Skip to main content

tv   Full Board of Supervisors 72616  SFGTV  August 3, 2016 9:00am-11:01am PDT

9:00 am
agreement of the concept ofwhat this proposes this particular way that this is proposed i just can't support that. >>supervisor. >>i would just like to say that we are spending quite a bit of resources on these housings we know this is an issue that the public cares deeply about when in fact, if you look at the poles it's the top two or three that san francisco's are thinking about and certainly
9:01 am
what they would like increased dialogue, discussion, and feedback on. but, as our a feasibility study moves forward on proposition c moves forward and we talk about the size of projects and neighborhoods but also based on the type of needs that we want to fulfill in the citya commission is going to be invaluable in helping to guide the support of the mayor's office in terms of direction that we as a city want to take for affordable housing. in particular, i believe this comes up in almost every single project that are office negotiates and the type of affordable housing that we build and it what income levels. i do not want to say that there is not a rhyme or reason for each project, but we do do it on a project by project basis. we have to say i think senior housing is
9:02 am
needed in this neighborhood and i think we should do this at 55% ami and we do the best that we can tell fill the needs that we are hearing from the community but i think the commission will provide a larger risible document that we can follow and, give us a better compass in helping to guide all of our budgets together and not go on a development by development basis which is actually truly what we're doing today. there are so many needs that we need to fill. affordable homeownership that we need to fill and of course the continuing need for a working class community and those that are homeless and formally homelessand this commission is going to provide better laws and focus solely on this issue over the course the years and i think that would be invaluable. finally i should
9:03 am
say having worked on many agreements by the mayor's office of development before this agreement comes before the board of supervisors in many ways the community process comes to us before this and we have to modify these projects because the community wasn't able to provide input early on into the process and i think a commission will help us to get good development mint deals going forward that our community can benefit from. and finally, what a bounce commission looks like. yes, there will be free3 from the mayor's office and three from the community development office. i have to say the
9:04 am
controller's office has played a particular role around the issue of affordable housing. they are currently leading the feasibility study around the maximum that we can require market rate developers via proposition c they also led our communities study when we want to see how market rate development affected the displacement of service organizations in the city. the office has been a valuable impact on these developments before they hit our office. the controller of courses put forward by the mayor's office and i think ultimately this would be heavily guided by what the mayor would like to see in terms of the director and the mayor's office of housing.
9:05 am
finally, i would just say that putting this commission forward is not a criticism of this department. i've a great relationship with the mayor's office of housing. i think they are truly committed to affordability. that being said, i think we can do a better job around a guiding document of what we are building and we can do a comprehensive plan of what that looks like and how much senior housing and how much family housing and what income brackets this is something that will only enhance the work of affordability here in the city that we are doing today and certainly provide more transparency and accountability and trust with the public. >>thank you. before i moved to supervisor avalos i really appreciate your comments supervisor kim and i just want to ask two questions of you and supervisor peskin. have you done any analysis of how much
9:06 am
time a commission would, for example, a number of projects that deal with housing. i know your office worked on and negotiated the additional time that would take a commission before it would potentially get to the board. do you have any idea what you think we are talking about? i know it is hard to really say probably because it is a project by project basis but we do know this is going to add an additional amount of time to new production of affordable housing and i just wanted to know, you know, just ballpark what either you or supervisor peskin think that might be. >>i would just say i don't think that a commission has to add any additional time to a
9:07 am
housing project that would be coming before the board and i would also say that additional projects that might be reviewed before the commission would be with the commissioners. the additional time of course would be in the time of the meeting. but, i don't think it would increase the amount of time that it would get to that board of supervisors and, if anything, i think there would be some efficiency because we frequently do a lot of amendments on the backend of the development deal when the public can finally provide input
9:08 am
because that is often the first opportunity that we can do that when it comes before the board. i actually think that would have a lot more efficiencies if we could have more public input on the front and of a development deal than on the backend. now, i have not done a study on the number projects impacted by this. i think that it varies from year-to-year. there some years where we have had-- and trish ryland and this year i would say we have not had as big of a number come for the board that are been impacted. >>supervisor peskin. >>mme. pres. i would add to that that it's really a function of into [inaudible],
9:09 am
9:10 am
9:11 am
>>okay, and last question?how is this going to impact the housing authority, and for example, section 8, and units under the successor agency because i can't tell from the legislation how all of this fits into one, because as you know, there are so many different layers to housing in a city and specifically, affordable housing. it is very
9:12 am
complicated for people to understand where to apply for this and where do you go for this and why do i qualify for this amount and not for this amount and it is very confusing. so, i guess i'm trying to understand how those layers all fit together because i just do not see it. >>mme. pres., i don't mean to be combative but i think you just answered some of those questions. with your specific question relating to the successor agency and redevelopment that we call ocii, after redevelopment was a sunset it and this legislation in no ways impacts ocii. >>i guess what i'm saying is there is still some overlap in
9:13 am
what they are bringing together. >>mme. pres. there is now a transition of transferring some projects and the mayor's office of housing have developed that those that will be in the reit program will will have a place to go to talk about the bread and butter of their day-to-day lives. >>so, they won't have to go to the housing authority anymore? or, they could go to both? >>so for example the right place for them to go under the new management the right place for them to go for those
9:14 am
day-to-day bread-and-butter questions that would go to this new commission and should it be something to vote on the voters would vote for. >>thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor avalos. >> being part of this commission i have watched san francisco move forward in housing development and i haven't seen that in my district and i think there needs to be a way to bring some transparency into the decisions that are being made by the mayor's office a housing and economic workforce development and i've also worked closely with my community in san francisco and i have seen their
9:15 am
role in community development work as they have been able to get more people engaged in changing the district 11 needs and we have changed the process over the many years i have been on the board now to add a little bit of money every year to be able to develop ideas for projects and this year we developed the workforce center in august 20 and that has been built out over the years that we are finally opening up and we will be able to do worker rights work and with the immigrant community especially the chinese, filipino and chinese community we also have housing projects going forward and that effort was not led by an oh but it was led by community development and there was an effort to take out community develop as an effort by the city and bring forth the economic community and workforce development and they were actually narrowing the
9:16 am
scale of what development was going to be in san francisco and it was really about commercial development. we need all three. we need housing, residential and community and housing development i think we need all three of these entities under one commission and that makes a lot of sense and if we are looking at models the community development to be spread around the city i think district 11 has a really good model of having a commission that can have a way to approach how we could move the needle on making sure that the neighborhoods get their fair share of support and services of development in san francisco and i know supervisor tang has done a lot of work on community development as well and i think these are very similar that could be done on the hospices of a commission
9:17 am
with some strategic planning. i am also concerned how the mayor's office of housing is often making political decisions on how to stretch dollars across the city and we will see it that these endings are moving back and forth between different cities in different projects and you know there is not enough tomove around there. and as you can see there would be some real transparency on how these would be spent and how these projects can be built out over years in time to make them happen. earlier this year i asked the controller's office to start working on building towards a commission over at the mayor's office of housing and i was going to slow approach and i was looking at doing hearings and trying to get information but it wasn't really tentative because i didn't have a lot of time left on the board to really do this. they presented
9:18 am
their charter amendment and it wasn't ready for prime time. i really appreciate how we use the legislation process to move these projects that i really feel are worthy of supporting today so i thank you for your support and i think the public from hearing the board talk about what this commission could be about and i really like these to be uniform across the city. some are split between the board and the mayor and some are with the mayor and their split across all of these commissions and this commission is very different in terms of having a controller make the appointment so that we have
