tv LIVE Full Board of Supervisors SFGTV August 2, 2016 2:00pm-5:31pm PDT
>> thank you mme. pres. supervisor avalos. >> here. >>pres. breed. >> present. >> supervisor campus. >> present. 17:03:56 >> supervisor cohen. >> present. >> supervisor farrell. >> present. >> supervisor kim. >> not present. >> supervisor mar. >> present. >> supervisor peskin. >> present. >> supervisor tang. >> tang not present. >> supervisor wiener. >> here. >> supervisor yee. >> here. >> mme. pres., you have a quorum.
>> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, can you please join us for the pledge of allegiance? >> [pledge of allegiance] >> members, are there any changes to the meeting minutes of june 28, 2016. seeing none is there a motion to approve? we have a motion to approve by supervisor mar and seconded by supervisor tang. seeing none is there a motion to approve? colleagues can we take this without objection, without objection those meeting minutes will pass after public comment. >> [gavel] mme. clerk, can you please read our first item. read our first item. >> mme. sec. can you please call the roll >>[roll call vote] >> there are 11 ayes. >> this vote item is
colleagues, can we please take this item same house same call? without objection, these ordinancesare passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >> mme. city clerk, item number 10. >>item 10 isdwayne richardson - $90,000]ordinance 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. >>colleagues can i have a motion to excuse pres. breed from this? without
objection,we passed this motion unanimously.mme. city clerk can you please take the roll >>[roll call vote] >>there are 10 ayes. >>this ordinance is finally passed. >>thank you mme. clerk. can we please go to item number 18. >>item number 18 is an ordinancecamposordinance 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;and to determine a ceqa vote. >>thank you mme. clerk. can we have a roll call vote.
take this item same house same call? without objection, the ordinance is finally passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >>mme. city clerk, can you please call item 19 >>[reading item] >> >>can we please take this same house same call? mme. clerk can you please call the roll? >>[roll call vote] >> there are 10 ayes. >>the ordinance is finally
passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >>item 22. >>item 22 is an ordinance for the building codeto require building owners 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. >>mme. clerk can you please add my name is a cosponsor. >>yes mme. pres. >>and when that item can you please call the roll >>[roll call vote] >>there are 11 ayes.
24? >>[reading resolutions] >> colleagues, can we please take this item same house same call? without objection, the resolutions are finally passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >>mme. city clerk please read item 26 >>[reading resolution] >> mme. city clerk please add my name to this ordinance.colleagues, can we please take this item same house same call? without objection, this is passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >>mme. city clerk please read item 27.
>>reading item and 27] >>same house same call? without objection this is passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >>mme. city clerk please read item 28. >>[reading item 28] >>supervisor kim. >>thank you pres. breed, i just have some amendments to make to item 29. this is a correction this is not a negative declaration this is a mitigated negative declaration and i believe there was a representative from the mayor's office of housing that needs to read this declaration.
>>thank you supervisor's and that is correct this amendment is just to clarify the reference to the ceqa documents and as you can see there is a strike through beginning on lines 15 through 21 page 3 and then on line 23 there is a commission motion and it should be referencing motion 17875 and the next page, page 4, they have added three paragraphs to describe the project approval process through the ceqa process.i can read that for you if you would like.this is approved
in the planning commission motion and it determines in the motion 17875 was adequate adequate for the scope.[inaudible] 2013 cvx and the planning department found that the acquisition andplan lease were consistent with 101.1 with the department of city planning dated april 21, 2016 on file with the clerk and on the bottom of page 4 page 24 and 25 the reference is further clarified that
the board of supervisor has clarified the mitigated negative declaration is found to be an adequate decision-making project for the department and planning commission motion including the adoption of the mmr p and further finds that the mitigated negative declaration has been adopted that there is been no substantial project circumstances and previously identified significant impacts and there's no new information of substantial importance that would set forth for the that would
set forth for the mitigated negative declarations. >>supervisor kim has made a motion to amend based on the items added into the record. is there a second? this is seconded by supervisor campos and without objection these are passed unanimously >>[gavel] and colleagues can we take the items as amended same house same call. without objection these amendments are passed unanimously. >>[gavel] mme. city clerk item 30.
>>[reading item 30] >>supervisor cohen >>thank you mme. pres. >>to make sure that we have the appropriate protocol in place i would like to make some suggestions to make sure that we modify in a responsible way the item that is before us. we have two minor amendments that have been distributed to you both of them are on page 4. i will read them into the record. first i would like to remove the clause lines 3 through seven completely which reference the second amendment and the final resolve clause found in lines 20 through 21 which will move the second half of the sentence of these protocol these will allow the negotiations to move forward and the protocols continue to move forward this is a simple and
straightforward amendment jillian gillett is here to answer any questions that you may have we have r representatives hear from the staff and this is as per protocol. >>so supervisor cohen,has made a motion and this is seconded by supervisor peskin. without objection, this amendment is approved unanimously. >>[gavel] >>supervisor peskin. >>thank you mme. pres. the city share of this has grown from $60 million-$8
peskin. >>when would the protocol be achieved and why should we vote for this before the protocol is in place. supervisor in order to accommodate caltrans schedule , for those interviewed a protocol like this i'm not sure to the answer to that because this is pending additional review. >>so in regard to my previous question why should we review this before the protocol is in place? is this in reference to the caltrans protocol? >>hi, katy- with caltrans
and i have been working with our partners since that time and we also saw the amendments today and we feel very important that the mo you needs to move forward today part of the commitment and the timing on this would expire before the end of the month the other partners have taken action on this and all of them unanimously and so we are happy to take questions and we would appreciate your timely vote today because we feel it is important to move this vote for word. >>to the representative from caltrans, respectfully you
haven't really answered the question as to number one why the protocol is being removed to the resolution that is in front of us and number two, what is the negotiation that is taking place relative to the protocol? we are signing a blank check here gran to mr. perkins and on top of this $60 million that we've already committed i think respectfully you owe the legislative branch of government an explanation and maybe mr. perkins if you feel you can answer this,-- and i don't want to delay this but i want to go into this with our eyes wide open because we are committing ourselves to a blank check for $16 million that we have not identified and i don't understand and i don't think that any of the members--
and i won't put words in your mouth but we don't understand exactly how were moving the protocol and when it is going to change and what it will change by and what it means. >>thank you, >>this is being removed by the request not of caltrans. we are finding out about this around the same time as you are and so-- oh, would you like to jump in? i would like to also refer to the san francisco da who is been part of this process. >>i am going to recognize before you respond for supervisor wiener to respond. >>the reason this r is being replaced by a stronger and better protocol is that we don't believe this protocol
is adequate and as we've been discussing how we can have better oversight, we saw with the recent situation with the translation powers authority that the commission stepped in with greater oversight and we ended up having to backfill a significant change because that oversight had listed earlier and that was an independent entity and we had the city stepped in we want to have that oversight now and normally we might hold this until after the break to put this in but there is a significant timing issue here that if we don't approve this there could be ramifications with the federal funding and if
we ramifications by the end of this year and i had a deal leah and there might be ideally a more beefed-up protocol and they might be passing it with the existing language and we believe the existing language is not an adequate protocol andwe would note that we are agreeing to what we believe is not a good oversight and so, it is our view that we need to put better oversight in and eight is not an ideal situation but we feel that this is the best oversight given the circumstances. >> supervisor peskin did you want to give a response?/ >>thank you mme. supervisor.
