Skip to main content

tv   San Francisco Government Television  SFGTV  June 13, 2016 8:00am-10:01am PDT

8:00 am
officially nominated. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor yee speak >> supervisor yee: i have a question. in regards to the item-i don't know what page the number three committing to maintain this copy jurors or traditional features including craft and art forms, some photos might make sense in terms of physical features. but i am just curious at this point, it seems like hpc needs to look at the goal. appearances and see if it makes any sense. it's not about the physical aspect something like traditions and the type of food that might be serving, who's making those judgments? >> director:- >> supervisor yee: it says,
8:01 am
or, here. so it's not like you have some special feature in the building. >> director: i think, if we talk about what say bars or restaurants that serve food, some elements-i can't specifically answer for the hpc in terms of one interior and est but we do encourage additional photos if there is a particularly: verye food that they can provide either menu or pictures of that and businesses have been-so i do a businesses that have submitted copies of their menus over a period of time to show, to demonstrate, their history and legacy and the conary foods they provide.
8:02 am
we do have businesses cementing pictures of important people from san francisco's history or stars or sports people who have evening and attended visited their business. so there's different ways in which businesses are showing those different: gary craft we have-a visual history not everything old nero, but visual history over it period of time of their mural is one particular example. so, does that answer your question? >> supervisor yee: yes. i guess i'm a little concerned not knowing the legislation as well as i should, but this can be some things i think maybe hpc has no expertise and an
8:03 am
unjust wondering if it is something like food, whether it's the addition of the menu or certain taste of the food, i mean, i grew up and it's been there forever in supervisor peskin's district eating friday's sandwiches and how deep-rooted that the sandwiches , the same salami that type of thing. that's what i'm asking. who makes the judgment whether or not this business would be a legacy business or not we. >> director: to clarify the hpc is providing that they do not make an affirmation whether it's deemed a legacy biscuit that's a small business commission's responsibility. so, my understanding is within proposition j within the referral to the store preservation commission is the
8:04 am
historical preservation commission, i think, they are taking a look at beyond the building structure cultural legacy, cultural components of the city and so they have an understanding of some of our restaurants with different types of businesses about how they relate to those cultural identities and while i can't really speak to the specifics of their request for interior and next are your photos, that they will have to do what their input is to provide the mayor historical lens of san francisco some additional commentary and additional commentary that goes into the file of the registry
8:05 am
to marketand implement those businesses. speak >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> director: so, any other additional questions? >> supervisor peskin: i feel a sense of urgency because three of the businesses that we have nominated having been dealt with timely might still exist. fargo market. gypsy rosalie. -these are businesses that are hanging on and so i don't want to keep repeating the story about the last five months, but we had given them leave earlier as intended by the proposition is adopted by the voters, they might still be here. i'm looking-i want you to finish your presentation but i'm looking at the timeline where
8:06 am
really want is when are they going to get relief? i mean, as at least as to the 11 that are deemed to be nominated and applications complete, when can they get the grant that the voters said they can get? >> director: let me get through the presentation and then i will address those questions at the end because that involves the next steps. as i noted earlier, the position the legacy business program manager has been posted yesterday that yesterday was the end of the posting deadline. we will immediately be moving forward to doing the interviews and getting the positions hired. i have scheduled a training and we sending out an invitation after hearing your legislative aides to go through--we go through the registry application process with them and let them know the next steps with the
8:07 am
program manager will be doing for them, just to clarify the confusion that has been out there. then, as todd mentioned, we established the generic legacy business e-mail address this is now something that multiple individuals have access to so we can keep on top of any questions from businesses , questions and submittals from businesses. i do think-i do want to take a moment to sort of talk about the registry process because the registry process is actually the first process before, that a business needs to go through, before the ability to apply for the grant program. within the application process, and why it may take time between your nomination
8:08 am
and a business submitting an application is that the business needs to write their historical narrative as it relates to the three key categories of what you established in the ordinance. also, the other thing is, any application cover sheet, they are required to-excuse me-they are required to attest their current with all their san francisco taxes, business registrations, licenses and labor laws. so there could be a delay in the business if they're not current needing to take time to bring those things up to-to make them current. then, they also do need to sign , their sign all information
8:09 am
they are providing this for public information. the next slide is just so that you can see the exact language that is in the application cover sheet, that they are checking off and attesting to. so, before getting into the next steps, i do want to make a note that while the intention was to have submittals of applications last friday, he used oracle preservation commission has asked for a delay in this and because their ability to be able to hear their first set of applications is now july 20 because they are not having their early july meeting. so, with the next step,
8:10 am
>> supervisor peskin: what about a late june meeting? >> director: i can reach out to him and asked if he can confer with his commissioners to have that hearing. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> director: next up, marion thompson in the office of economic and workforce of almost continue to work with me in the case management of newly nominated businesses until we have the legacy business program manager on board. i will continue to work with those that submitted their application to make sure we get them moving forward, which is the 11 remaining applications. 6-20, this is working backward the 7-20 date of the hpc hearing. they will transfer the completed applications to the historical preservation commission. on 6-30 because
8:11 am
were doing some revisions based upon this oracle preservation commission's request, making the modifications to the application we will have the translated application instructions and cover sheet on our website no later than june 30. >> supervisor peskin: it seems to me maybe we need to have mr. fry in here because i mean, this is not been before the historical preservation commission and this is all happening at a staff level without any input to my knowledge from the duly appointed commissioners. so, i really feel like this is not very-may you maybe mr. buehler -mr. buehler could you, peer? this is not public comment. this is a question of someone following this might what is the commission directed his staff to do relative to the hpc
8:12 am
on proposition j? >> staff: the commissioners had this on their agenda twice now to discuss the criteria for the review of nominations and applications with their submitted. i think what regina was referring to is that the guidance to team and staff are what information should be included was provided by the h pc during one of those hearings. one, there's also been discussion about whether or not the hpc, whether not the application should be on the agenda every time her on the consent calendar. the hpc has great interest in this program and its access and they've insisted on having public hearings for all of the applications submitted rather than just as a consent item. that's what unaware. so far. >> supervisor peskin: and to the commission directed staff to include photographs? do you remember that? >> staff: i was not there with
8:13 am
that was discussed that although during the discussion this morning to review the application. a range of voters are required already in the current application. however, there is not photos required of interior and exterior photos in the current application. i was not present if that was discussed and hpc. >> supervisor peskin: do you know when the second of these 2 hearings took pl. at the hpc? >> staff: there was a hearing just 3-4 weeks ago where the hpc resolve to draft a letter, which i think my attention with this committee. that was the most recent time it was discussed. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> director: if i may, to follow-up, subsequent from that meeting i did receive an e-mail from the staff clarifying some of those points and which is where we had the discussion of
8:14 am
the internal and external photographs. then, by 730 will complete the survey to it assess additional legacy business is for program development. by 7-30 will have a webpage up so we can have a start listing our research legacy businesses, and then by august 1, we will have the preservation grant applications available for businesses to be able to apply. so, we will be, as director todd with oh had noted that the last meeting, that we will be working with your staff to develop those grant application guidelines >> supervisor peskin: in other words there's a whole other process. so first, this nomination application, hpc hearing, and then once you run
8:15 am
that gauntlet, you can apply? the director correct >> supervisor peskin: supervisor >> supervisor campos: i appreciate all the work. if i can just speak for myself, i don't feel like the timeline is aggressive enough. i don't know why it takes until july 30 12 a webpage. i mean, it's not brain surgery. i sort of feel like the response based on the presentation from the small business commission doesn't really reflect the sense of urgency that i think all of us have tried to convey and i sort of feel like there's a way that we can live up to the letter and spirit of the law, whether
8:16 am
it's compliance with the registry requirements, but at the same time, expedite this thing could you know, i just don't get that sense of urgency to be honest with you. today is what, june 2. how many weeks does it take to put up a webpage? i don't know. i hope that more happens and that more happens more quickly than what i'm seeing. >> supervisor peskin: >> director: thank you. i've heard that supervisor campos. then, so that is it for this the historical preservation-legacy business process. i did want to do one other note that you have
8:17 am
brought up to proviso campos good excuse me supervisor peskin at the last meeting regarding the small business commission and the minutes and so it had been on her plan with bringing on the commission policy person and secretary to complete those minutes and we are working with the transcription company. the commission will approve the timeline of getting those minutes up, completed and up, on the website, but we do have it noted on the commissions landing page and onto public notice page that all meetings can be viewed via sf.tvsfgtv so anybody can view or hear the meetings, passed meeting minutes through the live stream through sfgov tv.