9:19 am
even numbers from the mayor and the board of supervisors has a controller but i actually think that approach makes sense given that within the process the answer from the mayor's office was no and when an answer is no we don't get any input on what to do i think it makes sense that we determine and reshape it the way that we think that it should be and how we develop this commission and that we should do it in a way that we think is going to work for our district and for the districts in the city so again, thank you for putting this forward and i'm very happy to support this and i have no other questions. >>thank you supervisor avalos. supervisor wiener. >>let's be very very clear that
9:20 am
most appointments are made either all by the mayor or primarily by the mayor and there are two exceptions this would be the commission and the ethics commission where we intentionally split up these appointments because these are unique departments that should not be part of that executive branch the executive branch is a branch and we don't want people to have control over those there is no one that has the majority and that means that no one is politically accountable for the performance in those departments.and that governmance and there is no accountability if know what one has a role of managing these
9:21 am
departments and i think it's on precedented here andcorrect me if i am wrong but perhaps for the first time we are doing an appointment power for a very powerful commission to a non-elected official to control. i am a huge fan of my controller. he has done a great job. he is very efficient he is a friend he is a neighbor. but he was not elected to make these decisions and perhaps this vote would be cast by someone who is not elected by anyone and to me, that is a huge problem. this is a bad precedence and i am
9:22 am
going to predict that if elections happen and things changed with the current majority of this board that we are going to see a move towards more and more commissions having this kind of splintered structure where the mayor no longer effectively manages his executive departments and i will not support that. this is a very bad road that we are potentially going down if the voters approve this charter amendment. >>thank you supervisor weiner. supervisor campos has not had a chance to speak. >>i think i have spoken. >>supervisor peskin. >> mme. pres. i had that discussion last week so i don't want to belabor it but i do want to recognize incredibly hard work of my staff as
9:23 am
supervisor avalos had stated ms. ankula has really worked very difficult and i think that i really up ppreciate all of her work and i like to publicly acknowledge my appreciation for her work >>i would simply say that i think that we should call the question. >>actually supervisor campos, that is not a bad idea.all right, i will say that this is a hard one. there are so many reasons why i want to see this commission happen. but, i was looking forward to some of the proposed amendments from supervisory yee that i thought would definitely make it better policy but since i am not 100% comfortable with the proposed
9:24 am
direction, without any amendments to make it better legislation, i am going to oppose both item 25 and 26. and, seeing no names on the roster i'm going to ask mme. city clerk please call the roster. >>[roll call vote] >>there are 3 ayes and 8 no's, with supervisors peskin read all the lows and coavalos and
9:25 am
campos in the dissent. >>please call item 26. >>[roll call vote] >> there are 6 ayes 5 no's, with supervisors tang, breed, and avalos and campos in the
9:26 am
dissent. >>mme. sec. please read the next item. >>item 27 is an farrellordinance approving health service system plans and contribution rates for calendar year 2017, and amending the administrative code to remove those rates from the code. >>mme. sec., please call the roll. >>[roll call vote] >> there are 10 ayes. >>this item passes unanimously on the first reading. >>[gavel] >>item 28. >>item 28 is an application and
9:27 am
acceptance and expenditure grant for thedelegation of san francisco municipal transportation agency as co-applicant for grant - assumption of liability - affordable housing and sustainable communities program - 480 eddy street project]sponsor: mayorresolution authorizing the san francisco municipal transportation agency (sfmta), on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, to execute a grant application, grant agreement, and related documents under the state of california's affordable housing and sustainable communities program (ahsc program) as a joint applicant with the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation for the project at 480 eddy street; authorizing the city to assume any joint and several liability for completion of the project required by the terms of any grant awarded under the ahsc program; and adopting findings under the california environmental quality act (ceqa), the ceqa guidelines, and administrative code, chapter 31. mme. pres. would you like me to read item 29? >> yes. >>item 29 is a resolutionbehalf of the city and county of san francisco, to execute a grant application, grant agreement, and related documents under the state of california's
9:28 am
affordable housing and sustainable communities program (ahsc program) as a joint applicant with mercy housing, inc., for the project at 455 fell street; authorizing the city to assume any joint and several liability for completion of the project required by the terms of any grant awarded under the ahsc program; and adopting findings under the california environmental quality act (ceqa), the ceqa guidelines, and administrative code, chapter 31. >>collies, can we take this item same house same call? withoutobjection the resolution is adopted unanimously.mme. clerk please read item 30. >>item 30 is afrancisco utilities commission parcel no. 29 in millbrae, ca - $460,673]resolution authorizing the amendment of orchard supply company, llc's lease of property from the city and county of san francisco, to reduce the size of the leased premises to accommodate the san francisco public utilities commission (sfpuc) regional groundwater storage and recovery project, project no. cuw30103, in consideration of city's payment of $460,673; adopting environmental findings under the california environmental quality act (ceqa), ceqa guidelines, and administrative code, chapter 31; adopting findings of consistency with the general
9:29 am
plan, and eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and authorizing the director of property and/or the sfpuc general manager to execute documents, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. >>same house same call? the resolution is adopted animously. >>[gavel] >>mdm. sec. please that read the items 31 and 32 together. >>resolution approving an agreement with newcomb anderson mccormick for professional services related to energy and climate programs, for a five year term to commence following board approval through june 1, 2021, at a total cost not to exceed $44,000,000. item 33is a resolution approving construction of a recycled water pump station building, and two groundwater well station buildings in golden gate park under charter, section 4.113, as part of the san francisco westside recycled water and san francisco groundwater supply projects. >>colleagues, can we please take these items same house same call?these items are
9:30 am
approved unanimously. mme. city clerk please read items 34 and 35 together please. >>item 34 is a resolution retroactively approving the award of professional services agreement, airport contract no. 50085, to fsp ppm management, llc, to manage and staff the curbside management program in an amount not-to-exceed $19,522,294 for a period of four years beginning july 1, 2016, through june 30, 2020, with one one-year renewal option, pursuant to charter, section 9.118(b). >>item 35 35 is adevelopment, inc. - information booth program - $10,795,274]resolution retroactively approving modification no. 6, executed on july 1, 2016, to professional services agreement, airport contract no. 9075 to operate
9:31 am
the airport's information booth program between polaris research and development, inc., and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, in an amount not to exceed $10,795,274 for the term of june 30, 2011, through december 31, 2016, pursuant to charter, section 9.118(b). >>same house and call? the resolutions are adopted unanimously please read items 36 and 37. >>development, inc. - information booth program - $10,795,274]resolution retroactively approving modification no. 6, executed on july 1, 2016, to professional services agreement, airport contract no. 9075 to operate the airport's information booth program between polaris research and development, inc., and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, in an amount not to exceed $10,795,274 for the term of june 30, 2011, through december 31, 2016, pursuant to charter, section 9.118(b). >>item 36 same house same call? the resolution is adopted unanimously. >>[gavel] >>item 37 >>hitem 37 is a resolutionded
9:32 am
dispatch/automatic vehicle location system integration, and five years of warranty and preventative maintenance services, in an amount not to exceed $29,264,755 and for an initial term that includes an installation period plus five years commencing august 1, 2016, or later, with the option to extend for up to two five-year terms for a total term not to exceed 16 years. >>same house same call? the resolution is approved unanimously >>[gavel] please read item 38. >>item 38 is an ordinance farrellordinance amending the administrative code to create a fourth preference for people who live or work in san francisco, in addition to existing preferences in allocating city affordable housing units, and to create an additional category of eligible displaced tenants that includes tenants displaced by fire; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. 06/28/2016. >> we know we have had a displacement particularly in the mission but others as well. i have seen and superviisor
9:33 am
campos has seen and probably all of us have seen the devastation that this has caused it is a dramatic event in anyone's life to lose your home but if you are of lower income it can destroy your life and it can take six months or longer for that to be fixed and we need to help these people. five years ago i offered the good samaritan ordinance to make it easier for landlords to displaced tenants while they are waiting for the improvements to be fixed.. i ask for your support on this very important legislation.