there is no question we would like to get the full funding agreement in prior to the obama administration in place and although i have no doubt that the next administration in place will honor that commitment and i would like to know what would the difference be and what is the timeline around the protocol and insofar as it is highly likely that we will have a special board meeting next week and i don't know what theitem 243 it
comprised of the planning department's determination of exemption from the environmental review under ceqa for the proposed project of 20 719 brian st. and items 44 through 47 are the public hearing of the public hearing of people interested in a conditional use operation dated june 27, 2016 for a project located at 2007 brian st. and associated with that appeal. >>so, you only >>so, you only call through
items 43? mme. pres. i called through item 47. >>supervisor campos. thank you mme. pres. with the agreement of all of the parties involved that like to hereby motion that the items be open to september 13. >>supervisor campos made a motion to continue this until september 13 but before that we continue i would like to open this up for public comment if there's any members of the public that would like to speak on this item please come forward now. and, just to be clear, keep your marks focused on the continuance and not necessarily the item
itself. thank you. >>hello supervisors,yes absolutely the community that is speaking on this issue is expecting to be heard in september so they wouldn't really be prepared to be heard today. so please do it. this is one of the most important tasks of our facilities n san francisco so thank you very much >>thank you very much are there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? seeing none public comment is closed >> [gavel]
>> >>can we take this without objection and these will be moved it to september 13, 2016 and now let's move to our committee as a whole. items 50 and 51. >>the board of supervisors held a motion to be carried for these to be heard as a committee as a whole and the ordinance submitted to the voters are an ordinance amending the authorization of production and art use to be held at an election on april 28, 2021. supervisor.
>> we are working as hard as we can to protect and prepare for the distribution uses in san francisco. however we've decided to limit this ordinance to the ordinance in the mission neighborhood and also have worked very closely with supervisor david campos office ensuring that we could provide protection in these two neighborhoods and that we would continue to work on other legislation throughout the city but also work throughout these ideas that we got including a clmc as well as other options as well through a legislative process. >>before i open up the public comment i would like
to recognize supervisor wiener. >>so, at this time, we will open it up to public comment. if there any members of the public you would like to provide public comment at this time, please come forward. >>good afternoon supervisors, i am john-- the planning displacement of r groups in this city because of the boom and the city has had five years to do something about this and that is why we are here and that is why we are going to the ballot and the one dewclaws that was added tothe mission last week is that the supervisor moved in
that we can be amended to the future without limitation all of it any of it and i will take votes and all of you understand why but it should be a par moved by the progressives if we have the majority or some future mayor by our site or by the moderates because they have majority by the mayor it should be worked out together and we agree. that is why we put that clause into the measure. i certainly urge you to support the measure and report november. thank you. >>thank you. speaker please. >>good afternoon supervisors. i sent a letter earlier but i will just read for the record right now. mary liza here. the threat of cell space
cell space is a premier counterculture that is home to countless memories over the decades the our community rallied around saving cell spacealthough many of you argued leveling tower. that anyone has the right to purchase and rearrange the view. is my view not sacred? if mine is not sacred, how is yours? on another big movement is growing around the idea that the fine arts is a public fine art space and must be accessible to the public. many feel that spaces is at least as important as the opera house. it is much older and has a lot more tradition and history. i am here to tell you that what we have is a culture clash
in san francisco. you can say which edifice is more important. each has its following own supporters. we just want to share with you with that cell space is ours and much of the problems that we are dealing with today could have been avoided by developers saying okay, you can keep cell space [timer dings] we will just develop around it. think about that and ask yourself, is it worth it? thank you. >>thank you next speaker please. >>hi, thank you i am sharon storier i would like to thank supervisor kim and campos and i would like to thank all of the other supervisors who are trying to figure out some way this is our first way of trying to change the tide of our massive cultural loss. it has been devastating and so far nothing has happened. is this the first step, and so far only a first step? yes. do we need cultural
and community spaces? of course we do. is this enough for the mission? no, it's not enough for the mission but it will be helpful to slow things down in the mission and be helpful as a starting place for you guys to be able to amend it and be able to talk on perhaps tax incentives. obviously, this is the city that most of us could move into and live in right now. most of us can't come in and find cultural spaces to work. mostt of the nonprofits who are leaving or have left couldn't afford to move in right now. so, i think it is really important for us to keep in mind that this is our city and it is incumbent upon our supervisors its community and its citizens and its corporations and it supervisors are developing
and we rely on you to try to stop what is going on and reverse it and let's be the first city in the nation to figure out how we can invite the cultural resources that we left back into the city and the city that solves a problem and that from tellers can build here. >>[timer dings] >>next speaker please >>good afternoon supervisors. first of all eye would like to thank supervisors kim and campos for this initiative i think it is a very important piece for us in the mission. this is a very important piece in the mission district for us to preserve and work on in the future to make it
stronger. the city is known for its arts and culture. this space provides opportunities for young people and it generates revenue for us in the mission and the city and that's why people come to the mission district. i just recently wasn't able to renew their lease and they been there for 40 years month-to-month and i might not be able to renew it so they are in jeopardy. there is other space in the mission that are dealing with their landlord to establish themselves they are to run do their lease. there is a major space to the neighborhood. currently the unemployment rate for latinos are 1.8% and we are
building carwashes and auto shops and bait shops and gas stations and we need to be a little bit more thoughtful about how we build and how it affects their communities. i think this can be strong and it is a great start so please support this item with our voters thank you. >>thank you next speaker please. >>yes, my name is flora davis and i lost my studio of 26 years last four73 artists lost their space and i am excited that the voters
can vote on this in the fall and i was one of the lucky ones who found a studio in the mission you can see the pdr is very critical. the building i am in is actually was in where i would like to see hire renters get in there there used to be 40 artists in the mission and now there's only 20 artists left. there are remaining artist groups left in the city and i am really happy for this i spent the last few years working with supervisor kim's office to see what we can do to save pdr. it is not a very sexy thing to talk about i didn't even know what it meant with
these things. a lot of different artists don't want to talk about is i'm nervous being up here right now i just rather do my artwork. but i'm happy to see this is something that is in the works i'm happy as moving forward [timer dings] so thank you very much. >>thank you. next speaker please >>hello supervisors my name is scott kuyper. i manage an art studio in thatthe cell neighborhood and i a would like to continue to see the same protections over the years a number of arts groups convened with the legislators to form a emergency arts displacement tax force some are artist studios and some are in
intermission and among many more. were all facing displacement this represented hundreds of working artists and hundreds of pdr space use for arts and theater. they have all lost their space since last year. all of these spaces have been lost in the last year alone. this is just the first step. we would deftly like to see this go a little further. we are hoping to look for a more comprehensive policy that will help mitigate the creative and colorful soul. in what looks like it's being pushed back to september under j.p. morgan there is already converted the community space formerly known as cell and it is sitting vacant and nick has
pulled it off [timer dings] and he is pulled it off and it's toward our community a part. help us to create a productive and creative environment to keep san franciscowhat we know and have loved it to be. >>thank you. next speaker please. if there's any other members of the public that would like to speak please line up to my left. >> good afternoon supervisors my name is-- i am asking you guys to support this ballot measure. i am here to speak on the space loss for these pdr's we have seen a lot of vietnamese children that
would not be the developers find would not be the developers find in those places to be [indecipherable] i think this is a decision that the voters are going to take in this space and in the mission and i really appreciate your support this valid measure and this will all be best to let the voters decide what is best for city thank you. >>thank you. next speaker please. >> good evening i am not so sure that this is supposed to be on this line but i am
talking about [indecipherable] this is about the assessment and building code. >> actually we have already done this one and you can talk to mr. davidson he is right outside. >>we are doing a committee of the whole for a completely different item. if you can hold on for just a minute because this is for something else we will get somebody to address your concerns. thank you. next speaker please. >>i am a market activist in 2009 on the lancaster gallery on market street and at the time it seemed to be a neighborhood that needed a lot of help. it was amazing how fast it changed and how fast it went from being a
and interesting neighborhood two very interesting in the real estate industry and now are looking at a situation that occurred half a decade ago and what is deeply frustrating to us is how little the policy has changed from being one that supports development to being one where we need protection and has been very frustrating. >>okay, are there any other members of the public you would like to speak on this particular issue? seeing none, public comment is now close. this hearing has been held and is now filed. >>[gavel] >>supervisor wiener. >>i would be happy to defer to supervisor kim and make comments when she is done if that's all right.