8:18 am
>> supervisor peskin: i was in a recent issue. i was just looking on the internet at the last meeting relative to looking for the application and other things and literally in the meeting i discovered that. first of all, one comment, which is while i appreciate the fact that people can go and look at a tape, the purpose of minutes is entirely different. it is a tool that gives members of the public knowledge in a succinct fashion about the actions of a public body, in this case the small business commission, and viewing three hours of tape is not an adequate substitute for that. the question is, what i discovered because it was
8:19 am
stated by mr. truffaut there've been a vacancy of the commission secretary for a period abatements that hiring was slow and difficult and what have you, all of which i believe to be true, but that does not explain away the fact that minutes been done sporadically if at all for 2.5 years, which is a period of time is a lot longer than eight months. so, how is it-i mean, look, try to pick on you but when i see a program like this that not been implemented at all up until mr. truffaut i'm here two weeks ago, which we are delighted is finally moving forward that a supervisor campos be a lot of catching up to do and i marry that with the fact that one of the most basic functions of a public body and its staff is to post the minutes, i started to worry that things are not working at the office of small business. i'm not trying to personally
8:20 am
-it's not personal. it's a problem. when i look at the history of e-mails on this legacy business registration and see that my staff who i have been writing because i've got constituents who having a tough time and very expensive city, hanging on these are truly legacy businesses that have been there as we are from creative design for three generations and they're having a tough time, in a book and i asked myself what's going on and they can produce for me e-mails for the last five months , not one of which even got the courtesy of her sons to say, we are swamped. we can deal with. get us some more staff. give us supplement the prohibition which supervisor campos assured through the board a couple months ago, it is been radio silence in your shop. i'm just really want this program to succeed, but everything that i'm looking at this and giving a lot of confidence.
8:21 am
>> director: i understand and i hear that. i'm equally frustrated because with the commission position it's been with the last set of vacancy was eight months we've had two periods of vacancy and so well on that on a get into the challenges symbols of service hiring and some of the process, but it is equally frustrating for me to deal with the challenge of having to have extended vacancies in my office. so, i am hopeful that this is done and over with the new hire, feeling the commission position, and we can just move forward now. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor campos. does that include your presentation? san diego that concludes my presentation. >> supervisor peskin: i went up
8:22 am
e supervisor campos comments that leader is not greater. when we open this up to public comment. welcome, good afternoon. >> testifier: i'm bob planter could i've got no dog, no stake in this. i'm here just out of questions concerns about process in first, would you folks have passed said he indicated about lack of minutes , well what you're not seeing is the clear how long violation of the sunshine ordinance. lacking a secretary is not an excuse for not providing minutes. some commissions have their own internal secretary and sometimes other staff should have done it but when
8:23 am
the no secretary sasso e, that's not adequate. that's not professional. beyond that in listening to this hearing today, it just seems like there's nobody that designated as the task master to bring everybody together in a quick timely efficient response of way. small business seems to be the most responsive and maybe a lead agency, but they are not cracking the whip figuratively, nobody is doing that and that's why this is just dragged on, dragged on because there's no one person that you supervisors that the mayor, the comedic can go to and say what is going on. it scattered too much. at the lake am i think harms the integrity of the program, the image. it impairs the credibility of the ballot measure we citizens past that this thing is just dithering on good i'm glad you have this hearing can i ask you to keep pushing for. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. mr. buhler because the fire >> testifier: good afternoon commissioners mike buhler san francisco heritage. i just want to report that we are helping things grow with her
8:24 am
application thanks to supervisor peskin's nomination. i want to report says that hearing to easier we've heard from maryann thompson, and i spoke with her by phone and e-mail and she was helpful in telling us what is required so that's an encouraging time from our perspective. i did want to address some of the questions raised by supervisor yee earlier regarding who decides,, which intentional aspects of a business heritage should be protected and the application form is quite detailed and actually, asks applicants to self identify those aspects of the business with its menu items were traditions or whatever it might be, that they are committing to maintain going forward. but i should also note, the hpc for the last two years has had a cultural kurdish asset subcommittee which is specifically focused on intangible aspects of the
8:25 am
city's heritage and that's why they're so engaged in this process are so interested. further note regarding the hpc process, as i mentioned it at least two hearings on this and the planning department has classroom presented the format for the draft staff report that they will receive when applications are submitted to them for processing so i do firmly believe hpc is geared up and ready to per stop process things expeditiously. so that's also encouraging. but thank you again for your attention to this matter and we look forward to helping in any way possible. >> supervisor peskin: thank you mr. buhler for your advocacy on the issue for continued to dog it. are there any other members of the public would like to testify on item number four? seeing none, public comment is closed >>[gavel] b peskin colleagues, when we continue this item 1 month and we will hopefully have lots of good news and i want to thank mr. rufo and ms. dick-and as he and ms. thompson for slowly actually quickly turning the ship around after a
8:26 am
long period of the late. thank you so will continue this item for one month and mr. clerk, if you could please read the last item >> clerk: item number five is doing on below market rate housing policies and procedures utilized throughout the city is even requesting the mayor's office of housing a community devoted to report. >> supervisor peskin: colleagues, supervisor kim as we continue this item to the next meeting. any members of the public would like to testify on item number five? seeing none,, public comment is closed >>[gavel] >> supervisor peskin: without objection, we will continue this item for two weeks to our next regular scheduled meeting. that includes business before the government audit and oversight committee. we are adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >>
8:27 am
>> the office of controllers whistle blower program is how city employees and recipient sound the alarm an fraud address wait in city government charitable complaints results in investigation that improves the efficiency of city government that. >> you can below the what if anything, by assess though the club program website arrest call 4147 or 311 and stating you wishing to file and complaint point controller's office
8:28 am
the charitable program also accepts complaints by e-mail or 0 folk you can file a complaint or provide contact information seen by whistle blower investigates some examples of issues to be recorded to the whistle blower program face of misuse of city government money equipment supplies or materials exposure activities by city clez deficiencies the quality and delivery of city government services waste and inefficient government practices when you submit a complaint to the charitable online complaint form you'll receive a unique tracking number that inturgz to detector or determine in investigators need additional information by law the city
8:29 am
employee that provide information to the whistle blower program are protected and an employer may not retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf ethics.org and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www.