9:34 am
>>supervisor campos. >>thank you i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >>thank you colleagues can we take this item same house, same call,? with out of section we have passed this ordinance unanimously. >>mme. city clerk please read item 39. >>avalosordinance amending the planning code to 1) define wireless telecommunications services (wts) facilities; 2) create distinct wts facility land use controls and, among other things, require a conditional use authorization (cu) for macro wts facilities in most article 2, 7, and 8 districts; 3) regulate micro wts facilities in all districts; 4) require that a
9:35 am
wts facility's cu shall expire after ten years; 5) regulate wts facilities in certain mission bay districts and p districts; 6) exempt certain telecommunications equipment accessory uses from height limitations; 7) allow screening elements for wts facilities to exceed height limits, consistent with existing height limit exemptions for antennas; 8) define and regulate temporary wts facilities; 9) allow the historic preservation commission to delegate determinations on applications for administrative certificates of appropriateness and minor permits to alter to planning department staff; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act, and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >>supervisor avalos. >> the proposed changes that were directed by the planning department staff based on lessons learned with the existing facilities in san francisco as well as the future trends of these wireless facilities and the goals of the wireless guidelines with the karen supplanting code provisions of the wires caring facilities of the intrusive location and design of the proposed changes were provided by the planning department staff to nearly every neighborhoodgroup in san francisco that is registered with representatives of very many wireless carriers. they require a conditional youth
9:36 am
authorization exempting screen elements such as pipes or elevated penthouses that are used to screen antennas from height limits which is consistent with the current exemption for unscreened antennas or towers. however, these were designed for historic preservation or shattered review as proposed by the planning commission. so, in fact, these are regulations set in motion for the future and how we can have the least intrusive wireless facilities in san francisco and there is many years of work in putting this together. colleagues, i urge your support thank you. >>thank you colleagues, can we take this same house same call? the ordinance passes without
9:37 am
objection unanimously. mme. city clerk, please read item 40. >>amending the public works code to place additional limits on the duration of street space occupancy permits, and to limit the number of such permits including permit extensions that can be issued at the same address during a three-year period in residential, urban mixed-use, and neighborhood commercial districts, and precluding the issuance of such permits at the same address for two years after that three-year period; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. >>supervisor farrell. >>thank you mme. pres. i will cut but i have to say in the interest of time but this happens in every neighborhood and i just want to thank all of the departments and thank my office for taking on this legislation. >>thank you colleagues, can we take this same house same call? the ordinance passes without objection unanimously.
9:38 am
>>[gavel] >>mdm. city clerk please read item 41. >>item 41 is a resolution granting revocable permission to the municipal transportation agency to occupy portions of the public right-of-way to install and maintain three new operator convenience facilities at the terminus of various muni bus routes; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making a finding of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >>can we take this item same house same call? the motion passes unanimously .mme. city clerk please read item 42. >>item 42 is an ordinance amending the san francisco fire code to require building owners
9:39 am
and homeowners' associations to provide fire safety information to residents in buildings with three or more dwelling units, and annual fire safety information and training to residents in buildings with 16 or more units; making findings as to local conditions pursuant to the california health and safety code; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to transmit the ordinance to appropriate state officials. >>supervisor tang. >>thank you mme. pres. i want to thank everyone who has supported this ordinance and today i would like to just have one amendment before you which is on page 6. when it was passed out to you it is the amendment basically that would recommend that the residents test their smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors on a monthly basis at reportproblems
9:40 am
or repairs to their landlord. >>this ordinance as amended can we take that same house same call without objection? without objection the ordinance as amendment did passes unanimously on its first reading. mme. city clerk please read item that 43 and 44 together please. >>resolution determining that the transfer of a type 48 on-sale general public premises license from 86-2nd street to 65 post street (district 3) to m&m group assets, inc. dba dada bar and lounge, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco in accordance with california business and professions code, section 23958.4, and recommending that the california department of alcoholic beverage control impose conditions on the issuance of the license. and for item 44 it is a resolution to determinethat the
9:41 am
issuance of a type 21 off-sale general license to najib saliba and hanan saliba dba franklin market located at 2836 franklin street (district 2), will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco, in accordance with california business and professions code, section 23958.4, and recommending that the california department of alcoholic beverage control impose conditions on the issuance of the license. >>colleagues, can we take these items same house same call? without objection, the resolutions are adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >>mme. clerk please call item 45. >>item 45 is amotion confirming the mayoral reappointment of darryl honda to the board of appeals, for a term ending july 1, 2020. >>same house same call. without objectionmotion confirming the mayoral appointment of frank fung to the board of appeals, for a term ending july 1, 2020. >>same house same call, without
9:42 am
objection the motion passes unanimously. >>[gavel] >> item 47 two >>item 47 ismotion confirming the mayoral reappointment of richard hillis to the planning commission, term ending june 30, 2020. >>same house same call. without objection, this motion is passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >>mme. city clerk please read item 48.motion approving the president of the board of supervisors london breed's nomination of richard swig for
9:43 am
appointment to the board of appeals, for a term ending july 1, 2020.>>same house same call the motion passes unanimously. >> mme. city clerk, please read item 58. >>item 58 is awienerordinance amending the fire code and the housing code to require building owners provide tenants with an annual written notice of smoke alarm requirements and require building owners file a statement of compliance with annual fire alarm testing and inspection requirements every two years; amending the fire code and building code to require building owners to upgrade existing fire alarm systems by july 1, 2021, or upon completion of $50,000 or more of construction work, whichever occurs earlier; amending the building code to require owners of apartment houses damaged by fire to submit an action plan to the city within 30 days of the fire and requiring owners of buildings in group r occupancies with six or more units to install fire blocks in open accessible attics when performing $50,000 or more of construction work; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings
9:44 am
