surprising. i would have been more than happy to discuss this last week. today, i cannot support it. i would like this to go to the full board. this is just a resolution supporting the basic principles of the policy that went through close to a seven-year community process. there was a lot of room for many people to interface with the community members impacted by the planning we do. i have a lot of concerns about what sean has brought uppe, concerns about small builders and developers. i would like large builders to be included in this. that is stop what came out of the community process. i would love to work with small developers to develop a mechanism of predictability. i would not want anyone to put their money on the line for a small property development and have it thrown away because of something they are not able to predict four or five years from now.

i support as building community housing in the city. we talk about it. we talk about our general plan. we do not try to put in any mechanism or tools to ensure we are building for all of our residents. there was a very important point that we want the city and neighborhood to be accessible to all people. i take that to heart. we want this to be accessible to all people, despite incomes, to be close to the center of san francisco. i think this policy pushes that forward. chairperson mar: supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: thank you, mr. chair. i support the planning process that is under way in western soma. i simply would like to see a more robust conversation between task force members and

planning staff about the language. i believe the proposal that planning staff is putting forward is reasonable. i would support its inclusion. supervisor weiner: thank you. i do want to thank everyone who spent many years putting this and other plants together for the western soma area. i have deep concerns about some of the aspects of this plan, as have been very articulately stated by the planning department and by other speakers. i am not sold on the concept of metering. i do not think it has been tried anywhere in san francisco, or anywhere else, to my knowledge. i am just not convinced. i am concerned it could have unintended consequences. i am also very concerned about the job metering.

i understand the importance of a linkage between housing and jobs. but to define it in this area could create some distortions we do not intend. when this comes to the billboard, i think it is highly unlikely i will support -- to the full board, i think it is highly unlikely i will support the resolution. however, given the sponsor wants to forward it to the full board, i am going to respect that desire. i believe we should forward to the board without recommendation. chairperson mar: let me ask supervisor cohen if that is acceptable. i believe you were saying you would support a continuance. i would just like to say i do feel like some dialogue and discussion with supervisor kim's office and the planning staff is something that should happen.

there was a meeting mentioned. i would like to see some time for people to sit down and hammer this language out. i think a continuance is something i would support. is there a reason why you would want this to go forward without recommendation, supervisor? supervisor weiner: i think it is more i am deferring to the sponsor. supervisor kim: can i respond? we have been meeting with planning for the past month. if you are asking us to have another meeting, we will have another meeting. but we will be coming back to you with the same resolution. chairperson mar: i guess out of respect for the autonomy and self-determination of the task force, i also think that moving it forward without recommendation is wise. but with respect to the supervisor whose district this

impacts as well. is there a motion to move this forward? supervisor weiner? supervisor cohen: ask for a roll-call vote. >> on the motion to move forward without recommendation. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor weiner: aye. chairperson mar: aye. >> we have two ayes and one no. chairperson mar: thank you. let me know which meeting -- this would go forward in the next scheduled meeting, but not this coming tuesday. so that is at least after, i believe, the meeting with the community-based organization and the planning staff. thank you. could you please call the last item?

>> item 5, ordinance amending the planning code for parking in the south of market and mission bay district. chairperson mar: thank you. ms. rodgers, were you going to present on this? supervisor kim is the sponsor. >> i would defer to the supervisor unless you would like me to summarize the ordinance before you speak. supervisor kim: i would prefer your preference. >> this legislation was originally introduced by supervisor chris daly in 2010 and i agreed to sign on as a sponsor in january. we have been working closely with livable city and neighborhood associations to

develop iparking requirements. this is intended to have better consistency with adjacent districts and to require non- hotel parking in the mixed use district adjacent to downtown, to maintain a fee structure which discourages long-term parking. i would like to thank the planning staff and our city attorney for their work on this ordinance. judy had to do a lot of last- minute work. we have met with several key stakeholders in mission bay, which includes the mission bay community advisory committee, the port, and the giants. after meeting with the stakeholders, we understood there was already a planning process under way.