8:30 am
>> [gavel] >> good afternoon and welcome to a special meeting of the government audit and oversight committee of the board of supervisors i am chair and i
8:31 am
am joined by supervisor yee to my left. >>thank you mme. clerk could you please read the 1st and only item.[reading item] >>i want to thank mr. yoder and mr. antweiowe had a
8:32 am
meeting last month on the role of the legislative branches together and directing your role in sacramento and there was a bunch of process improvements leading up to that hearing and i'm very pleased that you are here in person thank you for making the trip on short notice from sacramento in the middle of a very active legislative session in our state capital--and i want to thank mrs nicole wheaton-elliott. and her staff for the work that with a have done and were now getting minutes from the legislation committee that we have been in endeavoring here at the board regarding
8:33 am
pieces of state legislation to get them in your hand in our clerk has been giving them to use so that's been a resolution on our part and i want to give an opportunity for the public is watching as well as my colleagues to get to know you're in person it was a pleasure to get to meet know you over a bowl of soup i confess i am sick and have a fever so thank you for humoring me and i just want to start by giving the 3 of you josh, paul, and karen an opportunity to introduce yourselves to the committee and tell us a little bit about what you do and then we've got a few questions relative to pending pieces of legislation. so can i start with you josh. >>thank you supervisor peskin and supervisor yee. my name
8:34 am
is joshua schall and i want to thank you for scheduling this on a friday. we know your hearings are usually on a thursday and they are tough they for us. mondays through thursdays last night we had a meeting that went until 10 pm it would've been tough to get here on the normally scheduled time. we have 4 other registered lobbyists that could be involved in the city of san francisco we have a pretty big and robust team who have been working for the city and county since i think the fall of 2012 so we're going into our 4th year representing you and we have been nothing but proud and pleased to work
8:35 am
with the local electives in the city and county on behalf of your government and more importantly, those who live here and visit the city and county of san francisco. it is a point of specific pride for our firm to be working for this great municipality in california. if you would like the others can introduce themselves individually. >>sure mr. yoder. >>thank you thank you supervisor peskin , supervisor yee i am happy to be lobbying for this great city and county. we are on the job for you every single day in the california state capital. not just with your three-member legislative delegation but with every member of the california
8:36 am
legislature. every key player in the brown administration and throughout the bureaucracy in sacramento. again, it's an honor to be here today and we look forward to answering any questions for you today. >>mrs. lang. >>good afternoon mr. chair and supervisor yee. my name is karen lange i have been working with the firm over 10 years and i'm very pleased to be representing the city and county of san francisco and it's a point of professional pride to work for you. >>thank you on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. miss wheaton- elliott anything that you would like to go to add? okay no. thank you.so a lot in the state revolves around the affordable housing and the board has takena few specific pieces of legislation and we passed a a resolution that we forwarded to you and i'd like to ask where it that bill is
8:37 am
at an as well pending before the board on 24 may i introduced a similar resolution which we will hear this coming tuesday with regard to the governors by right proposal which we obviously are quite concerned with since san francisco leads the state relative to affordable housing production we do not want to be penalized with a one-size-fits-all solution so we would like to talk a little bit more about that in public if we made but to start with i'd like to bring some backgrounds what you guys did relative to advocating the board. let me take a step back and this is
8:38 am
the policy body of san francisco once we take a policy that becomes the policy body of the entire city and county including the entire branch and with that in we did take a position on this resolutionand i'd like to know where we stand on that. >>as of receipt of your board we expect apple to be heardjune 24 and i would characterize it as making the rounds as far as the key members of the legislature and the brown administration making sure that they understand that that resolution was adopted by
8:39 am
resolution in this board and that they understand what that encompasses. >>are we have any success with gov. beal with the performance-based language? >>i don't want to quantify right now. but am comfortable with saying that the chairman of the committee is very aware and the staff that work for them in that committee are very aware of the board's position and i think obviously that we have one state sen. and i think they are in part very aware of the board's position and the credit belongs to sen. len oh in that respect as well. and so i think that is moving along. i would add that last night in the conference committee you did ask for the governor's proposal as well when that
8:40 am
proposal came up before the conference committee which sen. leno does cochair and he did take an issue procedurally with the measure being proposed so late in the budgets cycle but also to the language being proposed to the brown administration. he did suggest that jurisdiction such as san francisco that are working so hard to assure affordability if that's taken into account if the measurement is going to have legs as we say in sacramento. >>does your firm have contacts with the governor's staff in regard to this matter? >>we do. not only with the governor's staff but part of the brown administration on this issue which would be the ledgeslegislation which is
8:41 am
held by ben metcalfe. >>are there any legislations going on right now? >>will be important to note now is that we are picking up through a variety of sources which the governor and staff have made a claim through their legislative leadership that they do expect a buy write proposal to be in the mix of part of the state legislation in response to the
8:42 am
senate legislation in the no place like home initiative and on the democratic side a proposal to augment state housing programs by hundreds of millions of dollars in their way or of birth of those proposals and their open to those proposals and their indicating to legislative leaderships that they are only open to those proposals of some form of by right how about this? how about if we phrase it as housing reform or policy reform because we certainly don't want to mischaracterize the governor's position. but i think it is safe to say that they would like to see policy changes to housing law in california along with potentially the money that the senate is proposing and the legislation proposing. >>is the governor aware of the
8:43 am
legislation that is pending that we will take up on tuesday? >>to the pending resolution i would honestly answer no. it would certainly be our plan when in it that is approved the make sure that the right folks are aware of its approval. >>mr. elliott, is there any other contacts with either the legislative branch of our government in sacramento or the executive branch that is not going through our city lobbyists? are there any direct negotiations coming from mayor, staff, or executive branch through the legislature or the government?
8:44 am
>> supervisor yee. >>thanks for coming down on friday and hopefully you won't rush back. hopefully you will spend some time in the city and spend some money so we can increase our tax base, right? it's good to have an opportunity to actually meet you because when i was on the school board we had our lobbyists and . come pretty regularly and meet with the board. and we actually got a lot of information from the sessions. one of the resolutions that we passed in the past that we support just recently and hopefully you got a copy of that too, it was related to the budget in terms of the women's caucus wanting 8 million for early education
8:45 am
and childcare and its recommended to the assembly and the assembly is recommending 600 billion and 90 million from the senate and 0 from the governor. can you tell me what process you would take to advocate for a position? >>1st again, i would want to state that when we get the resolution, carcass being very good at making sure- i just don't want to leave her out of this starting with heard delegation everyone is in receipt of this resolution. in terms of how to advocate for that this really is a very astounding year in the sense
8:46 am
that you have 3 members of the legislator representing you in 2 members sitting on the dais cochairing the conference committee. i think 1st and foremost for your board to take a position in for it to be known by the 2 members of legislature who is cochairing as they would have it at the budget conference committee this year is probably the best path to success on that and we can assure you that weand that they are aware of that on that issue.