under the california health and safety code; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to forward this ordinance to the california building standards commission upon final passage as required by state law. >>supervisor campos. >>this is an effort to reduce fires by increasing the fire safety requirements for these existing buildings we required that the owners have common area firewalls tested and alarm systems tested every year and that these be updated so that these systems can actually hear them so that these can actually pass what we call the pillow test because instudies we saw that people actually did not hear the alarm going off and also to prevent the spread of fires we are asking that in these buildings there would be the placement of what are called fire blocks for fire safety installation that prevents fires from going from one building to another and it also requires that the space tenants are provided with an action plan within 72 hours or within 30 days of a fire because it is very critical because what happens in many of these fires is that the tenants
9:45 am
do not even know what's going on and they need this information to be provided to them so we need this information provided in multiple languages. so, we ask you for your support. thank you very much. >>did you have any amendments supervisor campos? >>i think we need to amend a few lines i make a motion to amend those along with this? >> without objection as amended we can pass this unanimously and with item 59 we take this without objection as amended on the reading. >>[gavel] >>can we read item
9:46 am
60-68.excluding item number 61. >>item 60ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by muaadh alawadhi and suad mahyoub against the city and county of san francisco for $156,250; the lawsuit was filed on january 7, 2015, and it involves medical negligence. item 62 is a lawsuit that involves a restitution andcivil penalties under the zuckerberg san francisco general hospital and trauma centerfor emergency
9:47 am
medical care provided to blue cross's insureds prior to july 1, 2015, and for the payment of additional amounts for such emergency medical care provided between july 1, 2015, and june 30, 2019; the lawsuit was filed on may 24, 2011, in san francisco superior court, item 63 it is an ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by state farm general insurance company against the city and county of san francisco for $90,000; the lawsuit was filed on february 13, 2014, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc-14-537478; entitled state farm general insurance company v. city and county of san francisco; the lawsuit involves alleged property damage arising from flooding. ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by paul walker against the city and county of san francisco for $80,000; the lawsuit was filed on november 10, 2015, in united states district court, northern district, case no. cv-15-5129-jcs; entitled paul walker v. city and county of san francisco; the lawsuit involves alleged americans with disabilities act violations. >> item 65 isordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by mery perez against the city and county of san francisco for $87,500; the lawsuit was filed on february 9, 2015, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc-15-544024; entitled mery perez v. city and county of san francisco; the lawsuit involves a medical malpractice claim; other material terms of the
9:48 am
settlement are that co-defendant dr. derrick lung is to pay $87,500. item 66 is an ordinance ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by the people of the state of california against the city and county of san francisco for $250,000; the lawsuit will be filed in alameda county superior court; and be entitled people of the state of california v.san francisco public utilities commission and the city and county of san francisco;the lawsuit involves alleged violations of california pollution prevention and hazardous materials laws at public utilities commission facilities near sunol in alameda. item 67 isordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by the people of the state of california against the city and county of san francisco for $250,000; the lawsuit will be filed in alameda county superior court; and be entitled people of the state of california v.san francisco public utilities commission and the city and county of san francisco;the lawsuit involves alleged violations of california pollution prevention and hazardous materials laws at public utilities commission facilities near sunol in alameda. item 68 iscounty of san francisco for $30,000; the lawsuit was filed on february 3, 2015, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc 15-543936; entitled sadeq naji v. city and county of san francisco; san francisco public library; the lawsuit involves an employment dispute. >>collies can we take these items same house same call?item 60 through 68 were past without
9:49 am
objection unanimously. >>[gavel] mme. city clerk please read item 61. >>item 61 is aordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by ricardo palikiko-garcia, stanley harris, and keith dwayne richardson against the city and county of san francisco for $90,000; the lawsuit was filed on march 16, 2016, in united states district court for the northern district of california, case no. c16-1305 jcs; entitled ricardo palikiko-garcia, et al. v. city and county of san francisco, et al.; the lawsuit involves allegations of excessive force, cruel and unusual punishment, and egregious government conduct. >>mme. city clerk can we please have a roll call vote. >>[roll call vote] >>there are nine ayes. >> this ordinance passes on the first reading and the clerk if you could please call the item 69? >>item 69 is a resolution
9:50 am
authorizing the acceptance and expenditure of a state transportation development act, article 3, pedestrian and bicycle project grant, in the amount of $995,524 including $497,762 for public works and $497,762 for the san francisco municipal transportation agency, for a three-year period of july 1, 2016, through june 30, 2019. >>can we please have a roll call vote. >>[roll call vote] >> there are 10 ayes. >>the resolution is adopted unanimously. mme. city clerk, please call items 70. >>item 70 is a resolution declaring the intention of the board of supervisors to modify the management district plan and engineer's report for the property-based business improvement district (community benefit district) known as the "central market community
9:51 am
benefit district" to remove the district-wide cap on annual assessment revenues; ordering and setting a time and place for a public hearing thereon; approving the form of the notice of public hearing and assessment ballot proceeding and assessment ballot; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to give notice of the public hearing and balloting as required by law. >>colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. >>[gavel] >> item 71. >>item 71 ismarordinance amending the administrative code to revise the residential unit conversion ordinance to require hosting platforms to verify that a residential unit is on the city registry prior to accepting a fee for booking a short-term rental transaction, and to provide an affidavit of compliance to the city and retain certain records; authorize the office of short term rentals to issue an administrative subpoena to obtain records; provide for civil, administrative, and criminal penalties against hosting platforms for violations of their obligations under the residential unit conversion ordinance; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. >>supervisor campos. >> yes pres. breed i am wondering if we can excuse supervisor farrell and supervisor campos. >>before you are the amendments of the resolution that i have
9:52 am
amended with supervisor peskin. the intent with the ordinance is straightforward to require that hosting platforms to do business with law-abiding host to assure that they are not aiding and abetting illegal activity. after consultations with the city attorney about the air b and b legal arguments that we know what they filed in the mitigation we agree that we can simultaneously address these items before you.