we have asked the planning department to remove any proposed modifications in this area until the process has been completed. so we have taken out certain blocks. given this change, i have an amendment to make to the title to remove mission bay district from the title of this legislation, also striking it wherever it is referred to in the legislation. second, we had concerns from small businesses. this came to us from the small business commission about the requirement to participate in a transportation management plan. there was a concern this might unintentionally burden small businesses. this version has already included language that limits the applicability to larger venues and limits applicability to neighborhoods -- to neighborhood-serving retail. the last amendment i would like to introduce today is a little

language change on the waiver of the off-street parking requirement for historic streets. we are just asking to insert this language back into the amendment of the hall and delete page 36, line 20. it was originally in section m. we moved it to section q. we are asking that come back -- that to come back. this was after talking it through with the city attorney. chairperson mar: thank you. ms. rodgers, did you have anything to add? >> as you heard, this ordinance is -- was before the planning commission and month and a half ago. they recommended approval of the modifications the supervisor has put in. we appreciate supervisor kim's

work on this proposal. in general, the legislation before you remove scar -- parking minimum requirements and establishes maximum limits. it also requires that non- residential and non-hotel parking in districts adjacent to downtown maintain a fee structure consistent with a c3 structure that discourages long- term parking. in addition to making the amendments, the city has been rushing to make all the amendments to conform this legislation before you with other legislation this body has recently approved. there are six ordinances that have been approved since this was originally adopted. the legislation before you has been rectified so it will not inadvertently deleted and the recent amendments.

-- any recent amendments. the commission recommends approval. thank you for your time. chairperson mar: is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? mr. rasoulovich? >> thank you for hearing this today and thank you for bringing this forward. "we were trying to do with this legislation -- what we were trying to do with this legislation -- there has been a lot of rezoning. that left a bunch of holes in soma. there are areas with and acquited zoning. this makes them consistent with one another and the adjacent districts. this plan will change some of these controls. it will mean that any interim

development is going to be more in keeping with the way we would like to go with the eastern neighborhood. the other thing it does is it removes a few catch-22s we put in the planning code. there are things we say we want people to do like preserve historic streets, or we want them to retrofit. this allows a process to create exceptions. if a project owner wants to save a tree or do a retrofit and change the parking, there is an administrative process they can go through. it will help advance the other goals of the city and remove conflicts which create for project sponsors when they try to do the right thing. they can remove the historic tree if they want. but this will smooth the way for them. it is part of creating a livable city, a livable and walkable

city. this will also make a lot of dwelling units in this neighborhood conforming. a lot of non-conformities put tenants at list -- at risk. if you lose your house and, often you cannot rebuild that. -- if you lose your housing, often you cannot rebuild it. we urge support today for the ordinance and thank you for your time. chairperson mar: thank you. mr. collins? >> tim colin, here to speak in support of what the amazing livable city is doing. we like for this is going. for the record, the housing action coalition for a long time has said we favor the elimination of parking minimums. do not require it. put in parking maximums.

we love housing, but wind up fighting about parking. the idea of making housing conforming and bringing rationality to the process, we support. we urge you to move this proposal along. thank you. chairperson mar: if there is no other person who would like to speak from the public, let's close public comment. our city attorney. >> city attorney's office. after reviewing the proposed changes for today, it is suggested that we combine the best of these provisions regarding significant landmark trees. i would suggest a slight amendment that combines them to give context to the zoning administrator's decision. what i would recommend is that you retain subsection m that appears on page 36, line 20.