>>supervisor kim >> okay supervisor wiener. >> thank you mme. supervisor. i am happy to have this pdr space in san francisco and i have dealt with the zoning issues on more occasions and i count this board is highly capable of developing these measures and they can be stricter and looser depending on the situation. i don't know if it's completely accurate but even if it is supervisor kim really knows how to do legislation he has brought
this measure here today and set of sending it to the mayor extend to the voters so i just don't understand why we wouldn't just take this up at the board. this measure is extremely strict and i think it will have a lot of impacts that people aren't necessarily anticipating in fact, as i mentioned last week whenever in the middle the night when this came up that kate sophis the head of sf made a our manufacturing industry organization in san francisco and it needs to be collaboratively doneand not been done in a way that this
has been moved forward. and i have told ms sophis tt this will have unintended consequences i don't support this legislation i don't supported i don't think it should be sent to the voters they should be handed to the board of supervisors in a prerogative way the pdr votes that i participate in i don't recall each and every one of them but i seem to recall that if not all of them almost all of them are unanimous that typically need to be done in a can
when it comes to zoning we should be doing that in a collaborative way at the board of supervisors hopefully with not just eight votes but 11 votes and to do it this way which should be a 6 to 9 vote to send this to the voters this just doesn't make sense to me so i will vote against this legislation today. >>thank you supervisor wiener. supervisor campos. >>thank you mme. pres. i am
asking you to support this with the voters because i do think there is a level of protection with the issue when voters are the ones who decide to enact a measure and i think that that is the benefit of this and i also think that it is appropriate given that we are targeting specific issues relative to the south of market and the mission to other parts of the city and i think that it is the right approach and i think that is respectful of the fact that other members of the board have different ideas that address some concerns that relate to their district. and so i think that isn appropriate way to approaching this and an appropriate way to have it on the ballot and i thank
supervisor kim and her staff for the work that she has put in this and as well as supervisor hagan in my office to have worked on this thank you. >>thank you supervisor campos . supervisor peskin . >>thank you mme. supervisor. i would like to respectfully address some of the comments of supervisor wiener in and around the process and the process was that supervisor kim has proposed to put this measure before the body where this legislation is but before the voters. the 1996 charter allowed for members of the ford to circumvent this body and circumvent public discussion a legitimate tool and it should go directly to the voters the respectfully, i submit a legitimate ntool and it should go directly to
the voters the respectfully, i submit the following. if supervisor wiener would submit the words to other measures on this ballot that were not the subject of deliberations in front of this ballot that would place before the voters before members of the body which is absolutely legitimate, we would have an absolutely different conversation. so, let us be consistent and let us say the following thing which is, live by the ballot and die by the ballot. which is, a majority of the members in this ballot voted for the mission moratorium. the voters ultimately chose to reject that. but, when you go to the ballot it is often times the right thing to go back to the ballot and while that may be different relative to prop f and prop i i say that actually the
right thing is to actually go back to the voters and let's discuss this again by and through the ballot. i want to say these things to the record and i want to say that respectfully to supervisor wiener but, it is very difficult to say that you should not have this conversation before this body and before the voters went for members of this body but other measures before this body. >>thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor kim. >>thank you mme. supervisor i would just like to say that i would like to finalize this before the board today. last week proposition highlighted the growing concern of the alarming loss of manufacturing repair as well as the strength and enforcement of the current
controls put in place to protect and encourage these types of use and consequently the jobs that come with it. over a year and a half ago our office reached out to over 100 different artists that were at fear of being evicted this was termed over 40 different artists that were evicted and through this process we brainstormed and brought together different ideas of how we can protect and encourage art uses three range of controls. i do want to remind the artists
[inaudible] although are initially are were legislation had started out as an ordinance to protect and encourage artists to stay here in san francisco i mentioned that one of our outcomes of our meetingswas that the arts commission whose staff participated in the our commission did a poll of 600+ artists here in san francisco or that used to be in san francisco at the overwhelming majority close to 70% are either being evicted or being threatened to be evicted close to 70% were afraid of being evicted in the future we felt it was a prudent to move forward with these land use controls we move forward with the strongest measure and that's why we decided to
move forward and to the voters. however, out of respect for the legislative process we did insert an amendment to allow amendments either to weaken or to strengthen as long as there were a super majority as long as the supervisors would support these changes there were some very good feedback that we got along the wayto where we treat these structures are very similar to how we treat affordable housing. we currently allow for the ball housing to be built on site which is which is legislation encourages or built off site or finally, do an off-site inlet see this is how it is done in boston and new york city and perhaps one of the best ways for the city to protect pdr is to purchase a pdr and if we have the offset in lieu
fees will explain this and we may move forward with amendments such as that. colleagues, i do ask for your support. i know that supervisor campos is not happy with the process but if the supervisors can pull their weight with this process this is not the only ballot measure going in november that can be passed by this board. in fact my colleague supervisor wiener introduced neighborhood police control and we can pass this here control and we can pass this here at the board. i think this is a
perfect example of legislation that this board could certainly pass and implement without having it embedded within our ordinance or our code by the voters. and in fact, neither of those measures that i alluded to today do allow for amendments to this board if there were changes that need to be made or that we need to be more in depth or if there are changes to the police or changes to homeless and those are written into stone and they cannot be changed unless we go back to what the voters. so if we need to argue about what legislation should go through the voters and the legislative process and we should do that with the entire portfolio of legislation going through the voters process. we knew we could've gone through the legislative process they were not confident that we would had the support to pass the strongest measures
going forward including grandfathering in 100 ft.2 of pdr in the pipeline. very similar to proposition c we have created a compromise by which those in the pipeline would provide less said pdr than those projects that have submitted their eda after june 14 but we thought that it would be too much of a loss o allow 900,000 ft.2of pdr to move forward without any type of replacement or requirement to replace. i'm certainly confident that we have not been able to process through the legislative process. with that, i appreciate the comments and the feedback. in particular i wanted knowledge. supervisor cohen
supervisor tang have been leaders in supervising and encouraging pdr in their districts and their amendments. i know we did not see eye to eye on every single issue but i know that their feedback was very, incredibly important i've appreciated and i do value the fact that this board does value pr here in san francisco and i value all of the different perspectives and finally, i want to thank the community members working on this legislation with us over the last year and a half i also finally want to thank the land use director for doing a fine on most job over the last four months and that of something that we could feel strongly about and take into account a lot of the concerns that the stakeholders would have and also sheila hess, from supervisor compos's office who is put a lot of work into this legislation as well so colleagues i
appreciate your support and thank you. >>thank you supervisor kim. supervisor farrell. >>thank you pres. breed., first of all one of the measures that is on the ballot in november that i authored actually has a provision where the super majority of the board of supervisors can amendment without going back to the voters to be perfectly blunt . but if i would to supervisor kim through the chair is it possible that it's fundamentally different that six people putting something on the ballot on the board that could be enacted by the board of supervisors but still going to the voters that that somehow is a legislative process that is different and therefore better than having four supervisors on their own and submit
something to the ballot because i can appreciate the comment that a group of supervisors believes that they won't get the strongest legislation for the board of supervisors and therefore goes to the ballot but i just want to understand the difference that you try to distinguish between the four and six votes. >>is that a question supervisor farrell? supervisor kim. >>excuse me mme. pres. that is for supervisor peskin who made the comment >>oh, supervisor peskin. >>supervisor farrell,we have a pleasure of sharing columns in the marine at times in my column this month is about doing our
