he lived in and houses his own and later in 1990, moved into his last home. he served on the san francisco mental health board for years, was executive director, and then chairman of the board, which provided social services for those with mental health issues, and for so many of the tenderloin poor and homeless residents. darwin look forward to see the tender line great -- to see the tenderloin grow, constantly renewed. he was also excited about the high speed rail and trams a terminal and to see his home town continue to dominate the coast in all of its glory, so i would just like to request that we adjourn our meeting on behalf of darwin.

clerk: thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor chu? supervisor chu: i think we know how important is to support the small businesses in our communities. there is the work that we have been doing with regard to ada compliance, so we went to educate them on the compliance needs. tomorrow, wednesday, we are actually holding a public workshop for any businesses that are wanting to learn about ada compliance, which will help to keep lawsuits from coming down the line. this will be at the community room on 24th. at that workshop, we will sharron overview of the americans with disabilities act, compliance with ada, how to

respond to lawsuits, what is available for construction with loans, and i do want to thank the san francisco bar association for their great help and cooperation in that effort. clerk: thank you, supervisor chu. supervisor farrell? supervisor farrell: we try to find ways to strengthen our film program. we have the program coming up for renewal, and i have already asked for an economic analysis on the program to make sure if it makes sense to extend it and continue to fund it, and we will report back to you the findings of that. today, introducing some amendments to the ordinance in the administrative code covering our film industry to do two things. 1, include reality shows as a category and shows that are

included in the film rebate program. our office has gotten a number of requests from different reality shows wanted to film here in san francisco, but because they were not specifically covered in our film rebate program, they have been hesitant to come up. since this was introduced, there has been a big shift in the reality show industry, bringing much more jobs and much more money into our economy, so we want to make sure they are covered in this program. many are for small independent films, with less than a $500,000 budget, specifically codifying the fees for san francisco. right now, the filming fees are $300 per day for films across the city regardless of size, and we are seeking to reduce that four smaller independent films. this would be to $100 per day. the situation means that most of

our independent filmmakers do not take up permits for our city, do not have insurance on our streets, and also do not aid in our planning process about street closures and so forth, and new york city has a permit fee of $300 for the whole production. new mexico, $25 per day. vancouver, $100 per day. it is a little bit of a competitive nature, but it will mean a lot to our independent film industry, and i want to make sure we show a signal to them that we value their participation here in san francisco and ask for your support in that, and a quick mention, today, across our country is national night out against crime, and i just want to send a special shout out to people, especially jim and sydney. -- cindy. we cannot be here because we are in meetings, but we wish you well.

clerk: thank you, supervisor farrell. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: yes, it is national night out, and i look forward to being there with the hope of ensuring greater public safety. in light of that, i am submitting an ordinance to fortify the san francisco gun control laws. like many of you, actually florida and modified to hear just recently of a bullet passing through a woman's back in north beach, and the bullet was not intended for her at all. if that bullet had been a hollow point bullets, it would not have passed through her. she would have died. just recently, i had an 11-year- old girl in my district, where a bullet had passed by the house, again, not meant for her, in

directly went into the house, and then it hit her with life- threatening injuries, and then luckily, she made it. earlier this year, we heard about the gun shot earlier this year. we heard about this story, i believe it was a 9-year-old who was in a playground and found a gun, a loaded in the play yard and was walking around with it until somebody had apprehended the weapon from the nine-year old, who just found it lying around. for now, these scenarios i do not believe are any part of anyone's belief here that we should just resign ourselves to believing that that is part of living in the inner city and living in a big city, but i believe that we should do everything we can to shore up our gun-control laws in san francisco, despite, i think, great challenges by gun

advocates and the nra nationally, who have tested the merits of the second amendment nationally, where we have seen, where there has been, even the weighing in several years ago by the u.s. supreme court, where they weighed in on the decision where we see no gun advocates, gun rights advocates, who are now mounting deficits toward state and local law to unravel -- now mounting efforts toward state and local laws to unravel the local gun-control laws, so what i want to make sure that we do, in light of these trends, and seeing be rolling back of gun-control laws, at least provide some sort of a common- sense measure for the laws that should remain intact, so two separate laws, one which requires that handguns be kept in a locked container or

disabled with a trigger lock, and one preventing the sales of the stub of ammunition in san francisco, the most common of which are hollow point bullets. it is obvious that with the heller decision compaq -- decision, it is an individual right to possess a gun for self- defense. but now, with that particular modification, there are now challenges across the country of what gun-control laws mean, so i want to make sure that through findings that we are submitting today that we clarify the board of supervisors' intends, passed by the board of supervisors and by the voters, to reflect research and statistics and insure that the existing police code is fully enforceable. we have seen quite a few people killed or injured by bullets, by

the use of handguns directly or indirectly in san francisco. that is on par with the trend that we are seeing throughout the bay area, and, of course, the state and nationwide. over 100,000 americans nationwide are hit by a bullet, effected by gun crimes, and it is important that we do not lose sight that in order to insure public safety, which i believe is a civil liberty and a right of all of our people that it is now the government's obligation to do everything needed to make sure the people are safe. this collides with the intrinsic recognition that that makes it difficult when we do not have reasonable regulations that deal with gun control, despite the federal challenges and restrictions to do just that, so these are just sensible laws that show -- shore up what i think was attempted before, and