9:53 am
these are designed to eliminate some of these ambiguities that the air b and b have latched on in their lawsuit. the amendments clarify that the city is regulating the business activity of platforms not website content which the air b and b has alleged. it is been made clear that they would not conduct a business activity where they would collect or book a fee for short-term units not registered with the city. let me just make a couple of points clear because for some reason questions came up when supervisor peskin received this in committee it does not matter when they received the fee for booking services. for instance, whether they received the fee at the time of or after the booking it doesn't matter nor does it matter if they collect the fee directly from
9:54 am
the host or the user words indirectly from the third-party. in any instance the hosting platform will be in violation once the registered unit is rented in its booking services. if the hosting platform has advertisements in these platforms and does not charge a fee and we have the example on craigslist then we could not verify this registration the fact is we need to make our current short-term rental wall enforceable. our current law is simply not working. without an enforceable law, we cannot truly regulate short-term rentals to ensure that housing for residents of san francisco isn't being taken off the market from housing to engage in
9:55 am
short-term rentals. the city's budget and legislative analyst found that air b and b alone took up to 2000 and entire units completely off the unit making those housing units unavailable to long-term residents of the city. our hope is that the hosting platform and the air b and b will drop their lawsuit and work with the county of san francisco to ensure that this industry supports, rather than harms, san francisco.it is only fair that air b and b and others help us to enforce the law when they themselves actually help to write the law. colleagues, i have circulated the amendment or the amendments to the legislation and i ask again for your support. >>thank you. supervisor wiener. >>thank you. in terms of the amendments, in committee i believe it was yesterday i guess i had asked the question
9:56 am
to make sure that this legislation was going to apply to all hosting platforms and i know there was a question about that and i have always been of the view that this was notbout air b and b or one company and this was about all hosting platforms and we need to make sure that our regulations are broad and not tailored to go after onecompany. i think air b and b has about half of the listings in san francisco so it's on our benefit that we have this broad for hosting platform so i just want to make sure the supplies broadly to hosting platforms. >>deputy city atty. rob kappla
9:57 am
the ordinance has originally had applied any hosting platforms to provide these are booking services and collect a fee for these services it is meant solely upon those who perform and engage in the business activity and perform a business contactor of providing that service for us.>>so, for example all home away or air b and b or whatever they call them they will connect you to people and then the transaction to rent is done separately and would that be captured under
9:58 am
9:59 am
we would have to look at the factual scenario.this >> i believe they have several sites to provide this service but if the arrangement is not being made under the particular site for collecting or booking a service thenit would not be collecting a fee for booking services that type of transaction. several companies have different types of services provided and when they offer the actual calendar or
10:00 am
reservations and accept the fee for those services that business activity would be covered. we are regulating not companies but business activities and conduct. we are regulating the fee and payment for services. >>with this have to be specific to that transaction or is there an annual transaction fee that's what i am getting at? >>it doesn't have to be specific to that payment if it covers booking and services that you provide too. >>supervisor campos. >> just want to be very careful with this discussion because i don't want this to be in any way use for binding what the city's arguments areand i just want this to be fact specific
10:01 am
our intent is to cover not just one platform but several platforms that engage in this business activity and the fact that they are not doing that and they are simply publishing that were not doing something else outside of the scope we certainly want to hear those specific facts and we've been very careful to make sure that we can discuss this that we don't bind ourselves because we also know that from each one of these companies this is a source of changing and that some of these companies may be doing things today and maybe doing some things in the near future that may be different. but, that is what the intent is it is that. >>thank you supervisor campos. just a quick question, do you think based on your proposed amendment, that we should have
10:02 am
a closed session discussion about this or, are we good to go with things as is? >>i feel pretty comfortable moving forward pres. breed. obviously, it is up to the board. obviously, if they feel there is a need for a closed session discussion. i think the way that i see these discussions that they are to clarify intent and be precise and concise in light of what the platforms have said so, i do not think that is necessary but i certainly not opposed to it if anyone feels the need to do that. i failed to make a motion so i will make a motion along the lines of what we have amended. >>okay, supervisor campos has made a motion colleagues, can we take this motion as amended
10:03 am
without objection? without objection this motion has passed unanimously. >>can we please call the roll on these amendments? >>[roll call vote] >>there are 9 ayes. >>this ordinance as amended has passed unanimously on the first reading. >>[gavel] >>item 72 >>item 72 isa resolution
10:04 am
authorizing the sublease between the city and county of san francisco, as tenant and sublandlord, and at the crossroads, as subtenant, of 4,124 rentable square feet in the building located at 167 jessie street, for an initial term of five years at a base rent of $1 per year, to commence upon approval by the board of supervisors and mayor, in their respective sole and absolute discretion. >>supervisor kim. >>thank you i was very excited to bring this resolution forward. this organization the crossroads would have had there mission severely impacted if they could not have this in
10:05 am
place in neighborhoods where they provide this services. i want to thank the mayors office of community developmentsi called for the displacement of the nonprofitdisplacement task force as leases were starting to expire over the next three or four years in the nonprofit sector this board created that nonprofit displacement task force to come up with a set of recommendations on how we can better support the nonprofit organizations with the rental increases we have seen and also with technical assistance. one recommendation that came forth was to reserve profits for when these leases end. organization
10:06 am
,at the crossroads is actually doing this and colleagues i ask for your support on this item. >>roll call vote mme. clerk. >>[roll call vote] >>there are 10 ayes.
