tv [untitled] September 20, 2013 5:00pm-5:31pm PDT
>> so it would be november. >> is 60 days reasonable or 45? >> 45. let's compromise on 45. i think that should be enough. >> [inaudible] >> you can't speak. not right now. >> commissioners there are two meetings in november, the 13th and the 20. >> how about october 30. >> that has a lot of items on the calendar. >> i see that. okay. november 13. is that good? >> okay. >> so the motion is to continue to november 13 to have dbi verify what sound insulation measures have been used according to the plans and to allow both parties the opportunity to provide the board with third party analysis of
decibel levels and mitigation options. >> just a minor change from that madam director. the building department will provide the detail for the two hour assembly, not sound. okay. >> is that okay with you? >> yes. >> okay. >> are we talking about the approved plans commissioner fung? >> the revised plans. >> okay. >> so that ceiling detail from the plans is what you're asking for? >> yes. >> saying it more precisely than i did. >> okay. >> we have a motion from commissioner hurtado to continue this matter to november 13 of the public hearing has been held. and this continuance is to allow the permit holder to
submit the approved plans to the board and to allow either party to conduct testing. >> and i would add both parties are allowed additional briefing and helpful to me and hopefully to my fellow commissioners. >> one thursday prior. >> one thursday prior. >> simultaneous. >> how many pages? >> how many do you wish? >> not more than 10. >> and that would be exhibits. >> yeah. >> so additional briefing is allowed. one thursday prior is the due date for all parties. it is 10 pages of written arguments and exhibits and including acute cal results. on that motion to continue to november 13. commissioner fung. >> aye.
>> president hwang. >> aye. >> vice president is absent. commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0. this matter is continued to november 13. thank you. >> okay. thank you. so next i will call item 5a, b, c, d. those are four appeals dealing with the property at 1050 valencia street and filed by the marsh and alicia gamez and for m. rutherford trust/shizuo holdings of a demolition permit and demolish one-story restaurant building with 2,000 square feet of ground floor area. two of these appeals are protesting the issuance for m. rutherford trust/shizuo holdings of a permit to erect a
five-story, 12-unit apartment/retail/parking building with 3000 square feet on ground floor area. commissioners i understand that the -- one of the appellants -- ms. gamez's attorney steven williams would like to request rescheduling of this matter. there was a ceqa appeal filed friday. i have received notice that appeal was deemed timely. >> okay. >> and i don't know if the other parties are in agreement or object to that request so if you would like you can hear the parties speak to that first. >> yeah. i think that would be appropriate, so given what we just heard from our chairperson i would like to hear on the issue solely on whether or not the continuance is acceptable or not. >> thank you. steven williams on behalf of the appellant. ceqa appeal was filed on
thursday and i'm glad that ms. goldstein received it because we didn't receive it on a timely matter and it states it will do that and traditionally the board has continued the items to the call of the chair once the ceqa appeal is filed and the basic reason is no one knows what is going to happen to the project. conceivably the project could be changed radically and this might all be a large waste of time, and i would add those are the only written procedures that we have is the city attorney's memo from that date. there are no other written procedures that govern this situation. >> thank you. >> okay. we can hear for
ms. wiesman or her representative. >> so you want to hear if i agree to putting this off? >> yes. >> i agree. >> okay. we have the permit holder, or the permit holder's agent. >> we would like to go forward. >> would you state your name. >> rutherford sponsor. >> do you understand the implications of going forward? >> yes, i do. >> okay. could you help me -- what are they? >> implications that we might be back down here again if the ceqa will go the wrong way. >> it will be muted. not back down here. a mute point. >> thank you. >> and mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. the department would not oppose the
rescheduling and differ to the board on this matter. i would like to take this opportunity to note it came to my attention this week we didn't submit the dr action memo and the planning department case report that were prepared last we're for the hearing so with the board would agree i would like to submit these for the record and also to the parties. again these are materials that were prepared by the commission back in september, 2012. >> we will accept those. >> thank you. >> so commissioners if you entertain a motion to continue this then we need to take public comment on that. >> i would move to continue. >> well, we need the public -- >> you're going to explain a motion so it sounds like you're going to so we can take public comment. let me see a show of hands how many wish to speak on the matter of whether this is
rescheduled? okay. so there is no public comment? there is no public comment then commissioners. >> okay. i would renew my motion to continue. >> i think there is good cause and it would be most efficient to allow that appeal to go forward before our hearing. >> okay. do you want to pick a date certain or do you want to continue it to the call of the chair? >> i think we should do it to the call of the chair. >> okay. and i assume with the instruction it's recalendarred if there is a decision by the board of supervisors that doesn't over turn decision. >> yes. >> commissioner fung was that the kentucky fried chicken location? >> yes. >> okay. so we have a motion. mr. pacheco if you could please call the roll. >> we have a motion by