i look forward to the conversation that takes place in committee. the rest i will submit. thank you. clerk: thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. president chiu? president chiu: as policy makers, we do not get to just pick up our marbles and go home. we have the ability to address real concerns that have been raised, and from my perspective, i think we can find out how to work together to make sure that workers depth insurance as well as to ensure wrote fewer layoffs were ever began. i will ask us to draft legislation so that we can consider that hopefully balances the interests that we have ensure both health care and entwinement for workers in san francisco. secondly, i am going to be also announcing legislation that is being directed the way

businesses are built for various licenses. at this time, there are hundreds of fees that are charged for a myriad of activities. these are billed at various times of the year. for example, if you own three gas stations in san francisco, he received 12 different bills for tobacco sales, underground storage tanks, and other things at four different times of the year. if you are a restaurant, you can get invoices from the police, fire, and entertainment commission. this is not only incredibly confusing, but it has been inefficient and has resulted in lost revenues for the city. for many months, my staff and i have been working closely with the treasure, a tax collector, and the city attorney's office as well as a number of projects. our legislation will amend the codes for the fire department,

the health department, the police department and the entertainment commission so that they can send one consolidated bill to businesses for all of their licenses and fees beginning in 2012, and i want to thank them for their efforts. from my perspective, at this time, we still have 15 departments that regulate businesses in different ways, and i think at some point, we need to think about consolidating some of these functions. the rest, i will submit. .-- clerk: thank you, president chiu. supervisor campos? supervisor campos: this is not about picking up your marbles

and going home and in the process jeopardizing the entire legislation, and every single measure and has been proposed, including the idea that somehow we have allowed businesses to take back a certain percentage of the money that is put into these accounts, the idea that has been put out by the chamber that somehow you limit the kinds of restrictions that employers can place on these accounts, all of these are proposals that ultimately would jeopardize the entire security ordinance. nobody wants to leave this loophole undone, but the last thing we want to do is jeopardize universal health care in san francisco. it is not something that the coalition that worked on this piece of what this nation did lightly, but at the end of the day, we believe we have to protect the integrity of the ordinance in that we want to avoid a situation where we are in the interests of tried to

appease certain interests that somehow that is going to jeopardize health care for workers in san francisco. >> thank you, supervisor campos. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i just want to commend the idea, and i look forward to supporting this. i think this is the direction to go in. this is good to be addressed. clerk: thank you, supervisor kim. mr. president, seeing no others, that concludes the roll call for introduction. president chiu: why do we not go to our four-o'clocks special orders? clerk: 1 building is exempt

under the class 32. item 36 is the motion affirming the determination by the planning department of the project, the hyde street program is exempt. item 37 is a motion reversing determination, and item 38 is directing the board to prepare findings. president chiu: for this hearing, we will consider the accuracy, sufficiency, and completeness of the planning department determination that this project is categorically exempt from environmental review. we would hear first from the appellants, who have up to 10 minutes in total to describe the grounds for the appeal. we will then take public comment. each speaker will have up to two minutes. we will then hear about them

being exempt from the environmental review. when both of up to 10 minutes to present. we will then hear from person speaking on behalf of them. each will have two minutes. then, each will have up to three minutes for rebuttal. colleagues, any objection to proceeding in this way? let me ask first if there are any representatives of the appellants that are here. i know they have submitted written elements, but let me ask if there any written representatives. ok, seeing none, colleagues, we had received the written documents from the appellants. are there any you wish to speak on behalf of them? >> ♪ unbreak my hyde street heart fit it again, and do this work ♪

president chiu: thank you. and other members who wish to speak or sing on behalf of 1945 hyde? ok, seeing none, we will move. it is up to you to determine how you want to spend your time. >> thank you. my name is garrett jones from the planning department. given that we have not seen the written arguments by the appellants, and they did not present today, i am just going to quickly present the project and explain what the cost 32 exemption is. as i say, my name is sarah jones. i am a senior planner with the planning department, and i am joined today with the case planner, chelsea, and also a presentation planner.

we said the board a letter. as well as responding to the three previous letters but the appellant is submitted to the department, we carefully considered the concerns and continued to find that the project is categorically exempt under siege " -- under ceqa. today, whether to accept the exemption or go back to the department for review. a quick description of the project, this is located at hyde street and russell street, and it would convert a parking garage into a seven-unit building with 17 parking spaces and 1860 square foot commercial space. the parking spaces would be for a combination of residential, monthly, in short-term parking. the existing height of the building is 32 feet, and the

proposed third for addition would increase this. for this project, the department issued a class 32 exemption. this type of exemption applies to those who would not apply. the project must be consistent with general plan policies and zoning, be on the project site of no more than 5 acres that is adequately served by urban uses, have no habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, and have no facts related to traffic, noise, air quality, water quality. also, as with any exemption, there can be no unusual exemptions. the department fully evaluated the project and found that it met all of these requirements and issued a costa 32 exemption. the project also underwent a discretionary review hearing it,