10:07 am
>>the resolution is adopted unanimously. >>[gavel] >>item 73. >>item 73 is a resolution approving the disposition of land located on the southern one-third of the block bounded by howard, spear, folsom, and main streets, assessor's parcel block no. 3740, lot no. 027, by the office of community investment and infrastructure, as successor agency to the san francisco redevelopment agency, to block one property holder, l.p, a delaware limited partnership and an affiliate of tishman speyer, for the purpose of developing affordable for-sale housing for low and moderate income households; and making findings under california health and safety code, section 33433. >>colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. >>[gavel] >>item 74. >>item 74 is a motionordering
10:08 am
submitted to the voters an ordinance amending the planning code to require conditional use authorization for conversion of production, distribution, and repair use, institutional community use, and arts activities use and replacement space; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act, at an election to be held november 8, 2016. >>supervisor kim. >>after all, as you heard earlier today we are losing our auto mechanics, our automobile repairmen and women and bakers and artists. not only do we want to live in a city where these arts and artists are
10:09 am
performing these are well paying jobs where they are paying $20-$30 per hour that you do not need a college educationtwo achieve. how much housing, for where, and for who and how much hotel and office and how much community facilities and arts. the zoning allows us to map the city that we and we are encouraging a diversity of jobs for our city not everything for example can be office. while these are great jobs, we also need to make sure that we own areas that bakers, artists, and individuals can prepare and distribute they .we land use
10:10 am
and zoning expresses what we value and the types of jobs that we can be in and they are at risk and we have heard countless stories and a recent report by the northern california grantmakers association have determined that four out of five nonprofits are concerned with the real estate cost of their long-term financial sustainability according to a study by the city of san francisco. this report identifies that using zoning for nonprofit space or turning public property into nonprofit space can help tremendously in making sure we preserve these spaces. now, the genesis of these legislations actually came about 1 1/2 years ago when we came about the rapid
10:11 am
threatening of these artists associations in san francisco. we had just learned that the south market studios which was home to 40+ artists would be evicted in the fall. we also learned that potential loss of [inaudible] and we knew
10:12 am
[inaudible] we know it is not just the arts, manufacturing is also at risk. during this time there were parallel conversations and the mission of many of our stakeholders about the loss of the distribution of providing these
10:13 am
minimum-wage jobs for our residents. what we are seeing in the loss of the city is alarming and it is happening very quickly and our stakeholders want to put forth the strongest protection for pdr and arts. that is the legislation passed by the voters. now, this is just the baseline we expect to follow with trailing legislation and work on the focusing of many issues brought up in particular by katie 10 and supervisor are cohen along with organizations like sf -. i want to thank and
10:14 am
recognize supervisor cohen and supervisor - and limited it to that area this advocated for and i also want to recognize supervisor campos for his assistance on this legislation and i want to thank them for helping to make this legislation more concise and clear. we also took the request to exempt projects that were in the pipeline and we did agree that these changes that would be put in place would affect their economic viability
10:15 am
down the road to incorporate these changes. these are some of the amendments i will be putting forward today. the one amendment that i could not agree to which i stated on the rules committee is the complete grandfathering of all of the projects on the pipeline. there is far too much square footage being put forward today. that is why i'm going to be making an amendment to this that the replacement requirement should actually be 40% on projects in the pipeline for projects of greater than 50,000 ft.2 the replacement requirement is determined currently on a case-by-case basis and has been as high as 50% replacement for example 66 street. our current
10:16 am
legislation would require 15% and we feel that this is in terms of ower income and middle-class housing in the projects. and, if you provide affordable space for 55 years for no less than 50% of commercial we will reduce this requirement by 50% of this affo square feet in a loss of pdr space and that is why we felt it was too valuable to grandfather in.. there are a series of these that i have distributed in the record. if you would like a copy i have additional copies. the amendment start on page 6, line
10:17 am
3. number one, we are deleting c3g from the replacement requirement because there is no cg3 in the existing neighborhoods. and the projects that are zoned -- by which an application was provided for the proposed
10:18 am
conversion.we also put in a would be if you agreed to provide affordable replacement space for not less than 55 years that your obligation be reduced to 15%. the next amendment is replacement requirements for pdr and arts use. while institutional community is replacement will only be for community use. this is on page 5, line 17 and the amendment is there so that we don't have these uses pitted against one another. the next amendment is a
10:19 am
clarification to require legal, pdr, arts or institutional community use, and permitted use. and the next amendment is on the sound threshold would comply with the committee use or the arts use on page 7, lines 1 through 10 and the next amendments would be that the committee be required to reduce the higher replacement. requirement we did accept an amendment at the rules committee that 100% affordable housing would be exempt from these requirements and while there was protest from the community that did not except
10:20 am
amendments from supervisors peskin and tang because these still make their best efforts to replace these arts and community space. this is actually the final amendment, we do an exemption for a project that is in the process of a legal office conversion that is under review by the planning department. colleagues, these are the amendments that i am bringing before you today i actually do have one more on a separate page but after some thought and consideration we had actually taken again, the feedback of the rules committee that we allowed this ballot measureto
10:21 am
be amended by the board of supervisors in the future. we recognize that planning and land use by the ballot box can be a dangerous place for that to sit so we do want to allow this board of supervisors to amend this legislation as they see fit. original language said that a board by the majority could amend this legislation as long as it promoted or better achieve the underlying goals of the arts use and community use it but after thinking this through with my lawyer had i believe that this is something that the board would struggle as to whether or not this is or isn't so the amendment that i would offer today is that on page 10, that i the supervisors by ordinance at least two thirds of their members may amend
10:22 am
this--when there is a broad amendment from this board where we want to exempt these requirements, i think that we can get a broad majority of the board to support these types of amendments.colleagues, i apologize for the length of the amendments that i propose today but these are the moments i bring before you. >>supervisor kim thank you. i have many questions. i will direct this to the deputy city attorney. supervisor kim says adoption of the ordinance would require a two thirds vote. is that correct? >>the measure requires six votes to be placed on the ballot. supervisor kim's
10:23 am
proposed amendment- and typically when a voter adopts an amendment, typically only the voters can amend this and the board cannot so supervisor kim is offering up an amendment today that the board would be able to amend this with a two thirds vote to that. >>i believe we should be addressing this legislatively and not for a ballot measure. all of these issues that we are discussing can be solved legislatively through interim controls and ordinance.we have introduced interim controls that mirrored this ballot measure their only slight
10:24 am
changes to this and i introduced this last week. i always had some serious concerns from the beginning that very little community consultation or public process has gone into the development of this measure which you are proposing some significant changes. i took nearly a decade of committee meetings in order to establish the eastern neighborhoods plan and there was a citizens advisory committee that oversees this particular plan and as you know, as the maker of the legislation the larger committee, he cac asked us to take a step back from this legislation at this time. this is incredibly complicated and it not this and dues that are
10:25 am
really left are better left to deal with via legislation and not of the ballot box. i would continue to urge and implore us that we at least try to work through many of the legitimate issues legislatively if we are unsuccessful then i think that we should deftly move forward with a ballot measure. but as of today, no one has even tried to resolve these issues through the legislative process and there are couple things that i want to go through with this process and supervisor kim you are going through this correct? >> is use me supervisor cohen and supervisor kim,if you will
10:26 am
speak through the president i would appreciate that. >> i will just continue with my talking measures and she can respond accordingly. replacement requirements for these projects are a sticky subject in my opinion that this change it would be the same as it was in committee and i think that it would bethe same as it was in the committee and i think that the replacement requirements for project in the pipeline is not supported by any analysis and quite frankly, we don't even know if it is feasible. to apply this requirement that is close to these approval to that would seem arbitrary and i think described to the committee as mean-spirited. mme. pres., i wo have a question that i would like to direct through it you
10:27 am
just supervisor kim. >>are the replacements interchangeable and can affordable housing processes replace community uses? >>supervisor kim. >>thank you supervisor breed my apologies for responding to quickly. while pdr and arch you shall be interchangeable we did not allow institutional community use and pdr are choose to be interchangeable this is just to ensure that we don't value one or the other and that we would protect them both. >>okay, mdm. chair may i continue?