commissioner hurtado to continue all appeals 5a, b, c, d and to the board's indefinite calendar and allow the ceqa appeal to go forward on the board of supervisors and awaiting on that outcome. on that motion to continue to the call of the chair. commissioner fung. >> aye. >> president hwang. >> aye. >> vice president absent. commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0. all matters are forwarded to the call of the chair for the ceqa review. >> thank you. we have no further business? >> no further business. >> the meeting is adjournedand
our you tube page. >> hello san francisco, here with the buzz worthy events and activists including a big one that is gearing up in golden gate park, this is the weekly buzz, on tuesday, september 17th, come and make the works of art with your friends and they will provide the pants and brushes and all you need is to bring your creativity and enjoy the live art by the local artist and obtain a piece of your own by
good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, september the 17th, 2013. madam clerk could you please call the roll? >> thank you, mr. president. supervisor avalos? avalos present. supervisor breed? breed present. supervisor campos? campos present. supervisor chiu? chiu present. supervisor cohen? cohen present. supervisor farrell? farrell present. supervisor kim? kim absent. supervisor mar? mar absent. supervisor tang? tang present. supervisor wiener? wiener present. supervisor yee? yee present. mr. president -- supervisor mar? mar present. mr. president, you have a quorum. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us for the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under god, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all. >> madam clerk, do we have any communications? >> i have no communications, mr. president. >> could we go to our new business, item 1? >> item 1 is an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to remove provisions that refer to the former transfer tax review board that expired by operation of law on january 1, 2013. >> roll call, please. >> on item 1, supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim absent. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed?
breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 10 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed on the first read. [gavel] >> if i could ask for some order here? i know we have a lot of folks, we do have a lot of business today. thank you. item 2. >> item 2 is an ordinance providing revenue and levying property taxes at a combined rate of $1.1880 on each $100 valuation of taxable property for the city and county of san francisco, san francisco unified school district, san francisco community college district, bay area rapid transit district, and bay area air quality management district, and establishing a pass-through rate of $0.0880 per $100 of assessed value for residential tenants pursuant to administrative code, chapter 37, for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2014. >> colleagues, can we do this same house same call? without objection this ordinance is passed on the first read. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 3 is a resolution approving the boarding area e newsstand lease, a small business enterprise, set-aside, between skyline concessions, inc., and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission for a seven-year term with a minimum annual guarantee of $192,000. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 4, resolution retroactively authorizing the renewal lease for approximately 14,825 square feet of space at 3801-3rd street, suite 400, san
francisco, with bay view plaza, llc, as landlord, for use by the department of public health at the monthly cost of $38,545 for the period of july 1, 2013, through june 30, 2018. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 5 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $225,000 from blue shield of california foundation to participate in a program entitled county enrollment assistance 2013 grant for the period of april 1, 2013, through march 31, 2014; and waiving indirect costs. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 6 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $140,827 from national institutes of health to participate in a program entitled, "a probability-based survey of hiv risk among transmen, using novel sampling method" for the period of april 1, 2013, through march 31, 2014. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 7. >> item 7, resolution retroactively amending the membership of the 18 county
calwin consortium and authorizing the director of the human services agency to expand the expenditure authority from $42,530,138 for an additional amount of $10,489,771 the project budget including this extension is totaling to $53,019,909 from july 1, 2013, through august 1, 2015. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 8. >> item 8 is a resolution retroactively approving the contract between the city and the in-home supportive services consortium of san francisco for the provision of ihss for the period of july 1, 2013, to june 30, 2017, in an amount not to exceed $87,321,540. >> colleagues, same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 9. >> item 9, resolution approving port commission lease no. l-15255 with with east street ventures, llc, for restaurant space located at 295 terry francois boulevard in the central waterfront with a 180-month term with one 60-month term extension option for initial monthly rent of the greater amount of either seven percent of all gross revenue or $10,011.81. >> colleagues, the house has changed. we can take a roll call vote on item 9. >> supervisor cohen? >> supervisor cohen, item 9. >> item 9. cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye.
supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 11. i'm sorry, i think we were on item 10 according to -- >> yes. >> item 10 is a resolution authorizing the general manager of the recreation and park department to execute a five-year lease, with one two-year option to extend, with the golden gate park golf foundation, for the management and operation of the clubhouse and golfing operations at golden gate park golf course, with an annual base rent of $225,000. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, president chiu. i just wanted to say that this came up before the budget committee with supervisor farrell, avalos and i, and i'm very strongly supportive of first tee as an organization nonprofit that really helps
young people take up a new sport, golfing, and the 9-hole course at golden gate park is a great fit. dr. tony anderson formerly from our school district is now really doing a lot of work, reaching out to young people in the southeast sector of the city and throughout the city, and i'm hoping that this is a good fit for this golf course in district 1. so, i urge support. >> colleagues, same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 11 is a resolution approving the airport commission's negotiation and execution of an other transaction agreement with the transportation security administration for the terminal 1 checked baggage inspection system modernization program for a five-year term in an amount not to exceed $59,429,406 and approving the acceptance and expenditure of federal funds. >> colleagues, can we do this same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 13. >> mr. president, you wanted know skip over item 12? >> item 12, i'm sorry. >> item 12 is an ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by maria
d'agostino against the city and county of san francisco for $135,000; the lawsuit was filed on june 15, 2012, in the san francisco superior court, case no. cgc-12-521615; entitled maria d'agostino, et al., vs. city and county of san francisco, et al. >> colleagues, same house same call? this ordinance is passed on the first read. [gavel] >> item 13. >> item 13 is an ordinance amending transportation code, division i, to prohibit, on any street, alley, or portion of a street or alley, or in any municipal or private parking facility, the parking of a vehicle displaying a disabled parking placard or special license plate, in order to obtain special parking privileges, that has been reported as lost, stolen, surrendered, canceled, revoked, expired, or issued to a person who has been reported as deceased for a period exceeding sixty days; is not being used to transport, and is not in the reasonable proximity of, the person to whom the license plate or placard was issued or a person who is authorized to be transported in the vehicle displaying that placard or license plate; or is counterfeit, forged, altered, or mutilated. ~ privileges. >> thank you. president chiu? >> thank you. thank you, colleagues. this is a simple amendment to the transportation code to start in part to deal with some of the issues around disabled parking placard allegations that they were not being used properly. this is an ordinance that would ensure that if there. been parking plaquecards that had been reported as lost, stolen, surrendered or otherwise expired or issued to individuals who are no longer with us, that those are disabled parking placards that cannot be used by anyone else and we want to just again make sure that the individuals to whom we assign disabled parking
placards are the ones who are in fact using them. >> thank you. colleagues, any comments? questions? can we take this same house same call? same house same call, this item passes on first reading. [gavel] >> madam clerk, if we can take items 14 and 15 together. >> item 14 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to provide standards for residential tenant financial hardship applications seeking relief from landlord passthrough of capital improvement costs to a tenant, and procedures for reviewing and deciding the applications; and to require the rent board to provide notice to tenants regarding financial hardship application procedures, when a landlord applies for certification of capital improvement costs. item 15 is an ordinance amending the building code to modify some of the evaluation and retrofit criteria for the mandatory earthquake retrofit program and add seismic members to the board of examiners; amending the housing code to require a report of residential building record to include information on whether a building is included in the program and whether the required upgrade has been completed; adopting environmental findings and findings of local conditions under the california health and safety code; and directing the clerk of the board to forward the legislation to specified state agencies. >> president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair. colleagues, this is legislation that i introduced along with mayor lee and i want to thank our co-sponsors supervisors kim, mar, and campos to help streamline the financial hardship application process for tenants at the rent board. as you may recall, earlier this year we passed legislation that