where it was changed to provide non resident parking in to increase the setbacks for the addition. the planning commission approved the project by a vote of 7-0. in the appeal letter submitted by the appellant, they stated that the project would have a range of significant adverse effects that were not identified in the categorical exemption certificate or not adequately addressed in the exemption. however, the appellate did not specify anything or identify any unusual circumstances beyond those discussed in the exemption that will require further environmental review. because we hada big issues to address in response to the appeal, our memo was in response to what happened prior to the issue. these were considered in the process of the categorical exemption. therefore, at this point, i am just going to conclude and state

that the clause 32 exemption certificate fully addresses all of the issues raised in the submittals, and no further issues were raised regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the certificates. it also supports all necessary findings for the class 32 exemption, and the appeal letter does not raise any new issues that were not disclosed and does not provide evidence to substantiate the finding with the proposed projects resulting in any significant and born into impacts. therefore, i urge you to uphold the department's class 32 exemption and denied the appeal. this concludes my presentation, and all of us would be glad to answer any further questions from the board. president chiu: colleagues, any questions? seeing none, why do we not go to the party of interest, where you have 30 minutes to use as you see fit? >> thank you, president, members

of the board. i am here on behalf of the project sponsor. we're going to associate ourselves with the comments of the planning department and express our appreciation for the hard work they put into the categorical exemption certificate. very quickly responding to the appeal this last month, and again, there is appreciation to the department for their fine work. thank you. >> are there any members of the public who wish to support these interests? seeing none, and given that the appellant is not here, unless there are any other comments that need to be expressed, colleagues, at this time, this hearing has been held in closed, and why did we not proceed to consideration? " excuse me? >> i wanted to make public comment.

i want to make general public comment. president chiu: there is no general public comment. you can even speak on behalf or in opposition to this appeal it. thank you very much. this hearing has been held in closed [gavel] supervisor: i want to thank those, both from the russian hill community association it, and i also want to thank the planning department and the project sponsor and in particular for all of the changes made in negotiations and mediation before the planning commission. at this time, colleagues, i do agree with planning that i think there are not issues that there

should be rising to the level of overturning the determination of exemption, and i would move but this time the we have firm determination, that we tabled item 37 and 38. clerk: the motion has been made and seconded by supervisor farrell. roll call. clerk: supervisor campos, supervisor chu, supervisor cohen, supervisor kim, supervisor farrell, supervisor mirkarimi, president chiu.

president chiu: 39 to 42. clerk: approving a tentative map for a condominium subdivision located on montgomery street. item 40 as the motion finding that to depart somewhat consistent with the city's general plan and approving the parcel map. item 41 is a motion finding the tentative par sum it up, disapproving bit tentative parcel map and the department finding, and item 42 is directing findings. president chiu: for this hearing, we will consider whether the tentative parcel map is consistent with the general plan or any specific plans that they apply. as we proceeded previously, we will first hear from the pellets, which will have up to 10 minutes, and then we will take public comments from folks you wish to speak. each will have up to two

minutes. we will then hear from representatives from the department of public works and the planning department, who will have up to 10 minutes to approve the tentative parcel map, following the city presentations, hearing from the interest it did parties. we will then hear from individuals who wish to speak on behalf of the interest, the will of up to 10 minutes to present, -- up to two minutes to speak, and then the appellate will have three minutes for a rebuttal, so with that, why do we not hear from the appellant. >> good evening. i am my partner file the appeal. we are with the plaza owners association, a mixed use residential project first commenced in 1992. it is one city block, montgomery, chestnut, and lombard. there are 282 residential units,

approximately 500 residents. we made this appeal somewhat reluctantly because the project was on known to us, and it gave us cause because there were many unknowns. we did have an opportunity to meet with the project sponsor, and some of our concerns were alleviated. there is pending litigation with some parties. we did have some concerns, but we do not oppose the project in principle. the parties had been negotiating literally up until about 120 seconds ago. unfortunately, i represent a nonprofit board, and my authority is limited to what happened over the last few days. if we had a few more days, my sense is we would be able to reach an agreement, also with those who have some interests.

president chiu: can i interrupt? if you think it will result in agreement, i would suggest that we continue this so you can continue to work on it, and we schedule some time after the recess so we do not do this if you can get to a resolution. and my resolution is if the two parties can do that, we can see if there is a last-ditch agreement that can result. >> thank you. the project sponsor council is here. >> it is not so much that we need more to work throat -- >> excuse me. you are not on the microphone. but what i think you are saying is the appellant would need to

get some authority. if the two parties agree, we can come back at a future meeting, so you have at least three or four weeks to resolve this. >> i appreciate that, but we prefer to go forward on the basis of where we stand now. our belief is that the delay is going to be buried this favorable to my client, and there are attempts to start marketing the property so that business owners can come in and start their small businesses the real estate market is precarious, as you know. we need to strike now. president chiu: ok. let me suggest the following. why do we not proceed to the next hearing, which will proceed, and then i ask for a moment of to the minister