j-o-b.and i think that our highest order of business is to resolve our issue of the day which is in these chambers which is where you introduce a piece of legislation.you go to the ballot first when you have to change the charter for when only the voters may change the charter. we go to the ballot to raise a tax whether it is a bond or a personal tax or a sales tax or a transfer tax under proposition 218 we go to the ballot and everything else friends is politics and if you bring a measure to this body and that measure fails, it is absolutely legitimate to go to the court of last resort which is the voters of the city and county of san francisco respectfully, through the chair, relative to supervisor farrell's question, that did not happen relative to the two measures that we are all
tangentially referring to if supervisor farrell has any other questions i would be happy to answer them. >>supervisor farrell any other comments? >> i would just like to know how this applies to this vote? >>supervisor peskin. >> supervisor farrell all this passing legislation through the board or passing at the ballot and failing at the ballot whether they are put together by a minority of this body or a majority
of this ballot are all legitimate tools through the body of san francisco >> i don't think i understand the question we talked about going to the ballot and i don't know what has been proposed to amend this particular legislation is that it could actually be changed at the board of supervisors so i guess, the point is, i just want to be clear that i understand but this is probably more for supervisor kim, but the point is that you want to make a statement in that you want there to not be the six threshold to be able to change something like this. you want to increase that so there are more protections through voters by putting it forth in this way. i guess
i am just looking for clarity because i could see this legislation coming out of the board because i guess there is a concern that they could potentially be changed again is that the point that were getting at i know that you made these comments last week and i just completely understand where you're coming from. >>i believe that this piece of legislation would passed unanimously through the board of supervisors. by the way i respect that this disagreement is the disagreement around grandfathering. now grandfathering has taken multiple forms here at the board of supervisors. sometimes when we have new legislation, we decided as a matter of policy that is perspective and the project is moving forward and it
would be engaged under those new rules and regulations. then we have legislation like for example proposition c where we actually went back into the pipeline and said we don't have to do this whole new regulation and rules and we decided to do above and beyond what we required when you submitted your eea. in that case, we did have unanimous support for that ordinance i do not believe that we have eight votes. but, what we're doing here with the pipeline projects that is eliminating production discretion and repair in the south market and if it were a small amount of footage, i think our stakeholders would be willing to let go of the pipeline but were talking about 900 ft.2 of pdr that will be eliminated if this ballot measure does not pass in november. like some of my colleagues respectively
disagree that this legislation should have an impact in the projects and pipeline, i actually very much respect that because i respect the policy making behind it but i do think that the pipeline can protect and preserve more of the pdr here in the mission. we are only asking them to do a 40% replacement of pdr uses that are currently on site and if they agree to make it affordable which is only 50% of market rate they only have to do 25% we have been able to work this through and some of the project developers in the pipeline have agreed to do this replacement. i am not confident that that has more than six votes on this board through the legislative process. but, in response to the question, it was not i did set four versus six.
we can continue to debate that point. this ordinance did have more of the legislative process in the sense that you are able to amend it after introduction but i did maybe to the chagrin of my stakeholders offer to pull this back from the ballot and have it go three legislative process understanding that it would probably get weekends in the legislative process as a cohort decides that we will not send any legislation to the ballot that would approve the legislative process. if this body decides that no ballot measure should move forward, that can be done through this board process. i will pull this measure as well. unilaterally, without being consulted by the stakeholders this ordinance. i don't think that you can criticize this measure when other colleagues are doing the exact same thing. >>thank you and just to be clear up my request for clarity without a criticism >>that point was not you pres. breed. >>supervisor wiener.
>>thank you very much. just to be clear i am not at all critical of the decision of going to the ballot as opposed to doingthis to the board but this can be done through the ballot or through the board of supervisors i am simply expressing my view with something a very very complicated and impactful re-zoning to the significance of the office of san francisco that that should be done at the board. that is my point of view that there is one of the reasons in addition to merits for the voters. supervisor kim has every right in the world for the office that she holds to make this decision. i would say in terms of the measure that i would like to place on the ballot in terms of the increasing neighborhood policing i will just be
blunt. if i were confident that this would pass for the board of supervisors resembling the form that would have today i will put it through the board. i don't have that confidence. again, there is not that criticism. there is a deep devout on this board for the safety issues and i didn't have confidence that this would not have been mangled up at this board and so, i went to the voters and i said and that was a choice that we made. and i stand by that is a choice. >>thank you supervisor. supervisor farrell. >>supervisor kim did not make a legitimate choice and i think the legitimate choice to go to the voters. i've no issue with that. will have our opinions about that but that is to follow the rules and part of the availability we have the supervisors to do that. my question becomes around some
of the comments that supervisor peskin made that this valid is not a legislation that should go to the voters unless it was a last resort andi don't think that we should say i don't like the ballot but at the same time when it suits a proposition that i like i will send it to the ballot. i don't think that's a proposition that i like and i think it is inconsistent. >>supervisor peskin please rise. >>i am standing mme. pres. with respect to supervisor farrell, let me give you a little bit of history, in the early part of the last century much of the board of supervisors were corrupt as
a matter of fact many of them that were indicted in fact there were a majority of supervisors in that day at that were free from corruption.in 1932 it allowed the minority of this body to go to the members. that was an act to deal with corruption. that became the subject of subterfuge an ambush and surprise. this supervisor from the progressive wing of the board joined with sean elfman from the moderate wing of the board to acquire that one for members of the board went directly to the ballot, it would be subject to a hearing before a committee of this board we
did that so there would be some amount of public input. let me take exception respectively through the pres. to supervisor farrell. the measure server that you are introducing have also not been the subject of consideration before this body. it is your right. we all understand and acknowledge that but if you're going to be intellectually honest and consistent now i am not being pejorative of what you are doing and supervisor kim is doing and only what supervisor kim is doing is actually the subject of deliberation and public input through committee meetings and through the committee of as a whole and through deliberations of this body who is almost not afforded by this body and that will
that now requires one public hearing when for members of the board you directly to the ballot. that is my comment. >>thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor farrell. >>thank you supervisor breed and obviously we did have a hearing for our ballot measure and it was for signatures and i think for the point of intellectual honesty to say that you only support something in going to the ballot as a last resort and then support something that was never introduced as legislation and then go to the voters to me is highly consistent. it speaks, literally, out of both sides of the mouth and it doesn't make any sense at all. >>thank you colleagues for having this very interesting dialogue and at this time i see no other names on the
ballot-- i didn't mean on the ballot [laughing] i do think it is important for us to make changes that can hopefully protect pdr all over the city. i know this is limited to a specific area and it is one step in the right direction so i will be supporting it today. and with that, mme. clerk, on this item can you please call the roll? >>mme. pres., the public hearing was held and filed? >>it was held and filed earlier. >>[roll call vote] >>there are seven eyes and
shakespeare ave. and the item number is item 384 and 385 and 386 and 387. >>and you were able to talk to another gentleman as well? >>correct, he has already been removed from the list. >>with that, is there a motion to amend and strike items 384, 35, 386 and 3-d seven? moved by supervisor mar seconded by supervisor avalos can we take this without objection? the motion without objection passes >>[gavel] >>and on the item as amended , item clerk can you please call the roll >>[roll call vote] >>there are 11 ayes.