requires certain soft story building to be seismically retrofitted to protect residents and workers in the event of a future earthquake. item 15 that we have in front of us are some technical amendments to that legislation, but item 14 is really the heart of what we are moving forward as new city policy today to. to ensure that we have legislation that will help tenants who have financial hardships to get better access to exemptions that are permitted them under the receiptction board. according to the receiptctionv board, the current hardship exemption process takes about five months to complete. three months for a hearing to be scheduled ask two months for a decision to be made. under this legislation hopefully we'll be reducing that timing by many months. the legislation we have in front of us would streamline the process by directing the rent board to make an administrative decision rather than a hearing based on specific eligibility criteria. if a tenant can demonstrate that he or she receives mean tested public assistance or that their household earns less than 80% of the area median income and pays no more than a
third of their income toward rent, or if they face exceptional financial circumstances such as medical costs, the rent board would approve the hardship exemption administratively. the goal of this legislation is to ensure that the most vulnerable buildings that we have as we protect san franciscans against potential earthquakes that the protection of these vulnerable buildings come hand in hand with the protection of our most vulnerable tenants. with this legislation we will have a shared responsibility to keep our city resilient in the face of emergencies. i want to take a moment to thank the mayor's office of housing, the san francisco tenants union, the san francisco housing rights committee, just cause, and other tenant organizations for working with my office and in particular with my aide amy chan in helping craft these policy changes, as well as the represent board for lending their expertise as well as feedback from the san francisco apartment association. with that, it's my hope that we can pass this out of the board today and i thank you for your support.
>> thank you. supervisor mar. >> thank you. thank you so much to president chiu on the mayor's office and others for not only the groundbreaking earthquake safety efforts, but also this effort that will help us keep working families and renters in the city. i wanted to say that lower income tenants are facing a precedent, as you mentioned, monthly rent hikes between $38 and $83 to pay for seismic upgrades but they will now have easier time applying for financial hardship exemption. and increases like this are especially important and hard on people on fixed incomes and they can easily lead to the loss of housing and people moving out of the city. the existing hardship process is labor intensive, intrusive, and often too subjective. the current hardship process can take up to five months for a renter. this legislation is a long time coming and it helps tenants move or more easily obtain
financial hardship exemption. it also is good in that it establishes clear criteria for granting financial hardship exemptions and it requires the rent board to notify all tenants of the represent increase and their right to apply for a hardship exemption. so, there's really good notice requirements. all great ideas, and reasonable steps towards stemming the tide of displacement of working families and working people from our city. i'm very supportive. >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> thank you. very excite that had this piece of trailing legislation is coming to the board today. when the mandatory seismic retrofit program first came to the board, i think many of us were very excited and very supportive. bunn one of the concerns i brought up at land use committee and several colleagues on the board was the 100% pass through to our tenants. there are cases of course where tenants can afford to pay for this pass through, but we have a lot of concerns for our tenants who can't particularly in the housing market that both
supervisor mar and president chiu spoke of. and just wanted to speak again about the process itself. through this process i heard from tenants and advocates who have gone through the process of applying for the hardship application and just hearing about how invasive the process is and how long it can take. the intake process alone, when you first go into an office into the tenant's union can be up to 7 hours to gather all of the information, put the application together, and go to court where you can be cross-examined by your landlord and a lot of questions about your personal information is often told in public. so, really glad to see that we have, we have this moving forward. this is really going to streamline the process particularly for tenants that would have gotten the hardship application confirmed already and so happy to support this. and i do want to give special thanks to jeff buckley at the mayor's office who committed firmly both to tenant advocates