8:47 am
>> as it rates to the trailing legislation that is moving so quickly the city of san francisco that has not taken a position nor have many of the leading housing advocacy groups in san francisco that and you can't say it paul but i can say it that this deal to basically trade money for a statewide by right policy proposal that is not been a position of this board. we obviously would like to see more affordable housing throughout the state but as of san francisco the by right concept is hypothetical to the kinds of tools that we've used for affordable housing in fact they use processes allowed us and we say this all the time
8:48 am
in these chambers to extend affordable housing for beyond our affordable solutions. i think this edible solution could be the solution to affordable housing to the extent this could be indicated to the government and to the state staff and in front of the conference committee which would be extremely helpful. i would like a what you guys are doing with regard to the california quality act with its local use of a negotiating tool which allowed local legislators to bump up what is required in the state and
8:49 am
locally? >>i think on that aspect of the housing discussion that is underway in sacramento right now i want to make sure that the board members and the public are aware that statewide labor organizations are joined with statewide environmental organizations not once but twice to jointly correspond with the members of legislature and with the brown administration and there have been a very, very, nimble. there was an a in original version of the governments proposal and they reacted to that and there was a 2nd governor's proposal and they reacted to that and they are really calling out not just i will say in a myriad of ways how their current proposal will impact ceqa. and i don't think that we indicated that
8:50 am
in either of the letters the 1st or the 2nd and we would like to indicate that in any way that we can. >>i know there are members that would like to testify and we can incorporate any other questions into these proceeding. so come on up. >>good afternoon supervisor peskin were sorry you're feeling under the weather today. we would hope that the city of sacramento's lobbyists are supporting the governments efforts on our behalf. the plain truth is that are housing affordability and displacement crisis are getting worse years and years because we lack the tools to make a difference. as gov. brown and the legislative
8:51 am
analyst office correctly noted we do not have the resources to get our way out of this predicament were in. and less we have dramatic ways to improve housing production it doesn't seem likely that low income and increasingly middle income families can be lowered much less stopped. asking our state representative to oppose the governor's proposals would in this cause other legislations throughout the state to oppose the request. what exempting ourselves from the imperative to build more housing be more likely or less likely that the governor will give us the subsidies that we all want
8:52 am
for affordable housing. the governor's proposal moves us to [inaudible] we believe will guarantee a continuation of this crisis. thank you for your consideration. >>thank you. next speaker please. >>my name is brian hamlin i'm a housing advocate. i cofounded a nonprofit housing affordable works throughout the state. i think you for bei here as well. i do hope that as supervisor peskin mentioned that you inform sacramento the unique position that san francisco faces. with a very convoluted entitlement process that renders our nd use policies dead letter and subject everything to negotiation which makes it more difficult to build affordable housing.
8:53 am
and 100% affordable housing can be called up for years in legislation before it's able to be built. i want to discuss the unique position of san francisco's political coalitions. they are opposing ab 2501. the california legal assistance foundation and others there is a strange split between state-level and corporate housing advocates and more politically engaged housing advocates in the city. i do hope you convey to sacramento that what happens and what is happening in san
8:54 am
francisco is a large measure and does not represent the voice of all those who care about making san francisco a more affordable and inclusive place. i would also like to address this idea that the governor's proposal is a one-size-fits-all policy. that is nonsense. the governor propose all suggest that each of the cities follow their own housing requirements and subsidies. whatever local requirements exist that have confirmed that and i think this is all a red herring and if we want to make san francisco a more affordable, inclusive city we should support the governor's agenda ab 2501 and other housing bills. >>thank you next speaker please. >>hi my name is sonja trouts i represent the renters
8:55 am
foundation and we think this is the type of bill that will ease the shortage. a week ago on tuesday 15 of us took off work to the san sacramento housing committee some calls to the senator len office yesterday 800 san franciscans
8:56 am
sent postcards to leno. we will have at the polls on the 7th because tang and leno are going to look and say are there boots on the ground there? this is a one-size-fits-all housing on does is direct you to follow your own rules. this is something that is radical for californian totally normal for the rest of the united states. almost every other city has as a rights development because it's redundant for the planning department to make a plan and have the development
8:57 am
have to come back to the planning department asked for permission for something that is already put there. >>thank you next speaker please. good afternoon members of the board and guess locally my name is mr. cohen we are a coalition of local san francisco affordable housing organizations that build affordable housing manage properties and provide advocacy. for the most part the position if you will comes from our coalition and the governor and assembly member bloom and the governor endor blooms bill but they put some serious policy on the board this year and it is
8:58 am
some radical stuff and it is one-size-fits-all and is moving too quickly and it hasn't been designed well enough. there's 482 cities and 52 counties and it is a huge state and there's no one set of policies that play out the same in any city. if you lobby on behalf of the city which is only one of 482 we acid that be made clear. i think it's interesting to hear the supervisors that are here to say that the board of supervisors is the policy body for the city for both executive and legislative and that you folks are representing the policy body. it's nice to hear the opinion
8:59 am
of other folks here are but they are not lobbying you. they can lobby the board of supervisors or anything else but if you were advocating the position of the policy body of the city and county of san francisco and as such you are in an animus resolution on 2501 to seek an amendment to exempt san francisco based on their standards and that the reasonable thing to do. there is a bill with some very serious amendments potentially for san francisco. the rest of us civilians can argue this all they want regardless of it goes to the board are not. this is a completely chaotic place and what hearing it goes to a what time of day it is and what gets called up.
9:00 am
it's not like what we have here today members of the board. so, we can jump in the car and drive all the way to sacramento but we need you guys to be supporting that. the message on the ground in the city is key. thank you. [timer dings] >> vis-à-vis the statewide organizations can you regale us with that information? >> well whether or not in public chambers, the difference between state level organizations and where people work in between as i can to be so smooth. on the governor's trailer bill nor the amendments have been incorporated on the revised bill that came out
9:01 am
last saturday. they came to a very politically pragmatic position that at least they would be able to negotiate some improvements to the bill but having a really robust conversation about what the global implications are on the ground whether it be san francisco or oakland or los angeles or a lot of jurisdictions in long beach and elsewhere over the last week we've been talking to a lot of folks and those local to state conversations did not shape that position. whether the amendments that they asked for are good ones are not is one question but the idea of a trade off or money or implications there's going to have to be a lot more before we sign on to it and we certainly have not. >>can you articulate what the county organizations would
9:02 am
like to see relative to the amendments of the by right? >>well supervisor, think in our circumstances and i think other people in the room would agree can speak to that for san francisco. maybe there is a righteousness a were a purpose for having a pretension policy from san francisco. i think a buy right preemption is a bad policy as you said we produce more affordable housing than anyone besides la we havedo
9:03 am
not sit around and wait for this legislation. it means there is a by right approval from what you have been required to do. there should be an additional premium above local inclusionary to realize there is a real value for developers in exchange for something whatever that assumption is and secondly, as of the amendment that came in last friday that's taken right out of the bonus law for the most part. we have in many
9:04 am
jurisdictions and taken from the folks in santa monica today have local demolition controls and the point being if you're allowing the by right approval of a project that simply replaces units and preempts local demolition control and policy discussion that is a big game changer and then the 3rd thing is that we really think that this is aboutbuilding housing and that is the presumption from the governor's speech and we want to build more housing now not take so much time so a buy right approval does not build units. a buy rate approval get you paper. so, we are setting up a faster way to entitle more development and we are not assuring that it's going to get constructed. even if i would suspend my analytical disc belief in market rehousing filtering we would go from re-title meant to construction as soon as possible and we would have the maximum period of time from
9:05 am
when title meant to construction and we want to see units built not entitlement. i would not claim it is a treat offer by right but it would certainly make a better policy. thank you mr. cohen. we very much appreciate that since you may have figured out that the board of supervisors has for many, many, years look to the council of community housing organizations what has been around for decades and it really has been at the forefront of affordable housing policy at san francisco so that is why ask those questions for you all to see where a lot of the housing thinking in san francisco emanates from. >>we would just note that both sides agree on one thing and that is that they don't like sacramento.
9:06 am
>>that is why you make the big bucks.sorry. >>that is okay. we did not talk about assembly bill 2522 as opposed to 2521 that we took a young anonymous position to push for some amendments and that is my understanding that assembly bill 2522 did not move out a committee that bill is dead. >>yes. >>thank you for your work. >>so feel free to call us. we will be in touch with you. i will continue this hearing to the call the chair so we can check in publicly with mrs. elliott from time to time and we very much appreciate you coming down on a friday and wish you godspeed in your work over the next 2 weeks. >>thank you. we hope you feel better soon mr. chairman have a great weekend. >>thank you.
