones, it is pretty cheap. the dpw nor jeremy paul addressed the fact that the truck would be part of the wrong way. he also said that chipotle is opening another restaurant. they are owned by mcdonald's. deep pockets. these are not mom and pop restaurant. there are owned by mcdonald's and can afford the competition. he also mentioned that there are food trucks at city hall. city hall is not the financial district. when you open a restaurant, whether it is a restaurant or a office, you need to get a certificate of occupancy with all of the permits sign off before you can even open your doors for business. this inclu

to apply for dpw, it is staggering to me how they can propose these things. they have said that even though it is cornyn out that the parking or they are talking about doing it, these trucks would violate parking regulations, because there is only one-hour parking allowed and loading and unloading and yellowstone's defined as active as faces, that dpt will regulate that a. why can they approve a permit that they already know is in violation? how can you approve a permit that they already know is in violation of a code of san francisco? with regard to the restaurant requirement that is required under state law to be within 2 1/3 feet of the location. they say that dph will regulate that. you cannot keep approving permits in the hopes that some other -- what kind of enforcement is that? does that require the appellant to go to every agency and say to them, they do not have these permits. they cannot park there. how is that going to be working? that should not have to happen. there are others who will speak about the economic impacts about these things. in one o

and this is in direct conflict with the dpw guidelines. next, and davis street is a one- way street. when i submitted my brief, i was unclear on the exact location of where they wanted to be. this truck is parked a few free -- parked a few feet in front but it is going down a one-way street and. in the industry brief, they said they have a truck in the works that will be available in january. i did not see that they had an order or an invoice for what the location of the opening of the new truck was going to be, whether on the left or right side. i will make it short. this is one-hour parking. issuance of this permit only benefits food truck owners. vk industries will park in prime real estate place for nothing in. they will trust the money out. we urge you to permanently revoke this german and to advise the city administration to revisit this ordinance in its entirety. thank you. >> thank you. moving on to appeal number 11- 105. >> i am representing this appellant. because there are so many other people who are appealing this particular p

this is something that i focused on their much when i was at dpw. we made it a key part of what we were measuring for each project, tracking where each one was relative to budget and schedule. this is the bread and butter of good project management, the able to deliver what you say, on time, and on budget. i will first acknowledge, there is no question in my mind, from my limited time at the mta, there is room for improvement in how we are managing the delivery of capital projects. you will hear about some of the things are already in place to address that. i do want to caution against taking some of these numbers without understanding some of the underlying reasons behind things having apparent cost and schedule overruns. i think a lot of it has to do with estimation and process. i do not think as much has to do with some level of rampant mismanagement or misuse of public funds. again, no question there are ways to improve so we can use our dollars more effectively and deliver projects on time and on budget, but here are a couple of examples of wha

we got a call from somebody asking, is dpw doing this? we said yes. i have $50,000, i will support it. we are a private group. this is not tax deductible. we do not care. and they rebuilt some houses. the problem with most people is they could not even teardown their homes. but this is the burning man twist. i love telling this story. being who they were, the culture, at the end of each day, the landscape was strewn with debris. you have to seeing the pictures. they gather up the debris, at night, they turn it into a bonfire. that is part of our culture. then locals started to come around and one woman said, i have never seen anything like this. i have never seen anything like this, but i like it. pretty soon, they were making art. fema is not going to do that for you. and that was just a spontaneous effort. now it has expanded around the world. this came out of burning man, this wild, crazy party. >> let us start over here with a question. >> i would like to ask a question about dpw. the people that build infrastructure. i want to know why they do no

we thought this is a dpw. we wanted to make that clear. >> i know the date of the signature was december 29. this was not even executed as of the day of the hearing. >> that is true. we're here today because we could not uphold the location because we have not submitted a bathroom form to you. we're supposed to submit it to the health department. we thought there were separate. >> do you have the form you submitted prior to the hearing? >> we did not submit one. we thought it was separate. a separate process that we had to do before we served but not relative to the dpw permit. >> there has been some confusion about the process for when the permit is issued and when the subsequent verifications are submitted by the permit holders. it is understandable there might be confusion about when this document was required. >> thank you. >> i had one question after listening to your representative and one of the statements made, you stated they were at the table. were they there for purposes of supporting the legislatio

i will give dpw credit. in our area, they have tried to beef it up. a lot of trash in the area and this will just cause more trash. and it will hurt business. there was a one-day trial just one block away. on that day, i think they had six or eight food trucks. not one business on the street did any business at all. everybody was dead. that proves it right there. that proves it and it kills the business. do you want to kill the brick and mortar restaurants? do you want to have employees, young people try to get a start in the city? do you want to have them thrown out of their jobs? do you want to have union construction people? no one is going to want to put a restaurant in. there will not put a casual place in when you are going to have a food it truck in the front. you are hurting the unions, you are hurting the young people, you are killing the district. i think this whole program -- i am not saying some places, i see food trucks in some of the outlying areas and maybe it is a good idea, but where you have restaurant after restaurant struggling, im

we have a close collaboration with the mta, dpw, and leadership from our elected officials. thank you. the investments that we can see here today in the public realm, incredible streetscape improvements, and then in the private rel., through the local -- low-cost loan program for homeowners on this block to update and maintain their homes, demonstrates the mayor's commitment to revitalizing our city's neighborhoods, starting here in the bayview hunters point community. in doing so, creating local jobs for san francisco residents. thank you, mr. mayor. with that, i turn it over to you. [applause] >> thank you for the introduction, tiffany. thank you for coming down to our brand new nucom avenue. for supervisor cohen who was with me, our public utilities agency, redevelopment agency, public works, environmental protection agency, as well as others, if santa claus has a choice on which st. he will visit first, i think he will come to nucom avenue first. it is a well-designed street, one that we started -- 16 of these all over the city. this became one of the most important ones

it was intended to be the job of dpw. i appreciate that dpw is overwhelmed by this. it is a large program they are not used to. it has been in the city before. the police department had it. it is not completely new for