>> the resolution as amended is adopted unanimously. >>[gavel] >>thank you mme. chair. >>oh, i was like where is that coming from? thank you mr. davidson. mme. clerk, where did we leave off? >>item 30mme. pres. >>i don't know for ready for item 30. we are? item 30 has already been read can we make a motion for a continuance supervisor cohen. >>we would like to make an amendment for a motion to continue this to the next
>>[reading item 32] >>supervisor avalos. >>thank you. collies, i haven't really heard a compelling reason to expand $10 million over $10 million for the next 10 years the library. i have heard that the library considers this to be an efficiency but i would rather see a savings of $10.4 million that an efficiency that works only for the library. currently, the library is using downstairs of the bill graham auditorium for the storage of the auditorium that would be used for this lease i don't see any reason why we could not just
continue with that. they are not looking to use this using this for any other purpose so why would we not they e have extended the use of the library services that the public could benefit from perhaps more books, extended hours perhaps more jobs for young people or more services for seniors or greater literacy efforts all of these with the library purposes and i want to urge you not to support this lease. i will be voting against it. >>thank you supervisor tang. >>thank you. i do appreciate supervisor avalos's comments and i deftly understand the concern with cost. i will say i will be supporting this as i did in budget committee because even in brooks hall there was actually report that came out a couple years ago that recommended that the library
as you to vote for this item please. >>mme. clerk, can you please call the roll. >>[roll call vote] >>there are eight ayes and three at no with peskin avalos and compas in the it is seconded by supervisor tang colleagues can we make a motion to resend the continuance on item number 30 without objectionwithout objection the motion to resend that votes passes unanimously supervisor
cohen. >>so colleagues, we have a little bit of a challenge with the unexpected potential for scheduling a special board meeting and so it there are at least three voters that i know of that are not gonna be here for this and i'm asking them to take up the matter that we discussed today and hopefully we will be able to deal with it. supervisor wiener has a few remarks. >>pres. >>thank you supervisor wiener. rescinded this vote we should take this up today and whatever folks, whatever this view is about before us today,thisis one of most
important issues in the bay area and to be clear, i strongly support a very robust oversight program and that is what is going to happen. we should move this forward today and make clear that we are full partners here and i am in agreement with supervisor compos and supervisor peskin that we need to be watching very closely in terms of this project. san francisco historically has not been engaged in caltrans as it should been and we envisioned it as a south bay thing even though it is critical for san francisco i think that we should step out before partners on voting in favor of this measure. >>okay thank you supervisor peskin. thank you mme. pres. actually an item was called the amendment was made to delete any reference to the protocol it was not until members of this body asked questions that we begin to understand that the
reason this was moved is that the city of san francisco has fundamental concerns to the general fund. which has been raised by supervisor campos. i don't want to delay this measure but i don't think it's responsible for us to vote for it in less it is predicated on protecting the general fund. i'm happy to vote for this today provided however that it is conditioned upon a protocol that protects the san francisco general fund as part of this resolution if we are unable to do that, i will respectfully dissent and with those members of the board, pres. breed, them will have to deal with that blank check were signing
today i will deal with that in the years to come. >>thank you supervisor peskin. the north will remember. supervisor campos. >>going back to what whites because that is because of what supervisor wiener you have a peer-reviewed that was done here through caltrain a peeer-reviewed that was done based on a number of issues and a number of things. it says here it was done through documentation review and field observation and interviews with caltrain staff and the caltrain staff
who was responsible for this project was responsible for other source of this information and i think some very important issues that go to the effective management and implementation of this program and, here we are going forward i don't understand it . i honestly do not understand the point. clearly, something is wrong here. something doesn't passed this test we want this project moving forward but, there are serious questions that have been raised about the management of this progrgiven the fact that there could be an impact on the general fund i just don't understand why we are going forward and so, colleagues i would ask that those of us who have not
planned on this to seriously consider rejecting this this is not how we should do business and i think this is a testament to the lack of transparency in this process that we are rushing this through and i understand the importance of this project but we are going to have to sort of rushed through without the peripherals being emplaced i just don't understand that. we should be better than that and i think that the taxpayers should expect us to do a better job than that one that's. >>thank you mme. pres. was suggested that i offer an amendment and i will try to do so within the 30 seconds at this moment the further resolve on page 918 for the
resolve i would ask for the board of supervisors to conditionally approved the seven parties supplement of the 2012 memorandum of understanding subject to approval of the board of supervisors and the parties to the agreement approving the funding of partners oversight protocol for caltrain cal mod program as may be amended. >>supervisor peskin made a motion to amend second and by supervisor cohen colleagues, can we take that amendment without objection?
>>can you read that one more time i just want to hear it one more time. >>for the resolve that the board of supervisors conditionally approved the supplement of the 2012 memorandum of understanding subject to approval by the board of supervisors and the parties approving the funding partners oversight protocol for caltrain's cal mod program as may be amended. >>supervisor wiener >>this is just a question to the city attorney in terms of whether a condition of approval is enough to perfect the federal funding. and philosophically, i don't have a problem with the
conditional is in terms of not improving it then i and not going to approve it conditionally. >> that is what is before you rather than conditioning future actions of the department meant. he would what i'm saying is i don't think this is an action the board can take. >>to be clear the amendment that would be beiing proposed by supervisor peskin, you're suggesting that's an action that you can't take. >>right, you can approve the resolution as initially proposed or approve it with the amendment that supervisor cohen proposed or continue the resolution to consider both items but you can't approve an agreement under the charter subject to future conditions >>got it. >>supervisor peskin. >> so mme. pres. based on
the advice of counsel i will respectfully suggest that we go back to the notion of continuing this to the special board meeting next week. >>can you withdraw your previous motion? >>i hereby withdraw the previous motion to amend and make a motion to continue this item to the special meeting of next week. >>okay so it's supervisor peskin has made a motion to continue this item to the meeting of monday,august 8 . supervisor wiener.
>> >>many of us are not going to be here next week i understand it's the president's prerogative but to do this in the middle of recess means you will not have a full complement of supervisors unlikethat resolution which is supported or not supported as a nonbinding resolution this is something that is critically supported and this that could potentially rise and fall with not having the full board of supervisors present that strikes me as problematic. the meeting that was set for last monday is not set based on who would be present and so, i really object to continuing this. particularly a representative on the joint powers board has indicated that she will not be here and the author who resolution who represents us on the caltrain board who's been involved in this project will not be here. we should not be doing that >>thank you. and i would agree supervisor wiener i do think that we should be voting on this item today. supervisor peskin.
>>mme. supervisor i wanted to know if you know what supervisors will be present monday or if alternatively we could have a meeting on friday. >>it is too late to have a motion this week alternatively mme. pres. is there a day next week that a full complement were almost a full complement could attend i'm not trying to be problematic but i'm saying that the implications of this on the controller of the city and county are raising concerns about him plaques of the general fund and were trying to cram all this through that should make us all uncomfortable. >>of use that uncomfortable line 2 weeks in a row. >>i think all members of the
board today should either voted up or voted down and we can go from there.supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much i just want to clarify don't think that anybody is pushing things through. granted, people may not be paying attention but that's another conversation.i also want to i also want to just get clarification. did the controller actually object i don't believe there has been any written statement or any kind of concern actually officially coming from the controller's office. perhaps mr. todd-- could speak to that issue i don't want to misrepresent mr. rosenfeld's position on this item.