9:07 am
>> >>that will conclude this hearing we are adjourned things again. >>[gavel] .
9:08 am
>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been
9:09 am
on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape
9:10 am
the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisc >>[gavel] >> president breed: good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of june 7 3016. today is election day and the polls will be open until 8 pm. in your neighborhoods as well as 8 pm at city hall. mdm. clerk, please call the roll >> clerk: thank you. >> supervisor avalos:, here. >> president breed:, here. >> supervisor campos:, here.
9:11 am
>>[adjournment], here. >> supervisor farrell:, here. >> supervisor kim: pier, here. >> supervisor mar:, here. >> supervisor peskin:, here. >> clerk: >> supervisor tang:, present. >> supervisor wiener:, present. >> supervisor yee:, present. >> clerk: you have a quorum all members are present >> president breed: please join us in the pledge of allegiance. >>[pleage of allegiance] >> president breed: all right. mdm. clerk any communications >> clerk: none to report mdm. pres. >> president breed: any changes to the april 26 or may third 2016 board meeting minutes? seeing none,, is a motion to approve those minutes?
9:12 am
moved and seconded. colleagues, can we take that without objection? without objection those meeting minutes will pass after public comments. >>[gavel] >> president breed: please lead lead the consent agenda >> clerk: items 1-8 are considered routine. the member objects by the may be removed separately >> president breed: seeing no names on the roster mdm. clerk please call the roll. >> clerk: on item 1-8 >> supervisor yee: aye >> supervisor avalos: aye >> president breed: aye >> supervisor campos: aye >> supervisor cohen: aye >> supervisor farrell: aye >> supervisor kim: aye >> supervisor mar: aye >> supervisor peskin: aye >> supervisor tang: aye >> supervisor wiener: aye >> clerk: there are 11 aye >> president breed: those items are passed on the first reading adopted finally passed
9:13 am
an approved. unanimously >>[gavel] >> president breed: item 9, please >> clerk: item 9 is a ordinance torment the ministry of code to prohibit the use of city funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law, except for individuals who been convicted of a violent or serious felony and held to answer for that violent or serious felony. >> president breed: supervisor avalos >> supervisor avalos: i just want to again thank everyone work together to come to this agreement. we have that unity as a city as to what our century city policies will be. so, i want to thank most of all [inaudible] for working with us till the very last minute last time. and i want to thank her for her flexibility in helping to move this unity. i also want to thank, of course, free sf the coalition that worked on this legislation with my office and with the sheriffs office. in particular, the agent log copies, sarah-and counselor-.
9:14 am
similar organizations to also mention but i think it would be best to mention-and of course, jeremy pollock in my office to work on this. so, colleagues this is our second meeting and i want to thank you for coming together unanimously to support this united policy we have here in san francisco. >> president breed: thank you. colleagues, can we take this item same house, same call can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. the what finally passed unanimously >>[gavel] >> president breed: item number 10 please >> clerk: items in a ordinance to appropriate $207 million of revenue bond proceeds to the municipal transportation agency for transportation projects and women in this we are 2016-2017 >> president breed: same house, same call can we take
9:15 am
that without objection? without objection the motion passes. the ordinance is passed unanimously on the first reading >>[gavel] >> president breed: item number 11 >> clerk: item 11 a ordinance to appropriate approximately $60 to the municipal transportation agency consisting of 3 million two total gem contribution and commendation with several other sources. to support planning, design and outreach for the transportation capital for the project in connection with the proposed old and state warriors event center and the mixed-use development in mission bay. the great supervisor avalos >> supervisor avalos: thank you. i was the only person who voted against the special fund for the warriors arena facilities and i do have to vote against this again. this is actually what comes down to the subsidy for the warriors arena i believe that the warriors should be paying more for the uses of funds to manage transportation and traffic impacts around the arena. so, this is to me a symbol of how places that don't have a lot of development, that don't have a
9:16 am
lot of economic activity, lose out in how we make decisions about where we allocate funds for facilities and transportation projects as well as housing. so, i will be voting against it. i expect that i could be on the short end of the stick, but id to stand up for what i think is a wrong way that we do our budgeting across the city where places in the city that are seen robust development tend to absorb a lot of general fund dollars that could be available for other places that are not seeing back on development. speed that you supervisor avalos. see no other names on the rochester mdm. clerk please call the roll. >> clerk: item 11, >> supervisor yee: aye >> supervisor avalos: nay >> president breed: aye >> supervisor campos: aye >> supervisor cohen: aye >> supervisor farrell: aye >> supervisor kim: aye
9:17 am
>> supervisor mar: aye >> supervisor peskin: aye >> supervisor tang: aye >> supervisor wiener: aye >> clerk: there are 10 aye and one nay. the ordinance passed on the first reading >>[gavel] >> clerk: item 12 and ordinance to appropriate approximately $7.69 in surplus revenue designated for the general reserve from the library and to reappropriate as debt service payment in fiscal year 2015-16 >> president breed: seeing no names on the roster mdm. clerk please call the roll >> clerk: on item 12, >> supervisor yee: aye >> supervisor avalos: >> supervisor yee: >> president breed: aye >> supervisor campos: aye >> supervisor cohen: aye >> supervisor farrell: aye >> supervisor kim: aye >> supervisor mar: aye >> supervisor peskin: aye >> supervisor tang: aye
9:18 am
>> supervisor wiener: aye >> clerk: there are 11 aye >> president breed: the one that passes unanimously on the first reading >>[gavel] >> president breed: item 13-19 mdm. clerk please call them altogether >> clerk: item 13-19, utilize revenues and multiple reboots two different years so bear with this little reading these items are very dense. item 13 is 81 looks to appropriate a total of 272 million a proceeds from revenue bonds state of california water resources control board involving loan funds or grant funds will revenues and water capacity fees without san francisco public utilities commission or s.f. puc water enterprise capital improvement program for fiscal year 2016-17 at $150 million for fiscal year 2017-18 at $122 million and to reappropriate proximally $84 million for water capital improvement project appropriation $57
9:19 am
million in fiscal year 2016-17 and 27 $2 million-27 nine dollars and physical your 2017-8 injured in placing two and 21 male dollars of revenue bonds and single funds or grant funds proceeds and $5.3 million water capacity proceeds by project on controllers reserved item 14, and ordinance to appropriate a global proximally $1.2 billion a proceeds from revenue bonds state of california water resource control boards revolving loan funds were grant funds wastewater revenue and capacity fees for the s.f. puc's wastewater enterprise capital improvement program for 2016-17 and 39 $13 million for 2017-18 at $902 million. to reappropriate seven the dollars
9:20 am
and approximately $10.8 million in wastewater revenue bond projects in this we are 2016-17. pleasing $1.1 billion in revenue bond was a loan or grant funds and $14.6 million and capacity fees by project on controllers reserved. item 15, ordinance to appropriate a total of $150 in hetch hetchy revenue. capt. trade revenue and power water revenue bond for the as a pc hetch hetchy capital improvement program to reappropriate 11 point 3 million in power revenue bond fund project in fiscal year 2016-17 and 2p-appropriate 424.2 million and cz loan and revenue fund projects in placing $32.5 million of our bonds and $44.39 of water bonds and $4.2 million of cap and trade revenue on controllers reserved. item 16, and ordinance to authorize the issuance of sales tax exempt or taxable wastewater revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness by the s.f. puc. in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1.1 billion to finance the cost of various capital wastewater projects benefiting the
9:21 am
wastewater enterprise pursuant >> item 1706 two authorize the issuance of the sale of tax exempt or taxable water revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $265 million to finance costs of various capital water projects benefiting the water enterprise. item 18, ordinance to authorize the issuance and sale tax exempt or taxable power revenue bonds and forms of indebtedness by the sf puc in the aggregate principal amount amount not to exceed approximately $32.5 million to finance the cost of various capital projects benefiting the power enterprise and authorizing to issue refunding power revenue bonds declaring the official intent of the commission to reimburse itself with one or more issues of tax exempt or taxable bonds and ratifying treaties actions taken and item 19 as a resolution to approve and
9:22 am