10:28 am
>>yes. >>the reason that asked the question is because you may recall in committee that the mayor's office of housing stated that they often have uses that are required under state law in place in the ground floor of the projects that qualify as institutional community uses and so this would be a conflict. >>may i respond mme. pres.? >>supervisor kim >>thank you. >>we have a complete exception per your request and supervisor tang for 100% affordable projects. i did put in an amendment that encourages these projects to replace as is, but again, we do not intend on conflicting with any project that the mayor has with these projects >>thank you because we have heard loud and clear from folks. the historic preservation exemption i think it makes sense to include it. i think that we want property owners of historic buildings to maintain them and improve them and in
10:29 am
exchange, we allow them to have higher rent paying uses. i think making this change still allows us to put forward a strong pdr policy without compromising historic preservation. and, supervisor kim-excuse me mdm. pres. can i ask supervisor kim a question? >>all you have to say is through the pres. >>okay i'm sorry. it is getting late. and through the president supervisor kim did you include the feedback with this legislation? >>we decided not to include that feedback because this ballot measure does not require a strengthening can be any type of amendment now. the changes are just meant to change the threshold for how we change this legislation. i think we can change the vetting
10:30 am
of this land marking through a fully legislative process. >>great, mdm. chair i am going to relinquish the mic at this time. thank you. >>thank you supervisor cohen. supervisor supervisor supervisortang. >>thank you very much i'm going to start out with some positive comments on this i would like two say that they are are a lot of things that we have suggested in the rules committee which is made this a little bit more digestible for us we care very much about art uses and pdr usesand it seems strange coming from someone from district 4 but i worked on this at the time for citywide
10:31 am
production and i think that really for me, the concern still lingers for this particular ballot measure because i believe there hasn't been that complete analysis done whether it's regarding why we shove replacement at 14% or 15%all those that are in the pdr committee that should be reached out to but today, i believe that i still cannot support this measure because i think that are only saving grace at this moment is that there is a provision that allows us to have an ordinance
10:32 am
at a later time. so, with that said, none of this takes away from us with the desire to preserve the community on arts in san francisco. >>thank you supervisor tang. supervisor kim it is my understanding as well as the city attorney that this is something that could go through the ballot so i am trying to understand why you're choosing to go this route at the board level? >>i did actually respond to that in my opening comments. because of the alarming displacement of pdr in our city our stakeholders felt that they needed the strongest protection in the zoning and arts
10:33 am
commission and because of the feedback we will allow the board of supervisors to amend this measure after the ballot passes we will just allow a threshold to make changes to make sure there is broad support as soon as it is passed by voters but, i just have to say this is not the only ballot measure moving forward that can be done with the ballot measure moving forward. so, if you are going to criticize this measure- i was just going to say if you're going to say this about this measure there's a number of measures that are not going to be done that way and to go back to your question pres. breed, due to the alarming displacement of pdr we just want to see the strongest protections for these uses in our city particularly in these
10:34 am
two vulnerable cities. and we need to be careful that with this measure that we want to respect our fellow supervisors many of whom like supervisor cohen and supervisor tang a really expanding pdr in their districts to allow them to continue with those processes and these have been amended with the stakeholders that i represent and that supervisor david campos represents and that's why we are narrowing this legislation to those two neighborhoods only. >>thank you supervisor kim. supervisor campos. >>thank you mme. pres. i would like to be added as a cosponsor of this measure i think that what she said really goes to the heart of it and i think that
10:35 am
for my constituents it is the need to provide the highest level of protection especially making sure that once the protections are in place that these are easily amended and i think that happens when the supervisory can deal with them and i know the hours getting late so i'm happy to support this and supervisor kim and her office and all of the work that has gone into thi and thank you . >>supervisor peskin. >>i make a motion to approve supervisor kim's amendments. >>supervisor kim has made many amendments and supervisor
10:36 am
peskin has made a motion to approve these amendments. >>it is unclear to me why this has to go this way but this is the board's prerogative absolutely i am concerned that the organization that represents manufacturers in san francisco has asked us not to put this in their it is extremely detailed and today there are exceptions on the merits two portions of this legislation and also the process for this and apparently the eastern neighborhood cac
10:37 am
was not consulted. so supervisor kim may have a different perception from her outreachesfrom where she is been informed today it just seems to me that we should not be sending this to the ballot. this should be handled by the board. i just want to express appreciation for supervisor kim for her accountability i do appreciate that that is good practice and i do offer a proposal to remove the limitation for these amendments and i would be willing to support the amend ability and i would support these that [inaudible] but i would not
10:38 am
support this. >>thank you for that feedback. i am not going to say this is a measure that has unanimous support. we are going about protecting pdr and arts. by the way, let me take full exception of these criticisms that are been made the genesis of this legislation is actually came from the artist organizations in the beginning of 2015. we work directly from the arts commission staff we
10:39 am
work directly at the same time that we started putting this together that we started to duck tail exactly when the organization started to be concerned about the low income and middle income housing and low and middle income jobs. so we put this together to protect the distribution of repair and community arts. we worked very closely with the south market and the mission and we work very closely with supervisor campos bringing this legislation forward and this is one way of us moving forward for us to protect these uses. we think this is the strongest way to protect these uses. not everyone agrees with this but i have to say that not everyone thinks that we need to protect
10:40 am
pdr and arts. people want to protect more housing or more uses as well in this case we want to specifically protect pdr and arts and this is why we are putting a replacement on that is different and we are also asking projects in the pipeline to do a little bit more as well not as much as we expect from future projects but a little bit more than we were expecting today and we have that through proposition c. >>thank you supervisor kim. and, i are we going to divide the amendments? supervisor wiener. >> that would be my suggestion that wevote on these separately.
10:41 am
>>versus the lengthy list of amendments? >>yes. >>we will divide those amendments there was a motion to approve the more recent amendment page 9 line 8 through 10 and it was seconded by supervisor peskin. colleagues can we take that without objection? without objection that passes unanimously. >>[gavel] >>and up on the alternative list of amendment that were detailed by supervisor kim mme. clerk can you please call the roll? >>[roll call vote] >>mme. pres., just a quick question to you supervisor farrell has left the table do you want to excuse himfrom vote? >>yes can we make a motion to excuse supervisor farrell?
10:42 am
>>that is econded by supervisor avalos with that supervisor farrell is excused. with that mme. sec. can you please call the roll? >>[roll call vote] >> there are 5 ayes and 7 no's. with supervisors kang weiner breed and calvin in the dissent. >>mme. clerk, can you please explain the rule? >> when the number of members
10:43 am
is reduced, it is no longer required to be six votes in this case it is now 25. >>a parliamentarian vote? >>that is correct. >>supervisor kim did you want to make a motion? >>i make a motion to continue this item a motion to continue this item to august 2, 2016. >>colleagues, supervisor kim has made a motion to continue this item on august 2, 2016 that is seconded by supervisor campos supervisors can we take
10:44 am
this without objections same house same house same house same house samecall?colleagues can we take this as amended without objection? and without objection this is amended till august 2, 2016 as a courtesy of the hole. >> mme. city clerk can you please call the next item.