add to it the following language, which was from the deleted section. you would have a new sentence that would say the zoning administrator's decision shall be governed by section 307 sub i am sure require either the recommendation of the department of -- sub i, and require either the recommendation of the department for conformity to the plan. it combines those sections together. we will prepare this. supervisor kim: i am supportive of those amendments. chairperson mar: thank you. supervisor weiner: i would like to move the amendments that supervisor kim submitted earlier, including the amendment reticulated by the city attorney's office. chairperson mar: without

objection. supervisor weiner: i would like to move the item with a positive recommendation. chairperson mar: without objection. is there any other business before us? thank you, everyone. meeting adjourned. [pledge of allegiance]

>> hello. we will be taking the roll call. [roll call] also we have a forum and officer of complaints joint hicks. >> thank you very much, lieutenant. and welcome to the san francisco police commissioner for you lieutenant dangerfield. this is your first night filling in for lieutenant falvey, who's actually on vacation. we will see if we can get you through this in one piece tonight fufment could please call lynam number one, approval of the minutes. >> approval. minutes for the following meeting april 27, 2011, may 14, and may 18, 2011.

>> thank you, atlanta. commissioners, do you have the minutes in your packet for review? if so, are there any corrections or changes you would like to make to these minutes? commissioner chan: it's very minor. just a second. there's one line here that's commissioner slaughter and commissioner slaughter said the sum is not broken. i think he meant -- >> can i just made a comment there's videotape and they are maintained and video and audio, there is an actual record of that. so i appreciate going through it and having commission are chan do a better job than me to find errors but it does seem like a

bunch of work given the record that we've permanently created in other places. >> i agree with you. it's a lot of work. and lieutenant falvey, we appreciate their hard work but you're right. thank you. >> i don't know if this needs to be ajen diesed or comes at a different part of the meeting or at a different meeting all together but i guess i would suggest that we discuss whether we need written minutes given the audio and video that are maintained. >> i agree. we will put that on the agenda for the next meeting. >> thank you. april 20, 2011, last page, top of the page, commissioner slaughter stated that the demrinsarry process as it stands now is not flawed and it's not fair to anybody t stands that the commission should have open,

honest discussion -- you probably meant -- >> you are correct it should state the commissioner said the process as it stands now is flawed. remove the original not. >> great. any other corrections to the minutes? >> that's it. >> i just wanted to mention one thing, which is you are required to have minutes, not in a level of detail that you have them. as a matter of fact, you don't have to have that level of detail but required to have certain things in the minutes. >> can we put on the agenda and figure out what needs to be in the minutes and what doesn't. because in does seem to be the a tremendous amount of work given the detailed record that is maintained and publicly available on the website. >> i agree. is there any more about the minutes? hearing none dorks i have a motion to accept the minutes with the amendment? >> proval.

>> favor? >> aye. >> great. now may we move into line item number two which is general public comment. >> general public comment. the public is welcome to address the commissioner concerning item that's do not appear on tonight's agenda but are within the subject matter, jurisdiction of the commission. seekers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or departments or o.p.c. personnel. under rules of order, during the comments either police or o.p.c. personnel or commissioners are required to the respond to the questions presented by the public but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and o.p.c. personnel shall refrain from entering any debate or discussion. speakers -- with the speakers do in their comments. please limit your comments to two or three minutes. >> thank you very much. our first speaker, please. >> i'm dan. i'm here today for the public

defender ed kochy wlfment the accused officers are guilty of crimes or misconduct is irrelevant at this point. the situation at hand is he is doing his job. he is to use available to defend crime. by all accounts his office is behaving within the legal and ethical boundaries as described by law. some, oufer, don't see it that way. gary delaine is the president of the san francisco police officers association a couple weeks ago was quoted as saying that he was a media whore bent on destroying the reputations and careers of good, honest and well meaning officers. if someone is caught on camera allegedly committing a crime and it appears on televisions and newspapers, that does not within itself convict the suspect or suspects of being guilty. but this is a tool used by law enforcement to catch alleged criminals and prosecute them. he is no different in defending his clients. but this makes no difference to