>>todd reidstrom, for the budget as i mentioned that we want to make sure that all the protocols for this is what is right for the city and we will commit to do that going forward. but, we know that these large capital projects by nature have uncertainties and risks and so just like our multibillion-dollar capital program does as well. so we will work with the department. >>thank you very much for clarification. i'm done. >>supervisor peskin >>thank you mme. supervisor i just want to say was not until after this item was called where in the references of the funding
partners oversight protocol were removed that my concerns became manifest and i have a motion that has been made and seconded in till monday and respectfully request mme. pres. that you call the roll. >>i have a another person on the roster someone recognize supervisor campos at this time. >>i just want to let you know that on the motion to continue i am not going to be here on monday but i think it is better to have a continuance than actually have to face the possibility of voting against this so that's what i will be supporting the motion to continue. >>supervisor wiener >>i'm sorry, but for us to continue an item to what the middle of legislative recess on multiple members is board indicated they will not be there including one that was going to support the motion apparently, this is not the way to legislate. >>to do business here. we should be concerned today and we should not be continuing this item to when we will be depleted of our supervisors >>thank you. again, i
agree. mme. clerk, call the roll. >>is this on the motion to continue.? >>it is on the motion to continue. >>supervisor cohen, august 8 the president said monday. >>wait, does anyone else 70 questions before we call the roll? thank you, , mme. clerk. >>[roll call vote] >> there 6 ayes, 5 no's, with supervisors wiener e
breed cohen and yee in the dissent. >> mme. supervisor can you please go on to item 33 >>tangresolution authorizing the recreation and park department to accept from the federal highway administration, central federal lands highway division, an in-kind grant of design and development services valued up to $1,690,579 for the creation of the south ocean beach trail. >> seeing no names on the roster mme. city clerk can you please call the roll? >>[roll call vote] >> there are 11 ayes. >>the resolution is adopted
unanimously. >>[gavel] >>next item please. >>item 34 is asponsor: tangresolution approving amendment no. 3 to contract no. sfmta 2011/12-06 with alstom transportation, inc., for vendor managed inventory services to exercise the two remaining options to extend the contract through august 31, 2018, for an additional amount of $25,500,000 and a total contract not to exceed $55,198,000. >>same house same call? without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously unanimously >>[gavel] >>item 35. >>item 35 is anordinance approving assessor's recommended reward of $1,848.17 to charles scoble for information that led to
detection of underpayment of property tax from an unreported change in ownership. >>same house same call? without objection the item is passed unanimously on the first reading >>[gavel] >>mme. city clerk, please call items 36 through 38 together? >>reading items 36 through 38 together? >>reading items 36 through 38 >>colleagues, can we please take this item same house same call? without objection, these items are passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >>mme. city clerk, please call item 39 >>[reading item 39] >>colleagues, can we please take this item same house same call? without objection, these items are passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >>all right mme. clerk let's skip over 2:30 pm and or 3:30 pm, and are 4:00 pm and
where are we? >>item 52 and 53.committee reports. >> item 53 was tabled and not forwarded to the board item 52 is a resolution to execute a master license agreement for a wireless pcs for wireless telecommunication antennas and equipment for thesan francisco agency pools for them not to exceed 1 million. for term of 10 years for 2024. >>can we have a roll call on item 52 please. ? >>mme. supervisor can you please call the roll? >>[roll call vote]
planning commission under planning code, section 303, for a proposed pharmacy or medical service use; and making environmental findings.colleagues, can we please take this item same house same call? without objection, these items are passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >>item 56. >>item 56 is avacation of portions of streets (along with public service easements within those streets) that exist within the subphases 1a and 1b of the parkmerced development project area, an approximately 152 acre site located in the lake merced district in the southwest corner of san francisco and generally bounded by vidal drive, font boulevard, pinto avenue, and serrano drive to the north, 19th avenue and junipero serra boulevard to the east, brotherhood way to the south, and lake merced boulevard to the west; reserve various easement rights in favor of the city and third party utilities, subject to conditions specified; delegate authority to the director of real estate to execute
certain quit claim deeds; adopt findings under the california environmental quality act; adopt findings that the vacations are consistent with the parkmerced development agreement, the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; direct the clerk of the board of supervisors to make certain transmittals; authorize actions by city officials in furtherance of the street vacation ordinance; and setting a hearing date for all persons interested in the proposed vacation of said street areas and public service easements. >>colleagues, can we please take this item same house same call? without objection, these items are passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >>okay let's go to [roll call for resolutions. >>i wanted to say that the effort of the community coalition that i have been working with supporting their fair share of technology tax that our goal is to ensure that that measure up here on a future ballot so that it is not dead. though our measure will not be appearing on this november's ballot it gives us some time to develop a proposal for the future in san francisco as we heard in the budget committee yesterday, there is an urgent need that we address the impacts of the technology industry and especially large technology company so that they pay their fair share for the housing and ability crisis that were having in san francisco that we've been
seeing. considering these issues that were raised through human stories at the committee meeting yesterday, i want to say there are three steps forward for myself and i really appreciate the support for supervisor peskin. especially i will be working with him and others to convene a working group on technology and its impact on communities to include representatives with the technology corporations and the communities affected by displacement to begin a constructing dialogue with the housing crisis for ways other companies to play a constructive role to their coalition and i would like to say that the acl aft for community environment we are holding a environmental study and a deeper analysis
and we do appreciate our city economist ted egan and others and what we need is a deeper analysis. we are proposing new legislation to keep our families and small businesses and artisan neighbors in homes and spaces in our communities and in our city. and, we continue to advocate for the fair share tech tax as a revenue stream where extremely wealthy revenue corporations can do much more into their fair share to fund these affordable housing efforts in the city. also, there are a number of initiatives introducing several resolutions. one is a resolution of support proposition 55 i thank supervisor jane kim in supporting this millionaire tax fun education it's a resolution to the mayor and
governor to extend funding for healthcare and dishes it is an extension of the millionaires tax to fund public education and this is a measure where the wealthy pay their fair share for educational justice in the educational system. i want to also say there is a resolution that i am introducing in support to proposition 56 in support of tobacco and the california state legislature and the tobacco tax of 2016 can produce e cigarettes and many of us have worked with health equity coalitions and the department of public health and others because we think it is important to take a stand against big tobacco and move efforts like this forward that save lives since tabak oh is the leading preventable cause of death in the state. i want
to give a shout out to many youth organizations that are working on this in the statewide level and urge your support and your resolution and support of proposition 56 and also revolution in support of prop 58 and this is a pro bilingual education measure. some of you know that nearly 20 years ago the silicon valley,1 million and a had passed a measure in the state which wiped out a lot of our bilingual programs and this is supported by, the association of bilingual educators and many supporters and teachers and immigrant communities as well. we call this the
learned initiativethe learned education and readiness initiative it is called the california multi-education map and this resolution would put california in support of bilingualism in our state and in return to focus on everyone being multilingual and bilingual in our state. i'm also supporting california's proposition 67 which extends san francisco's groundbreaking plastic bag restrictions to the state and it would in california each year about 13 billion single-use plastic bags are handed out by real tailors and less than 5% of these bags are
recycled and the vast majority and up in landfills and are littered i think this is an important measure for zero waste in our region but also at a statewide levels well. also very quickly, two more items. this weekend the outside lands -begins on sunday at about 10 pmand i want to say that my office has been as centrally involved and at this amazing music and a music festivalmusic fit is a three day festival in golden gate park and as well it is a wealth of musical acts in many genres and i think that there was a band that was
performed in 2008 and you can also look forward to flashes from the past and lionel richie doing some commodores tunes and alanna delray and jay cole and lots of hip-hop artists as well and 80s flashback to rand durand and john stevens and beach house majel and many many more and i want to announce that there is a community hotline for different noise complaints andtrafffic and other issues but during the festival, the community hotline is 415-965 9 that is 415-965-8001 or you can get to the website