authorize the conveyance of one prominent easement to the city of modesto for $35,000 to be paid by dwg mchenry and llc to allow the widening of a portion of mchenry avenue and other improvements for property owned by the city under the jurisdiction of the san francisco public utilities commission. >> president breed: thank you. on those items, colleagues, and we take them same house, same call? can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. those ordinance passed unanimously on the first reading and the resolution is adopted. >>[gavel] >> president breed: mdm. clerk please call item 21-26 >> clerk: mdm. pres., item 20 is a standalone item. should i call the one by itself >> president breed: oh, yes thank you >> clerk: item 20 resolution to authorize the sale issuance and execution of one or more series of san francisco municipal transportation revenue bonds in amount not to exceed 207 nine dollars >> clerk: colleagues, same
9:23 am
house, same call can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. the resolution was adopted unanimously. >>[gavel]. now please call item 21-26 >> clerk: item 21, a resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of grand to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future embodied indebtedness in amount not to exceed $50 million for 455 s. st. item 22, a resolution to authorize the execution and performance of an option to ground lease in connection with a parcel located at 455 s. st. at no cost to item 13 is a resolution to declare the intent of the city to reimburse certain extent years from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness in amount not to exceed $140 million for 2060 and 2070 fulsome st. item 24 resolution two authorize the execution of forms an option to ground lease a parcel located at 2070 fulsome st. for no cost. item 25 is a resolution in amount not to exceed $249 for 1601 and 1677 mariposa st. 35-497
9:24 am
carolina st., 395 and 420 wisconsin st. and 210 arkansas street. burn aggregate principal amount not to exceed $240 million and 26, a resolution in amount not to exceed two and $22 million for 909 and 921 howard st. 206-2 25th st. and 414 and thomas st. resolution declaring the intent of the city to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded this indebtedness >> president breed: thank you. supervisor campos >> supervisor campos: just a clarification for the record, i think the clerk said that item --item 13 is that item 23? i just want make a clarification. >> president breed: thank you. are we clear mdm. clerk speak
9:25 am
with >> clerk: yes >> president breed: with that colleagues, can we take these items same house, same call queen? without objection the resolutions are adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> president breed: mdm. clerk please call and 27 >> clerk: item 27 a rental resolution to approve a cooperative agreement between the city and state of california department of transportation concerning the design and construction of the 19th ave. combine city project including pedestrian safety transit improvements in utility upgrades along 19th ave. between you the paris hour boulevard and lincoln way >> president breed: same house, same call can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. >>[gavel] read item 28 >> clerk: i didn't item 20 admission code to require the installation and use of telematics vehicle tracking system in all motor vehicles owned or leased by the city and other than the close use for law enforcement and submission of an annual report by the city administrator on vehicle use
9:26 am
based on data derived from those systems and to affirm the planning departments ceqa determination >> president breed: supervisor yee >> supervisor yee: thank you. the legislation before you for you to consider today is about increasing public safety and accountability of public dollars. in 2014, san francisco adopted these vision zero policy, where we have committed to work toward the goal of the zero traffic deaths by 2024. we have a long ways to go. every year about 30 people lose their lives and over 200 are seriously injured by traveling on our streets. these deaths and injuries are unacceptable and preventable. vision zero is about city officials, city employees, and community members working together and committing to create safer streets. what is been brought forth for your consideration today is to extend telematics into the majority of our cities
9:27 am
leads of more than 3000 vehicles. in the last five years, we have spent nearly $77 million in litigation and settlement directly related to our cities fleet of vehicles. as elected officials, we are charged with an expected to be accountable for a public dollars. this is why last year i directed the budget legislative analyst to produce a report and old a hearing on this report and i was cosponsored by many of you. the benefits shown on this report in terms of safety improvements, savings and environmental benefits are clear. undeniably beneficial and proven. telematics has been used as a correct trained to improve driving habits, decrease inappropriate or
9:28 am
unauthorized use, and has shown to have environmental benefits in reducing emissions in many locations in the united states. telematics sometimes are first added a black boxes. it is a technology that has gps along with capacities to collect information and data such as speed, hard braking or acceleration, mechanical diagnosis, could this technology is currently in early 9% of our city's fleet of vehicles. it has already proven to have increase safety by reducing the number of collisions. for example, mta conducted a pilot similar to not technology in one year reduce collisions by 50%. i want to thank the advocates who have the support of this legislation, including lot sf but by coalition the and vision zero coalition. i would also like to thank my staff, erika
9:29 am
mae born, we saw this legislation through. now, what i'd like to mention here is that we are not including law enforcement officers at this point because there was some details to be worked out and i didn't want to start this process anymore for the rest of the fleets, but rest assured, i will be working with the-our city administrator google come up with airport in the next few months so we can move forward to include the law enforcement officers in this particular item. to follow legislation should it's critical we work towards our vision zero goals by changing our culture to smart and proven policies and to our language and how we speak about our goals. so, this is the reason i am making a
9:30 am
motion for two minor amendment. you have a copy of that and that will be better aligned. these basically are minor language amendments, better align with our vision zero goals. so, on page 1 line 24, to reduce all traffic fatalities, and on page 2, line 13, the word accident, which may not be avoidable, is changed to collisions. so when i talk about accidents could talk about collisions, which we can work to address and reduce. so, colleagues, i hope you will all the joining me to support this. >> president breed: supervisor trini has made a motion. second? second by supervisor peskin. can we take that amendment without objection? without objection the amendment passes unanimously >>[gavel] >> president breed: supervisor kim became i would have my name
9:31 am
as co-sponsor and think norman yee for his office and his work. to put this into implementation get when we attended the vision zero conference in new york, over a year and half ago, this vehicle traffic and system was viewed as were the key and critical components to ensuring vision zero by city owned and city driven vehicles of which about many here in san francisco. so i'm glad to see that we are moving this forward and i want to thank supervisor yee for his work. >> president breed: thank you. colleagues, can we take this item same house, same call as amended? without objection, this ordinance passes unanimously as amended on the first reading >>[gavel] >> president breed: item 29, please >> clerk: item 29, corridor look amend the medicine go to our appraisals and appraisals with you for sincerity city jurisdiction transfers acquisitions conveyances on lease of real property required appraisals conform to the uniform standard professional
9:32 am
appraisal practices and be prepared by qualified appraisers and to increase the rent limits the director properties existing authority to enter into leases for the city. >> president breed: colleagues can we take this item same house, same call-supervisor peskin >> supervisor peskin: first of all, i would like to thank my staff we have heard, as well as the head of our department of real estate, john update, for working on this matter for the last several months. the legislation before you is really an update to chapter 23 of the administrative code that will standardize how the city acquires and conveys real property as well as how we deal with leases. this is modeled in many ways after state and federal law, and will ensure that the city gets at least 100% of the appraiser market value when it sells or leases land. it also provides for
9:33 am
third-party appraisal review of appraisers of certain threshold about you could i also think our enterprise departments further engagement on this legislation. as we all know the enterprise components which include the mta, the airport, and public utilities commission have some discretion to conduct a real property transactions on their own outside of the purview of our department of real estate. this legislation provides standard procedures for leases that enterprise the parties enter into without interfering with the core functions of these enterprise departments under the city charter. to that end, i have some brief amendment based on our conversations with court staff which you can find on page 8 of the subject legislation did i previously distributed copies to all of you specifically at page 8,
