made the answer unavailable to me and a point in a direction i don't really want to point. [applause] supervisor wiener: is there any further public comment? may we close public comment? supervisor mar: public, is close to -- public comment is closed. supervisor wiener: there was a statement made it -- supervisor mar: she has spoken twice already. is there any way for you to paraphrase what may have happened because we have already closed public comment, so i don't think it's appropriate for her to come back up. supervisor wiener: i was just going to give the cbd an

opportunity to respond to the allegation, but if that is not appropriate, so be it. supervisor mar: if public comment had still been open -- it is your prerogative to do that. is there any reason we could not do that? >> there is not a legal reason to ask questions of a member of the public has already spoken provided it is limited to their responses to the boards question. supervisor mar: i will ask supervisor wiener if he would like to ask -- supervisor wiener: i would like to ask if you would talk lecher interaction with that cbd -- >> jody had said something about she asked for a collaborative meeting. i do recall there was a series

of e-mails after hours -- the brown act limits conversations at board meetings, as you know. i think michael will confirm this conversation -- we have a very small budget, $400,000 to coordinate community meetings. if lyric wanted to take the lead on that, we are happy to join them. supervisor wiener: thank you. i do have some closing remarks but i am happy to defer to my

colleagues, whatever the chair what it prefer. supervisor mar: i was wondering if i could ask the first amendment question. the aclu has given us several memos and some have been directed to me as the chair of the land use committee. one came in yesterday at one of the issues was the potential of first amendment violations of free-speech rights. one broad areas of equal protection and legislation being neutral on its face, perhaps starting a group of people who are extremely vulnerable and who use for wheeled or larger shopping carts. i wonder if mr. adams could comment on this. i think the language from a letter from a staff attorney of the aclu says we are troubled by the equal protection considerations. numerous prohibitions appear clearly to target the homeless

populations by focusing on the type of activity is homeless people need to engage in simply to live, for example, sleeping. people from the public had commented that queer youth and immigrant populations and poor people of low income people may be the most vulnerable and targeted. i but like to ask our city attorney to comment on that. >> on the question of the first amendment issue, i believe supervisor wiener has offered amendments today that relate to peddling and vending merchandise for a permit has been issued by the city. that allays concerns raised by the aclu. with respect to equal protection argument, there are

time, place, and manner restrictions for we'll conveyance given the small size of the plaza and the size of the conveyances being restricted. as written, we have approved it and are prepared to defend it if the board doesn't adopt it and is challenged. >> -- of the board does adopt it and it is challenged. supervisor wiener: a initially, they had raised concerns specific to requiring a permit to sell things. i included a broad exception for printed material in terms of expanding it to any expression, whether it is printed material. in talking to the aclu, i

understand their rationale. i don't think they're saying it is unconstitutional, but it could be applied in an unconstitutional way. as i interpret it, it would -- you can always think of a scenario where someone is selling a good and it is somehow expressive and you are asking the police to make that call. that's an issue that's always going to be present whenever you have a requirement that a permit be obtained. the extreme response is that you can sell anything you want at any public space and the city cannot regulate it or require a

permit. i don't think that makes sense. it's an extreme response and i have twice amended this in response to the aclu's letter to narrow the requirement as much as we can. i have tried to respond to allay their concerns and at this point, we have done what we can do. supervisor mar: on the four- wheel conveyances, if the intent is to prevent damage to the plaza, there's the concern the shopping carts are the connected with homeless people and it seems to be a connection with them being targeted -- wonder if

there was a reason presents another objection than the four wheels. >> the concern was the extremely limited space -- supervisor wiener: the concern was the extremely limited place -- limited space in the plaza. i lived a few blocks away and them intimately familiar with that as a member of this community in addition to being the supervisor. harvey milk plaza, particularly that area around the benches, and jane warner plaza are small. there are narrow. jane warner plaza is narrow enough that when we have large community gatherings, castro community on patrol will stand in line to make sure no one is pushed into the market right of way. these are not spacious plazas, but there we have to let castro. it takes up a lot of space and has a real impact that even a

baby stroller or bike does not have. if someone is pulling a granny cart through, it will not have nearly the same impact as someone that has a fall on a shopping cart. supervisor mar: i want to say i'm against the stronger provisions of secondhand smoke but i have concerns about civil rights that may be impacted by this legislation and i appreciate you being responsive to the condo owners and business people in the area and they are critical for the neighborhood. there is an open door to dealing with the broader problems that

have been brought up and i hope that moves forward, but i'm going to be voting against the ordinance. you really work with everyone to address civil rights as this legislation is a troubling. supervisor wiener: i would dispute some of the factual assertions that the chair has accepted from some members of the public. first of all, this is not just about some condo owners who are complaining and so we are doing this. when you look at the support for this, it is quite broad and not just some merchants and condo owners. the units above the warner plaza