10:45 am
>>new business? supervisor peskin. >>i would like to adjourn today's meeting with memory of pat--and she was [inaudible] and i will truncate this a bit and i will truncate this a bit because i know that it is late everyone would like to go home but her daughter is here and she bears a resemblance to her mother and i just would like to honors her in the late 70s she hosted a show in the 70s on
10:46 am
politics she was a journalist for a local newspaper for five years and she traveled the world they do on in her years her final unfinished project was on aging pat worked in the san francisco chamber of commerce and she ran her own public relations firm and worked tirelessly and professionally to protect small businesses and neighborhoods in san francisco. throughout her career she received many awards and accolades from state senators, governors, the business community and city civic leaders including mayor leo around and the pat
10:47 am
christiansen achievement award in san francisco and i would also like to give supervisor yee an opportunity. like to speak about her life and work very closely with pat and the undertaking she took in the small business network. i know that pat would have loved this board meeting and i'm sorry that you had to sit here since 3 o'clock but i will like to adjourn today's meeting in the memory of saul bloom who many of you know from arc ecology as well as the late great and nate thurmond as well as the warriors and as well as a request on the arts museum and a resolution on the screen
10:48 am
actors guild employees and the rest i will submit. >>thank you supervisor peskin. supervisory yee. >> thank you i will submit one item and i will all try to shorten what i say as much as possible since i probably speak the least year. i am going to introduce a resolution that has the intent to allocate funds to support communities including the maintenance of street trees and supporting families with infants and toddlers.i know that you must be wondering why i am doing street trees again we just had a whole lengthy discussion on ballot measures and i started this process before there was any conclusion as to what we wanted to do and
10:49 am
i wanted to make sure that we had this legislation for the city to take over our trees and one of the things that i was waiting for was a source of funding and i would say that at this point, one might think that is not necessary but at the same time, we have a ballot measure that has to pass in order to actually say that is going to be funded. if that doesn't pass then the protection is that this resolution will basically get to the same thing as the ballot measure in terms of funding and the takeover of trees in san francisco and this all started with this wanting to tie some of this into supervisor kim's
10:50 am
resolution and that was introduced a few weeks ago on city college and i held off until this time tab that piece in here i will be talking about this a little bit more so that people understand what this is. one of the things that has been in debate for the last 10 years is why hasn't anyone thought of the younger ones from 0 to 3.so, this will be an attempt to actually get a program going in san francisco and try to duplicate some of the efforts that we have in the
10:51 am
preschool for all in this is what i will be calling the preschool for infants and this is the early education for infants program. so, i won't get into it too much but i would love to have an opportunity in the future to articulate when i am trying to do with this asking to have some funding and in this case, i am asking for funding that is about 10 or $11 million that would help pay for the trees and about 10 million for infant programs. so this i submit. >>thank you supervisor yee. supervisor avalos. supervisor campos. >>thank you mme. pres. today i am asking that a resolution be
10:52 am
adopted for sprinklers in the halls and we will ask that we potentially pilot a sprinkler law in san francisco we also asked that we incentivize property owners to comply with this law and to that end, to make this a reality i'm asking that the fire department and department of building inspection form a working group to examine sprinklers in combination with the workforce group and the puc and others..
10:53 am
along the lines of what we have tried to do we would like to make sure that all options are explored in terms of fire prevention in san francisco the rest i submit. >>thank you supervisor campos. supervisor cohen. >>thank you. today i would like to close this in the memorandum of capt. williams. capt. williams was an army veteran who received a korean service medal with a bronze a star. he began working as a longshoreman on the san francisco waterfront in 19 was an army veteran who received a korean service medal with a bronze a star. he began working as a longshoreman on the san francisco waterfront in 1959 and in 1966 he developed the drill team josh spread pride all over the united states and marching with these
10:54 am
are chavez in 1966 and marching with martin luther king in 1968. he also became a master barbecue pit maker and chef and known for his fried turkey's that are known all over san francisco he is survived by his wife and family and friends. >>mme. pres. that concludes new business. >>thank you. can you please add my name to the end memorandum as well. >>mme. clerk can you please read public comment. >>at this time, the public has
10:55 am
ordering submitted to the voters an ordinance amending the planning code to require conditional use authorization for conversion of production, distribution, and repair use, institutional community use, and arts activities use and replacement space; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act, at an election to be held november 8, 2016. >>thank you. first speaker please. >>tom gilbert y one minute,a new record that cuts everything down i should've left long ago it seems like the corporate rate should have the republican party just like we have here in san francisco and these
10:56 am
trickle-down the candidates we fear and then we can vote not part of the trickle down. i was going to mention our insurance are $5 million insurance policy. it turns out to be $3 million after a lawyer and any hospital takes any- claims and with five seconds left= that is terrible bye-bye. >> [timer dings] >>thank you, next speaker please. >>thank you for your time. i just want as a city that we all come with caveats and qualifications and that we all come with standard clauses that should protect the donor from
10:57 am
incurring civil or criminal liability so we have been funding these things and accepting this money while still allowing google to evade state law you been enabling this [timer dings] >>i will just repeat it next week thank you. >>selackley chandler, i am here to acknowledge that with the newspaper i am creating the memoirs of a mother and the mother's child it will be an outlet to the mothers that have lost their children from homicide and to express themselves and their feelings. i have learned along the way in my journeythat many of the
10:58 am
mothers [timer dings] especially the african mothers have been abandoned and forgotten i am looking forward to everyone looking forward to the new edition coming out and the memoirs of a mother and her murdered children and this is the foundation lonnie jim line number on day is foundation that i have started. >>[timer dings] >>thank you next speaker please. >>good evening mme. pres. and board members my name is adam thompson today practitioners are delivering over 50,000 public petition signatures to the mayor and the board of supervisors have been collecting over the past 60 days sending a clear message
10:59 am
that san francisco residents do not support the san francisco chinese consulate interfering with our communities and extending the persecution of the following.for in san francisco we feel this is meaningful because it shows that san franciscan's kr and we care about the values of our great nation and we care about the minority of our group and that this is being discriminate against in china. >>[timer dings]
11:00 am
>>thank you speaker please >>thank you for the supervisors we present an opportunity to share the details of this event and the assault on the street as well as the[inaudible] and number two that are officials we request that you acknowledge the seriousness of this event and number three we request that you offer your moral support of our community members andthese organization and number four and the last is that we request the board of supervisors to conduct the necessary investigation to find out how chinese c

39 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on