9:34 am
line 7-10, we would like to amend to add the following language quote, unless the executive director of the port determines the real property under cold that the rental rate for the proposal lease meets or exceeds port commissions annually adopted parameter rental rate for such real property, at line 14, on the same page, remove the language, executive director of the port determines applying the market rent requirement would conflict with the port commissions annually adopted parameter rental rate for the proposed leases. that was dealt with in the previous amendment. finally, on line 12 of the same page, add a the language, the board of supervisors on high-resolution lesser a proper public purpose or three, and skip two line 16, commission or agency determines with director of property concurrence that an independent appropriately qualified real estate economic
9:35 am
expert is better suited than appraiser to perform the rental analysis. if there's any questions, the representatives of the ports one hand with regard to those amendment. if not i like to move those amendment and adopt the legislation as amended on its first reading >> president breed: just for clarity supervisor peskin, you don't have those amendment for distribution? >> supervisor peskin: yes they didn't previously distributed to your offices and i've asked her copies. >> president breed: okay. supervisor peskin has made a motion to amend? second by supervisor peskin. colleagues, can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. the amendment passes >>[gavel] >> president breed: i just had a point of clarification, question, supervisor peskin. i apologize but i did not get a chance to talk to you about this before. but we in my district have a situation with a property that's under the former successor agency the
9:36 am
redevelopment, which is appraised property but there's a high expectation of significant community benefits. that will be attached to this property. we are required under state law to dispose of the assets. yet, there is going to be a challenge to hold any property or future property owner accountable to providing a significant level of community benefits without attaching that somehow to a price negotiation and i want to understand how this legislation could impact a project of that nature. >> supervisor peskin: so, first of all, we have counsel here but i do not believe that our chapter 23 provisions apply to ocii, the successor agency and the indeed invoke an appraisal statute under state law as you previously referenced. but relative to an appraisal process, the value of
9:37 am
the property is what a knowledgeable buyer would pay a knowledgeable seller based on comparable sales of similar property. if those community benefits were to be deducted from that value you'd have to-derby and appraisal problem and somebody would have to assess the value of those community benefits which presumably would be a deduction from the praise for market value. >> president breed: okay. so if that happens, in the case of the successor agency which definitely has its own process, that happens for example in the case of the city is closing of any assets in the same capacity we are talking about making sure there's clear-there is a clear match to the appraised value though that the city ultimately doesn't lose any money? >> supervisor peskin: corrected ultimately it's a function of how the city through its department of real estate instructs an appraiser. for instance, in the case of what actually started this whole ball rolling 30 van nuys, if the city is demanding that the property include 20% of for
9:38 am
the housing on-site, that is what a appraiser would have to about you wait in conducting that fair market value appraisal. >> president breed: grades. that clarifies it. thank you so much. colleagues, seeing no names on the roster, for item number 29, as amended, can we take this item same house, same call? without objection to the ordinance passes unanimously on the first reading as amended >>[gavel] >> president breed: item 30, please speak up item 30 resolution to a seat and approved and/or ports for the central market committee benefit district for calendar year 2014. >> president breed: colleagues, can we take this item same house, same call? can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. >>[gavel] >> president breed: item 31 >> clerk: item 30 1a ward asked to amend the planning code to offer greater fax ability in the screening and enclosure of rooftop mechanical equipment modifying the block
9:39 am
alley controls and their collectibility to the south of market neighborhood commercial transit district fulsome street neighborhood commercial transit district, and the regional commercial district and see-three district to affirm the planning department's ceqa determination and make people but findings >> president breed: same house, same call? can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. >>[gavel] >> president breed: item 32 >> clerk: item 32 a resolution to clear the intention of the board of supervisors to order the vacation of a portion of jesse street and a portion of alum aly northwestern of mission and for street in connection with the ocean white center project at 51st st. subject to certain conditions and set a hearing date for all persons interested in the proposed vacation of said street areas. the breed supervisor >> supervisor cohen: thank you good i do for item number 32. this a technical amendment. colleagues at the request of our clerk i want proposed amendment to this particular items are we for both the resolution and the companion
9:40 am
ordinance of the may 23 land-use committee. at that hearing, we do not amend the resolution to include the date for the committee as a whole hearing for the proposed street vacation. i like to move we amend this item to include this that the date, which is july 19 . the clerk has circulated copies to you >> president breed: okay. supervisor >> supervisor cohen: has made a motion to amend. is there a second? second. can we take the amendment can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. >>[gavel] >> president breed: supervisor peskin >> supervisor peskin: colleagues, i just rise to let everybody know why i am dissenting in this vote and that is because i think it is terrible planning policy to abandon our streets and alleys.
9:41 am
i think we probably all learned that in the 1950s when jane jacobs wrote about the life and death of great american cities and so i will be dissenting on item 32. >> president breed: thanks. mdm. clerk please call the roll >> clerk: supervisor trainee >> supervisor yee: aye >> supervisor avalos: aye >> president breed: aye >> supervisor campos: aye >> supervisor cohen: aye >> supervisor farrell: aye >> supervisor kim: aye >> supervisor mar: aye >> supervisor peskin: nay >> supervisor tang: aye >> supervisor wiener: aye >> president breed: the resolution is adopted >>[gavel] >> president breed: please call adam 33 and 36 together >> clerk: item 33 is a motion to confirm the controllers appointment of james boyce to the local homeless correlating board term ending the 21st 20 good i'm 34 appointing joseph
9:42 am
mcglade to the assessment appeals board number three term ending september 4, 2017. item 35 is a motion to reappoint howard bloomberg and howard strasser to the pedestrian safety advisory committee terms ending march 28, 2018 and i'm 36 is a motion to appoint marilyn discovery to the mental health board term ending generally 31st 2019 >> president breed: mdm. clerk, on those items please call the roll. >> clerk: item 33-36 supervisor >> supervisor yee: aye >> supervisor avalos: aye >> president breed: aye >> supervisor campos: aye >> supervisor cohen: aye >> supervisor farrell: aye >> supervisor kim: aye >> supervisor mar: aye >> supervisor peskin: aye >> supervisor tang: aye >> supervisor wiener: aye >> clerk: there are 11 skype >> president breed: of those items approved unanimously >>[gavel] >> clerk: item 37 motion to
9:43 am
appoint zero and brent-to the public park station committee advisory committee terms ending separate 24th 2017 >> president breed: proviso avalos >> supervisor avalos: can this citizen advisory committee is in my district and since the rules committee and the today we've talked about to the mta about actually working towards reauthorizing this citizens advisory committee to enhance and increase the scope and mission of the advisory committee as well's jurisdiction. so, i will be going to the last-the next advisory committee meeting at the end of june and be discussing with them reauthorizing the actual committee and coming forward at the end of july with a new authorization that would change the configuration and structure of this committee. so, today i'll be requesting that we table this item and come back
9:44 am
with a new version of it that will cover other issues that include bus rapid transit as well as jurisdictional issues between city college and the balboa park station area. >> president breed: supervisor avalos has made a motion to table. moved and seconded. colleagues can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. the motion to table passes unanimously >>[gavel] >> president breed: we are now at our 2:30 pm on additions. today, we have one accommodation from supervisor from district 1, supervisor eric mar >> supervisor mar: thank you. i am honored today and i think supervisor campos for joining me as well, well been the chairperson of the-tribe rosemary-who is here good i want to first also say she is a credible scholar and a great