gary delaineous. early in his career, delaineous was caught stealing on duty. during the uprising that occurred when the l.a. cop wars quited in the rodney king beating, he and several other cops raided newspaper stands bee longing to the bay times local newspaper, stealing thousands of copies. why? the paper ran a front page article critical of then police chief dick hungy stow and s.f. p.d. he and other cops were caught and given a slap on the wrist. their defense, they did nothing wrong because the newspapers were free and therefore you couldn't steal them. more important than that, what they did was an assault on the first amendment. any cop that violates their oath to uphold the law is a dirty cop. gary fits that description. jeff, a media whore? no, delaineous is a political whore. where bottom feeding and brown knowsing his way along the edges

of san francisco political influence. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, sir. >> good evening, commissioners. mr. harrison, once again i'm appearing on behalf of justice for my brother charles harrison. i spoke with some of the my family members today then asked me to point out the fact due to the fact of my brother's untimely murder, two children have been left orphaned at this time. one wasn't yet born before charles was murdered, and then this child came to birth. we had been watching the news recently and we had been seeing a lot on tv that the police are using in different cities. they're using video to solve crimes. we understand that we were told that this video was grainy and there were witnesses that were needed to be protected. we were hoping that video can be

edited to where, you know, you can show the person who they say that they can't identify to see if somebody can, you know, assist in that manner. you know, my family, we're still grieving and i think this is just going to be something that's on us until a justice served for my brother. so that's basically what i have to say today. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. a lot of good news. a couple tough weeks for the new chief. he walked into what appears to be a lion's den. i listened to the former chief on k.g.o. and jeff on k.g.o. and former undercover congress on k.g.o. who worked four years undercover. as we know we parent --

apparently are having a problem with undercover. this officer who served 44 years, he said undercovers are a tough job. sometimes it's not about being dirty, it's about being crossing the t's and dotting the i's. only 1% or 2% are bad cops, i firmly believe that. sometimes we get a little complacent in what we do, myself and your job. i people and my job whfment you're a cop, that complacency, we exude the impression of dirtiness. i think our officers need a little bit as the chief said, innocent until proven guilty. i'm not saying they're all perfect. i'm going to bring a name up here, rick guerra. commissioner, i'm sorry to say, ten cops e-mailed me.

he's dirty. i'm not going to judge him because other officers don't like him but it's something we have to look at. 1% can ruin 99%. overall our department is doing great. but he's hurting because all of this stuff comes coming up. is it just hadachi's fault? no. if an officer and someone gives you a file, i think this guy is wrong to insalt him? oh, thanks, thanks. we will look into it and get back to you. you don't insult the man who gives you possible evidence. so we have to be balanced here. tonight at 10:00, bill bratton will be on k.g.o. with john. bill is going to bring up some other issues that not generally s.f.p.d., just police departments overall, we're all human. we all have to remember that. thank you. >> next speaker.

>> good evening commissioners. my name is eric king. have i been coming before this commission since april 27 to try to get clarification on the o.c.c.'s findings on a complaint i filed with them against the san francisco police department. i claimed the san francisco police department harassed me because i knew the identity of one of the confidential informments in the jackson street gang case. today i stopped by the o.c.c.'s office and i requested to see if they had clarification for me and they gave me this, which is basically just copies of all of the forms i had filled out and stuff like that. so i'm here again empty handed. i just want to say for the record i'm done. i wash my hands from them and i'm going to move forward, try to resolve this on my own.

there's something i need to make very clear here. back when all of this started, when i was trying to find out who was harassing me and why they were doing it, there was an individual -- >> quiet. quiet. >> there was an individual for the sake of privacy i will call mr. x. i felt he had information that could help me resolve the matter and put the pieces of the puzzle together. not long of a started contacting him and pressing him for information, i received a call from the san francisco police department telling me that if i ever contacted him again, they would arrest me. they did not want to hear anything about what i had to say about what was going on. they just said, contact me again and you will be arrested. so i had to back off. but i was right in pursuing that path because i found out there was an individual named martin mckeanio who had a criminal record in another