and my office that this would be following with our support of the program. >> thank you. president chiu. >> thank you. i wanted also just to echo supervisor kim in thanking jeff buckley from the mayor's office, [speaker not understood] wolf from the rent board and patrick otellini, director of work force who directed this legislation. i have a technical amendment. when a rent increase for major capital improvement pass through the type we're talking about, when it would be state, and we had made it clear in another part of the legislation that it would be stayed into the rent board made a decision on a financial hardship application. we didn't cleanly amend this throughout the legislation. so, a quick amendment on page 2 line 2. right now it says that the payment of such rent increase is set forth and the hardship application shall be stayed for a period of 60 days from the date of the filing and the stay shall be extended if the board accepts the application for hearing. it should read as follows. payment of such increases set
forth in the hardship application shall be stayed from the date of filing until a decision is made on the tenant financial hardship application. so, ask for that technical amendment. >> so, we have a motion by president chiu, second by supervisor mar. can we take the amendment without objection? without objection. [gavel] >> so, on the two items as amended, colleagues, can we take this same house same call? same house same call, these two ordinances pass on first reading. [gavel] >> madam clerk, if you can please call item 16. >> item 16 is an ordinance repealing the current fire code in its entirety and replacing that code with a new 2013 san francisco fire code consisting of the 2013 california fire code and portions of the 2012 international fire code, together with san francisco amendments, with an operative date of january 1, 2014; amending the the current fire code, section 511.2, to exempt any building that is covered by section 511.2 and is equipped with a fire service access elevator pursuant to california building code, section 3007, from the requirement to install an air replenishment system, with an operative date of 30 days after enactment; adopting findings of local conditions pursuant to california health and safety code, section 17958.7; directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to forward the legislation and associated materials to the california building standards commission and state fire marshal; and making environmental findings. >> president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair. colleagues, this is legislation to replace and repeal outdated provisions in our local fire code as recommended by the fire department and the fire
commission. want to thank supervisor farrell for his co-sponsorship. this is a legislative action we take every three years or so, and for the most part this ordinance is routine. there is one issue that i have worked on that has generated some discussion and i think supervisor wiener is going to talk about one other separate issue. but the issue that my office and others have been focused on is the fact that the ordinance in front of us removes a provision that had been in place since 2004 requiring buildings taller than 80 feet to install and maintain a firefighter air replenishment system. now such a system would only be required if the building doesn't have a reinforced specialized elevator for firefighters to ferry crews, evacuees and equipment such as air tanks. these elevators are now required by code for buildings over 120 feet. in addition to the elevator requirement since 2004, there have been advances in equipment such as high capacity bottles with air supply. since the fire chief, the fire marshal, the fire department
and the fire commission have said that they don't want to require the system and rank and file firefighters don't think that they increase their safety, it does not make sense that the systems are mandatory and that is the legislation that we have in front of us. and i want to thank our land use committee for their support of this legislation and ask you to do the same. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so, i want to thank the sponsors for bringing forward this update to the fire code. i do want to note one issue which we've had to work through relating to the fire code, pedestrian safety. colleagues, you'll recall that in june we unanimously passed an amendment to the fire code that i co-sponsored and that supervisor yee co-sponsored with me to make it -- to facilitate the creation of build outs and sidewalk extensions, to improve pedestrian safety and walkability in our
neighborhoods. when we proposed that amendment which would stipulate that in terms of determining the 20 foot minimum width of a public roadway, a build out would count towards that minimum width as long as it was not above a certain number of inches and as long as that had no obstructions on it so if necessary a fire truck could mount it and ride over it. and, so, it would make it much easier for us to be able to move forward with our pedestrian safety strategy and put these build outs in place. build outs are a critical part of our pedestrian safety strategy. they are specifically called out in the mayor's pedestrian safety plan. they are specifically called out in the better streets plan. and they are specifically called out in proposition b, the streets and infrastructure bonds which sets aside $50 million for pedestrian safety capi