9:45 am
granddaughter of--who is baptized at mission san jose in 1864. i won't go into her whole record of service to not only the-people but many other types, bows eight chairperson,, thank you for keeping the history of legacy and ongoing struggles of the people alive here in the san francisco bay area region the behalf of the people of the city and county of san francisco, we honor the--tribe diverse peoples of this land this commendation from the board of supervisors. i want to also say that the tribal administrator ms. norma sanchez is also here with us in the chambers thank you to her for joining us today could i respect him is also acknowledge and thank two of chairperson -liaisons in san francisco who represented her really incredibly in san francisco. the late dr. estella jackson who we honored in a previous board meeting, but she can we continue to celebrate and treasure her work on behalf of
9:46 am
the-a few hunters point communities and all san francisco, but also we are grateful for mr. and cisco the cost this continuation of the legacy and struggle of the people here at san francisco that. so, what is in behalf of our city and county i call upon chairperson rosemary camera to address the people san francisco but before she speaks like to allow san francisco's to say a few words. >> testifier: supervisors, today is a historical moment. where to supervisors, david campos and arrow mar both have chosen to honor the first people of san francisco, the--. so i call upon our rosemary [sp?] to speak to the
9:47 am
supervisors and also address our mayor why suppose is missing to this deliberation. >> testifier:[foreign language] rosemary-.[foreign-language]i
9:48 am
am here today to show my respect to each and every one of you. i also request of you respect and peace. my first grandfather,--, was born at the presidio. and, he instructed his children, or our previous
9:49 am
relations, that we should love and work with one another, especially his children, his grandchildren, not to allow others to suppress us. for some reason, he knew that with time, people were going to change and our fight for freedom, or even for one to survive on our holy lands, would be a struggle, but not only for our people, but for each and every one of you here because you have to make the decision to acknowledge us. you would have to make the decision to respect our people for being and having assets in
9:50 am
this area, and also having birth rights to all aspects of economic assets good and have the opportunity to work with you as a partner. so, with that i want to thank each one of you, please, create a partnership where we can complement one another. so we can allow one another to make individual religious opinion, or express, their belief as well as allow our tribe to exercise their rights to economic development on their holy lands. so, with that, i would like to end by saying i am here to help the homeless. i am here to help those in need.
9:51 am
we all need somehow. but some more than others. but i am here. and i believe in taking care of our communities. i made that promise, spiritual promise, to my sister, aspinall of jackson, who held my hand and said don't give up and i said, okay, baby just hold her hand could give us strength. as you said you have mine. but when i pass don't forget my work. don't forget my name. to this day, i carry babies name and good work for the people thank you. and very much appreciate it. >>[applause]
9:52 am
>>
9:53 am
>> president breed: thank you for your service and again, congratulations. with that, colleagues, we will return to our regular agenda and move two committee reports. >> clerk: item 42 considered by the government audit and oversight committee at regular meeting on thursday, june 2 and was forwarded to the board as a committee reports and recommended as amended with the same title. it's an ordinance too many ministry of code to revise the residential unit conversion ordinance to acquire hosting platforms to verify the residential unit is on the city registry prior to the listing to acquire hosting platforms to respond to notices and requests for information, to provide for civil administrative and criminal penalties against hosting platforms for violations of the residential units conversion ordinance and to affirm the planning department determination. >> president breed: supervisor weiner you have a amendment supervisor supervisor
9:54 am
>> supervisor farrell: i like to ask to be recused >>[reading code] supervisor farrell like to be excused. is there a motion? moved and seconded. colleagues, get this can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. you are excused supervisor farrell >>[gavel] >> president breed: supervisor weiner i'm sorry. supervisor campos >> supervisor campos: thank you good ideas only appropriate given mr. nature that today i'm wearing i lay as i'm talking about this piece of legislation, which has been long come on time coming. i want to thank my cosponsor supervisor peskin. i want to thank a very broad coalition that includes a very diverse group of people who normally are not on the same side of this type of an issue. but, how
9:55 am
we got here is after a long fight, including a pretty, i think, difficult fight at the ballot, but we decided to do and think about how to address the problems that clearly remain on this issue is to present as we have presented a pretty modest and a pretty simple proposal that essentially, try to preserve san francisco's housing. this legislation in a very simple way, mandates and that what web platforms that engage in short-term rentals reports, not hinder, the enforcement of our short-term rental object again, as a repeatedly have said, it's not about changing the current law. it is simply about enforcing that law. that is what supervisor peskin and i have put forward. also want to thank supervisor mar supervisor avalos for the cosponsorship.
9:56 am
this proposal mandates that hosting platforms like airbnb their firehose has registered with the city before advertising their short-term rental on its website. if a hosting platform fails to do so , the platform itself will be penalized for up to $1000 a day . while the current law has set rules for hosts stipulating that all closeness register with the city, more than 75% of airbnb 7000, plus in san francisco have in fact not registered. in fact come up we have only received 1800 applications to open since the launch of the program and that's essentially 26% of the 7000 airbnb hosts we know. short-term rentals that have been issued are 1300 24 or 18.9% of the 7000 host with
9:57 am
airbnb to last year's budget analysis report found that airbnb alone has taken up to 2000 entire units of housing, 2000, completely off the market. this is why we need to bring the hosting platforms into compliance. the one thing from our perspective that has been missing in the existing airbnb short-term rental law is corporate accountability. the weakness of the law is that corporate accountability is essentially nonexistent. it's not surprising, given that corporations that ultimately controls a large part of the market is the one that actually broke the law as we know it. i have met with many home shares,
9:58 am
and let me say, once again, as we have repeatedly said supervisor peskin and i throughout this process we support capital host, mom and pop hosts, will not be impacted in any way because of this law. we are simply focusing the law and enforcement on the corporations. i want to address a couple of misconceptions about the legislation. some have claimed that the legislation would force platforms to police short-term rentals. that could not be further from the truth. if your rental car agency and you have to make sure the person that you rent that vehicle to actually has a license before you run them a car. that's exactly what we are asking the short-term rental platforms to do here. second, on a huge support of internet freedom and we were carefully not only with the city attorney, but also with online advocacy groups to make sure that this legislation passes legal muster. again, i want to thank the broad range of people who have formed this
9:59 am
coalition. again, microsoft or supervisor peskin and his chief of staff sunny and glue, the tenants union, local two, juju, tenants together, san francisco apartment association, senior disability action, share better, housing rights committee, and many many more. also want to thank the city attorney especially rob koppel [sp?] for the phenomenal work they've done and i especially want to highlight the incredible work over the years on this issue from carol guzman in my office and i don't know if carol is in the room, but we would not be able to be here today without carolyn. with that, before i turn it over to colleagues and your other comments, i do have a final point to make and is by way of a question. if i made through the chair, i would like to ask a question if i may to the city
10:00 am
attorney. mr. deputy is sen. john another people gibner a number people have been raising concerns about the committee's indecency at. can you explain how we have addressed that issue and how you feel about the legality of what were putting before this body today? >> city attorney: deputy city attorney john gibner. first of all, as we do any time members of the public right litigation to challenge any ordinance proposal for the board, we've advise you confidentially regarding legal issues, but generally, following your direction, we drafted this ordinance in order to avoid the medication decency act issue that is been raised publicly that you mentioned. essentially, the ordinance does not regulate the cot

508 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on