>supervisor kim: why didn't we set up a sale to dpw for open space? i'm very sympathetic to supervisor weeder possible values over open space. district 8 has some of the least open space and i don't want to say either/or housing for homeless families or parks for our families. clearly klauer city values both. but this policy is clear stating that surplus property goes toward -- clearly our city and values of both. if we're going to transfer this to open space, and has to be a sale. i'm curious as to why when you came to the board this was not a sale. >> when the property came to us, we reviewed it for use as housing or the revenue for housing. >> and john updike top acting director for real estate. this was originally the jurisdiction of department of public works. transferred under the surplus property ordinance to the mayor's office of housing. the item was a recision of the prior ordinance, returning the property to its home department -- home department. ordinarily, there would not be a payment made between departments. this is a unique circumstan

it does also raise the point -- and this is something i dealt with at dpw. there is a trade up between how much time you invest up front in the exploratory phase. the same problem would possible scope addition occurs with unforeseen conditions. what you do upfront can save money down the road, but often, you do not have funding up front, compared to how much you leave to the balance of the process. with right away processes, it could the how many holes you dig in the ground to figure out where the utilities are. they are not usually where they were marked, and that can lead to delays. it would be great to have the full picture up front, but that comes at a cost. we do have trade-offs to consider. just a couple other examples. we did a traction power replacement in richmond. this is part of what energizes the overhead lines. when it mta first bid the project in 2008, the bids came in $3 million over budget because it was at a time when copper was at a peak. there was a lot of acquiring it involved. mta later delayed the process. -- wiring iinvolved. that is a

when dpw dug into the main sewer line, they discovered some major work that needed to be done. they wanted to make sure that the sewer line would work perfectly, as well as each of their feeds into homes. while infrastructure is sometimes hard to imagine or see, you will be -- you are standing on the street that will probably be the best for decades to come. you will have an unstoppable sewer. no longer those backups. the fire chief will have a pleasant time going down the street to make sure that the services are there. as i said earlier, this is a beautiful project coming in, not only the designed for infrastructure, but the work force that was put together. i want to thank the contractors that worked so well with our citybuild program. 18 of that group are president spirit within that work force, they completed 43% of the work hours on this street. that is a very good standard, the highest standard we have had. we made that commitment at the beginning that our local folks would be hired, san francisco residents will be hired, and they did very well. of course we can do bette

maybe by ceqa, maybe by the dpw hearing officer. the system is set up so that person has some discretion. i believe that person should exercise that discretion. we are able to review. we are able to do that tonight. i agree with my fellow commissioners. is there a motion? >> may i ask a procedural question? president goh: absolutely. >> there are three sites that are listed with this permit a. two are subject to appeal. one is not. i am curious as to whether this action would affect the third address or if we could proceed with the third address and have the permits authorized for that. and have the matters authorized -- the matter is subject to appeal authorized for your process. >> you could sever the third location, but you would need to continue it one permit so that they could provide you with certification. in order to uphold that location. vice president garcia: is that 65 second street? >> that is correct. vice president garcia: if we could sever that so they can proceed with that and provide the rest room for. beale and cal

the mta and the dpw have both created a plan. the mta have prop k allocation requests that will be heard, i believe, at next month's cac to continue the bike planning. we are creating a plan to move second straight forward. commissioner campos: commissioner jim? commissioner kim: i did not catch your name. >> simone jacque. commissioner kim: i just want to say, i am extraordinarily upset about how this is coming to us. i have a number of questions. who owns the community of reach for the project? who owns that portion of this work? >> dpw and mta should be doing that together, in terms of the bike components. to our knowledge, -- commissioner kim: why was the last meeting in 2009? why has there been a hold on two years on community outreach, and for this item to say there is community opposition, how do we know, if we have not had a meeting for two years? >> i cannot speak to the bike planning -- commissioner kim: when this comes to us today, why months ago, nobody said we need to read gauges the community in this process? we kne

there are projects we want to do and coordinate with dpw. there's a lot of synergy we can create among the departments for coordination. supervisor avalos: i want to thank the voters for approving this. supervisor wiener did a lot of work to see this go through. thank you for that effort. a lot of benefits to this measure. one of the things i want to know about this bond. is the first that has been enacted since the passage of a local ordinance and there are many san franciscans who will get jobs from this and implementation of this bond. i want to thank everyone involved and i think it is a significant milestone for the city to have this bond past. >> supervisor campos: i think it is a very exciting development and hopefully it is -- not the end of this ongoing process. president chiu: unless there is any discussion, can we take these items same house, same call? without objection, these ordinances are passed on first reading and resolution is adopted. >> resolution approving this 36 amendment to the treasure island structures between the a

they are partner in this, and have done a lot of work with dpw. i have had the opportunity to travel to other countries to see how public works and how cities are being kept clean and green. welcome. [applause] >> well, i am not very good at clapping hands. i am very good at kicking behind, and to get things done. you know, the thing about mohammed and our mayor and our leadership in our city right now is that they are willing to listen. i have always advocated that the community comes together when that there is a good idea. when there is a bad idea, i am the first one -- i do not care who you are, i will object to it. this idea of displaying the sidewalk, as the mere mention, really started 11 years ago when he was in dpw. at that point, the city, you know, a member of the city attorney and everybody, said it was too cumbersome, too difficult, the liability was to prohibited. and i was so happy when this mayor cut through all that bullshit and came up with this idea, you know, accepted this idea and expended it and work with different department