which is sf outside lands staff.com i and my legislative aide nick pavlov does as we usually do will monitor calls and emails at the event and our office can be reached as well. if you call our may number 554-7412 or email my aide nicholas packer locked firstname.lastname@example.org. >>i also want to say the festival is an important one in the city but there are also concerns raised each year for residents and the hotline is one means of expressing any concerns to make the festival better for future years. i also wanted to add that the international brotherhood of teamsters has been encouraging labor peace for large concert and other events in our parks throughout the city. i wanted to also say that i'm supportive of labor paceas a number of unions challenged bowers shuttles and shuttle campaigns that the nrb have multiple violations of federal labor laws i am urging along with different labor organizations in our recreation and parks staff continue that they really need parks events by the staff of the international brotherhood of teamsters. lastly, this thursday, august 4 is the 39th
anniversary of the fall of the eiffel tower as you know this might have been a struggle have been a struggle of 10 years of 1977 this led to the minong's and tenants of that hotel and some were women as well and at the hotel commemoration committee this year they are dedicating the struggle to african-american and latino communities and black and brown communities in san francisco and black lives matter and latino communities struggling for clarice perform so they can be united against police brutality in their statement. i wanted to say also that the milltown heritage foundation the coordinates are annual commemorations this thursday on august 4 from 6 pm to 8 pm
at 6-8 jackson street they are on a tour in the passion and fire and spirit of our black and brian communities and joining together to build a movement for justice in san francisco and for our entire country and for those of you who aren't familiar in august 4, 1977 the san francisco sheriff some law enforcement forcibly evicted and displaced many seniors and disabilities and there were thousands of supporters in solidarity around the whole block at the leslie isles hotel and it was the last remaining block of previously a 15 block frightening filipino and immigrant community whittled down to one block the forcible addiction and displacement was a sad day in san francisco history were many businesses were also displaced i want to say long live the spirit of the eye hotel as we mentioned the minong's and some of
our heroes and from 2005 and when chinatown community development center and chinatown cac develop a senior housing project that was their sharesnow withthe heritage museum and center please join us in commemoration as we celebrate the fall of the i hotel and we will like to see you there as well. >>thank you supervisor mar. supervisor peskin. >>thank you colleagues i would like to be brief but i like supervisor mar have a number of introductions. first of all i would like to thank the coalition for labor organizations that have pushed for a process with gov. jerry brown's approvals affordable housing
contributions are being developed in and around the . i have a list of names to publicly acknowledge but i will not. you know who you are. you are from all around the state of california and many of those organizations attended a lively public picket of this measure yesterday in los angeles. on to last fifth my staff joined a diverse
san francisco delegation to meet for an hour with the governor's office and bet metcalf of the housing community development office as well as his staff by all accounts was a productive meeting and in our subsequent meetings with sen. len know he has been diligently working to amend this measure and we've heard the same. particularly the proposed amendments offered by the san francisco delegation are an accurate and informative presentation of the planning and affordable housing toolkit that san francisco has successfully led the state on. >>unfortunately, we have heard nothing back from mr. metcalf's office for the governor's office and that meeting and in fact, the news that the mayor and his deputy chief of development spur and mr. metcalf's office held a press friends for the bill and it was our first indication that perhaps they would not follow up on our meeting at all. meanwhile, the housing and community development and held a meeting across the state and essentially had meetings with supporters and
had press sections the first was in san francisco on july 20 held by spur and the second wasn't san francisco the majority of this board duly approved to include the mayor's positions and it really flies in the face of the policy stances body has voted several times on. and i know it was only, only, his fourth veto it since assuming office and i have endeavored through a lengthy back-and-forth process to incorporate not only the best to them governor's on may 14 but also my colleagues such a supervisor wiener. >>through this pressure, the process of the board of supervisors has passed a well vetted policy which is frankly our job as policymakers. the mayor vetoed it and at the state level, this is the vested
interest of having this past unfortunately those of us in san francisco are holding the bag. we've called a policy issue on the bill even though this is not a policy issue the public still has not had a genuine opportunity to speak against this proposed bill and the hard work of our san francisco legislators, organizers and labor environmental representatives and housing at representatives with local public input and i am issuing a motion today to make sure this guidance and these well vetted proposed amendments are heard by the entire california state legislator and there will be legislator and there will be a special meeting held to sure that we will have this
debate next monday. furthermore i want to reiterate my comments from last week. given that the mayor recently vetoed the policy position i just discussed, i have a measure on the ballot to ensure that this has another shot. should the mayor determine that we should veto this legislation, i said last week if the mayor signed the legislation and brings the 'locale veto by 5 pm we would take this off the ballot and given that has not happened this matter will state on the ballot. i know we've all endeavored to keep our ballot short i'm sorry that the voters of san francisco will have to vote again on a piece of legislation that the board has passed and through the chair to supervisor farrell,
that my friends, is the legitimate use of the ballot. with regard to transp which evoked the concerns tha if you read the article yesterdaythe article that stated that the millennium tower is sinking. to be sinking 2 feet and has sunk to the right and i have two questions in particular the lack of pal driving on infill means similar buildings entrance be neighborhoods. i think the important we state for the record that in no way shape or form is the city on the hook for no potential
outcomes and in so far as this body build out the tj pa for a quarter million dollars in paper i would like this body to make sure that we pledge that we will not bill the tj pa out for any liability with this matter and i like to think supervisor kim for cosponsoring my legislation and i am submitting a letter of inquiry for a hearing for the oversight protocols for the fine arts museum board of directors and also thank you lydia and karen for staying so many extra hours and for many many years. i
would like to adjourn this meeting my friend june asterburg she passed away it this weekend and she was the editor of the dakota newspaper and she was in the yearbook of the university of norththe coda and she was recently honored for her progressism. she became the progressive conscience in our neighborhoods. in 1952, long before i was born she was actually on her way to coveted job in life magazine at new york city and decided to visit san francisco before starting a job in the city and she looked around and she never look back. he
became a member of the bohemian monkey block and the enclave right down the street where supervisor mar talked about the i hotel,including the san francisco newsletter. a friend found a c word to the newspaper. 12 years ago it was a paradise it was solidly two things. bohemian and italian and it was so much fun. things would not be so much fun without you you will be missed it will not be as much fun without you. i would like to adjourn in june's memory, and finally i
like to say that we have had somewhat a progressive session. i think we have a high functioning legislative body that has turned out a significant amount of legislation and we can only do this work with their support of our incredible team and mrs.cavand i'm speaking to you mme. city clerk and the department is the san francisco board of supervisors. i have seen their office to help committee reports for legislation and scheduling her unprecedented number of special board meetings and i wanted to take this opportunity to say angela we see you and we see your staff and we see how much work you put into this
session and your expertise and your guidance andyour guidance has been fair and impartial and indispensable and we thank you. and finally i would like to thank every individual on this indispensable team, no members anymore or less important. june-- christine wilson andrea john brandt lisa erica victor rome alvin john paid the high senate and arthur and richard think you very very much from all of the members of the board of supervisors. you guys are super appreciate it. appreciate it. >>[applause] >>thank you supervisor
peskin i do want to give a shout out to lisa samari. on behalf of that all the boards came through so smoothly. >>and with that i did not acknowledge rachel and kay and alicia. you guys are awesome. >>thank you. supervisor yee. >>thank you mme. clerk. i would like to close the meeting also in remembrance of two teenagers that passed
2007.[indecipherable] both took courses at the community college and both received bachelors of arts degree in 2007 the outstanding early educators that serve san francisco and the community that love their work and their teachers. i like to acknowledge lucas, skye and jean. it will be a special remembrance ceremony this friday in your honor. the rest i submit. >>thank you.