are rent-controlled. for anyone who suggests this is about the of 1%, that is completely specious. when you look at who is using the plaza, i suggest spending some time there. it is not the 1% hanging out there. these are regular folks who come to this neighborhood to enjoy themselves and are trying to enjoy public space. in terms of community meetings, i don't think a week goes by that i'm not in a community meeting in my district. the castro has allowed more community meetings than any other neighborhood i represent. it is an incredibly active neighborhood and i am in

community meetings a lot and have spoken many times about this legislation. i want to thank everyone who came out here today. even people who strongly, strongly disagree. i want to thank everyone for being here. just to address a couple of points -- it is duplicative of what is already in affect but it is a terrible and oppressive if you enact this. it's unclear what the objective is. i will repeat what i said at the beginning that this is not duplicative of already existing law. in some cases, this is -- like

the smoking ban, the camping ban is another provision. we also continue to hear references during public comment about harvey milk's megaphone and the plaza. hanging out in the plaza, sitting here, singing, gathering, protesting -- all out -- none of these things would be affected. this does not have a sit-why provision. it does not prohibit megaphones, singing, gathering or protesting. it does not prohibit it clequeer youth in the plaza.

sometimes people use queer youth to oppose legislation that does not affect queer youth. i have a long history of supporting youth in general. the perception about noise and not liking the kids on the street -- i defend lyric and asked the planning commission to allow lyric tuesday. as a member of the board of supervisors, i joined the budget process. one of my top priorities was restoring proposed cuts for lgbt youth and i fought hard for that. i have supported housing for transition-aged youths and had have -- and have had a meeting

with the director and i was asked if i would be supportive of transition use in the castro. i said yes and bring us more housing for youth. when it comes to queer youth, record speaks for itself. same with homeless services. i was very supportive of restoring almost $10 million in restored cuts. when tommy mecca had concerns about the homeless shelter that was being built, i worked with him and made sure some of the concerns he was raising were addressed. and i want to close by talking about harvey milk. i think it is really risky when

people try to go back 30 years in time and talk about harvey milk would have bent against this or for this. i think with very few exceptions, that is risking -- risky and speculative. one gentleman who mentioned mr. bilked -- mr. milk would not have been opposed to some of the things in this legislature -- he's a small business owner who understood a vibrant and clean public spaces. the pooper-scooper law that he is best known for, harvey milk was a civil rights advocate and justice advocate and was someone who understood the building blocks of the neighborhood. i don't know if harvey milk would have been for or against this. when people tried to commandeer the memory of harvey milk and

use it to advance a political agenda in 2012, that to me is suspect. harvey milk belongs to our entire community which is incredibly diverse in its political views. i think this is common-sense legislation and respectfully disagree with the chair and move we forward this to the board with a positive recommendation and further ask we adopt the amendment. supervisor mar: on be amendments without objection? supervisor chu: i can verify that supervisor winner was one of the toughest advocates and can't say that people are aware and i appreciate the passion people have come out with on this topic but i want to say i don't believe it comes from a

place of hate or a place of discrimination. whenever your point of view on the legislation is, i do not think that is where this coming from, and i just wanted to make that statement. supervisor mar: on the amendment, without objection, we -- can we have a roll call? >> on the motion to recommend as amended? [roll-call] mr. scher, we have two ayes and one no. >> please call item no. 2. ordinands amending the planning code to allow clinics [inaudible] supervisor mar: please exit the

room quietly if you can. called item number two. it will be continued at the request of supervisor cohen. if there are no questions, let me open this up for public comment. is there any member of the public would like to speak on item number two. seeing -- we have one speaker. >> first and foremost, you should have asked for this item. i would be the only person -- [unintelligible] having said that, the supervisor who initiated this agenda item

did not have one single meeting about this issue. this is a very complicated and convoluted issue. it affects over 28 blocks. this is much like redevelopment. people are trying to rush it and we have processes in the bay view and there has not been one single meeting. when you announced before this other hearing was held, you gave no reason -- i did not hear a valid reason. so i got all but information and i see there are over 20 issues that have not been discussed and the community.

this is very convoluted. in an industrial area where we have had a lot of meetings. we tried to reason it to accommodate child care and other medical services. i know this matter is going to be continued, and that maybe so. but i decided to come here to ask the supervisor if she lives in district 10. under the freedom of information act, i pose this question and i got an answer from the director and found out the last place where she lived is in foreclosure. i have forwarded this information to all of you. we need to know whether she lives in district 10. supervisor wiener: point of order. these are personal attacks on a member of this committee and are

not germane to this item or the motion continuance. i request the chair signal this is out of order. supervisor mar: no more comments directed toward malia cohen's residents. >> mr. chair, i say if the representative -- this process has been going on for six months. if their representative has not answered because i directed it directly to her, then it affects all legislation. supervisor mar: thank you very much. we appreciate the comments. i asked you to wrap up. it thank you very much. >> i am asking you -- supervisor mar: your comments are done in your time is up. thank you for commenting.

this item has been continued, so we will continue it until january 30. if there are no other comments from the public, public comments is closed and we will continue this to the january 30 meeting. meeting adjourned. thank you, everyone.

oh, my! haa ha ha! ha hha ha! [snortg]