>> supervisor yee and supervisor avalos. thank you mme. sec.i was very reluctant to support another set aside but to me, it was important that as we make funding more available for wrecking parts that we create some metrics for equity. especially making sure that districts like district 10 and 11can get better care and better service from the recreation and parks department and i worked to get equity language in the measure and ultimately supported it.now i'm hearing that the recreation and park department is ramming through inequity metrics through the recreation and
park commission on august 18 without going through the community process, and without really working with neighborhoods to measure what equity would be like for them. the prozac parks open space immigration advisory committee has set up an equity committee, a committee within that committee and the recreation and park department just ran right over them not considering any input that they would have for equity whatsoever. and so, i would like to put the brakes on the recreation and parks department's effort to create equity. i would think if you're going to create an equity metric and have the commission approve it nearly 2 1/2 months after the voters first approved the measure that equity metric is not going to be something that is going to be sound and to actually work well for the neighborhoods that really need that sort of equity in
the city. and so, i have a motion that i want the committee to have a hearing in september to try to put the brakes on the recreation and park departments. rushing through with their equity framework and colleagues i would love to have your support with this framework and when it comes to the equity frame i would hope that we have something that's actually meaningful for a lot of neighborhoods that do not have the cadillac versions of recreation and parks services and i do not have do have. i do not have a perk in my district that some neighborhoods on it looks like lois park or lafayette park. i have perks that look like the parks it look like the parks in my district and i have perks that are offered for places for people to come around era town square for the neighborhood to
congregate but that is something that we need to address with that and that is a checkoff on our list at the recreation and parks feel will help get them funding for support and were wealthy neighborhoods in the city so i look forward to your support on that.>>i also want to make an announcement that we were filling out the ballot argument forms and as erroneously said that we need to initial under our names and we didn't and i erroneously said that and i apologize colleagues for that bit of misinformation.also, supervisor more and i just came back from the progress convening that happened in pittsburgh. i mentioned it at the transportation authority meeting last tuesday but one of the outcomes that came out of that was that elected
officials from all across the country were going to be signing on for letters and possibly doing resolutions in the future for islam a phobia and we can't underscore howarticle this is when we have, people who have came the con family and the kids run this alarcon the spoke at the democratic national convention about their son who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the war in iraq and their muslim they live in pakistan and as you know what they're under attack just for being muslim. and we have a candidate donald trump.it's not just the muslims that
are being under attack by the trump campaign it's also african-americans and latino immigrants and people who havea contested policing in the country. so colleagues, i will be sending a letter that you can sign on to it will be an email you can click on it will give you some promptings to be able to go through and be able to add your name to it so that it gets sent out to other officials later in september and i are doing forward a resolution that we can do along with community organizations that represent muslims southwest asians north africans and
20:18:32the seik communities join together in support of these communities and i can't sayi will stop there. >>supervisor kim. >> colleagues i want to mention to you all that it is the 50th anniversaryof the renaming of the 100 block of taylor street to the jean compton cafeteria riots. this was the first known modern protest of the modern lgbt movement. where women and drag queens and her transgender sisters have fought back againstabuse against discrimination in our businesses against police brutality to say that
we deserve that we all deserve a safe space and gather and be ourselves. this month there will be a 50th anniversary celebration i want to acknowledge the lisa flames who is here in the audience who will be leading the commemoration here on behalf of the city. is a tremendously significant and important part of san francisco's history and i am really proud to support this moment of activism and hero wisdom and i encourage my community members for the rights for a for us to be here and our community and with that that it will be all. >> seeing no other names on the roster that is the end of business.
>> mme. city clerk, please read item 58. >>item 50 is public comment an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board, including items being considered today which have not been considered by a board committee and excluding items which have been considered by a board committee. members of the public may address the board for up to three minutes. each member of the public will be allotted the same number of minutes to speak, except that public speakers using translation assistance will be allowed to testify for twice the amount of the public testimony time limit. if simultaneous translation services are used, speakers will be governed by the public testimony time limit applied to speakers not requesting translation assistance. the president or the board may limit the total testimony to 30 minutes members of the public who want a document placed on the overhead for display should clearly state such and subsequently remove the document when they want the screen to return to live coverage of the meeting. >> first speaker please.
but i had a bad position to see it and i talk to you about it. the san francisco newspaper wrote about it the day of that. like to see it. you will see what's going on. i don't think we have time to vote for a crazy guy like donald trump. we have a lot of mental people in the city. with a lot of crazy people in the city we don't need one to determine our future. i have two choices. one that i use in the one in my hand.[timer dings] i would like to take my shoes and put them in his mouth. because i want him
to read my message. loser trump, you are fired! you are a stupid idiot and you don't know how to treat the blacks or the latinos or the muslims. it is time for us to wake up and kick his butt out thank you.[timer dings] >>thank you next speaker please. >> [indecipherable] >> i'm sorry there's no campaigning here at the board thank you. >>in making success of the two destiny of the people.
the holy people are having a degrading downfall of all the superficial elements of the universal realities and misleading objectives and desired within the [indecipherable] as well, all sorts of goodies to benefit other people. when people can see our physical forms and cs is empty because of a single detachment than when cannot seek last the vacation so much then. one good seek the glory and these internal practices and true destiny
in our society. on will develop complete details of true principles for this particular aspect of these uses in this phase. of the lifestyle for success of the tragic passages of lives should never have happiness without bias thank you. >>thank you next speaker please think you think >>the funds from these
outside forces to support our beloved community for the lifestyle that we've all become accustomed to streets are upgraded and bus stop shelters are installed and we need such projects to bring many benefits for cities into our lives. these funds come from many sources. multiple government agencies and multiple private foundations these transactions could come from standard clauses to protect the donor for civil and criminal liability for funding or illegal or unsaved activities. i expect they all mentioned something as full compliance tropical national state and local laws. if that is the case what is the the
consequence of our city to the criminal consequences of their private use of public bus stops. you have been enabling this crime spree for years so you have been accepting this under false pretense for years and do we have to pay it back? aren't you embarrassed shouldn't you be embarrassed and shouldn't you aren't you embarrassed shouldn't you be embarrassed and shouldn't you be in jail? >>thank you next speaker please. >> good afternoon board of supervisors i am a member of the mingling marching band
and i have to remember many of us sat here for hours just to deliver the message of several supporters i listen to all of your amendments a day and with general concern for the city needs i believe with 50,000 supporting us to you as democratically elected leaders would be a shapeless case with great concern. as a musician, a dancer and a member of the marching band i appreciate the city's great asceticism.and to share the beauty of our music with everyone. when we play with your music transcends beyond entertainment the audience loves us to and they smile and the sparkles in their eyes all translate they are happy to have us there. when i see what art means to the audience i'm truly overwhelmed. we are vocalizing the story of people who haven't had the chance to tell their own under the communist chinese regime. however the projection in the cherry blossom parade makes me wonder where are the political and artistic freedom and tolerance and diversity and acceptance the cis