>> the meeting will come to order. this is the monday, generate 30, 2012 meeting of the land use and economic development committee of the board of supervisors. i am supervisor mar, chaired the

committee. supervisor cohen and supervisor wiener the are here. we're joined by supervisor chiu, president of the board. our clerk is ms. alisa miller. >> please turn on it -- please turn off electronic devices. documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on the february seventh board of supervisors agenda, unless otherwise stated. supervisor mar: thank you. please call item number 1. >> hageman, ordinance amending the planning and administrative code to provide a contribution option to the developers of the public murphy in establishing a public art work trust fund. supervisor mar: thank you. the sponsor is supervisor david to -- david i.g.. supervisor chiu: thank you. i have a couple of technical clarification amendments. then i would like to ask for

this item to be continued for another three weeks for the following. i had a conversation with mayor lee about one of the amendments at our last meeting, which was around the extension of 01% public arts requirement, which currently applies for projects over 25,000 square feet in the downtown c-3 area, for that to be extended city-wide. the planning commission had asked for that to happen. at the last meeting, i made an amendment to reflect the spirit of that, of appearing with the planet commission asked for to call for products over 75,000 square feet to be included under this, with an effective date of 2013. at this point, mayor lee and i discussed this, and we would like to do some additional outreach to the developer community on this, and we will be holding a series of meetings likely over the next few weeks. i would like to ask us to hold this for three weeks in furtherance of the conversation. in the meantime, i was asked by

the city attorney that helped to draft this legislation to make a couple of amendments. first, to simply clarify on page six, line six, that in addition to the options of either expanding the remainder of public art fees on the site or depositing the remainder of the public art fee into the public trust fund, there could be a third option allowing a developer to do both. to expend the remainder on site and deposit the rest into the public artwork trust fund. that is the language i would like to demint. on page 12, lines 14, 16, and page 15, lines 13 and 15, i would like to delete language that refers to at the department of building inspection would receive reimbursement for the services that they provide with regards to administering the collection of this public arts fee. that is language we included in the last meeting, but the deputy

city attorney at dbi in the department realized it was superfluous given the other code that has language permitting that to happen. i would like to ask that we move those amendments forward today, simply so we can have a clean copy of this when we come back in three weeks. i wanted to see if there are any members of the comic who wish to comment on any aspect of this legislation today? supervisor mar: is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? a three-minute limit. >> supervisors. director of san francisco open government. i was concerned when i saw this on the agenda in light of this -- this is a recent audit of the san francisco arts commission and by the comptroller's office. it basically found significant issues relating to their money- handling of what funding they already get. a couple examples.

the 105 projects in one category they did, they picked a symbol of 10. in all 10 of them, is that the expenditures appeared to be for discretionary purchases inconsistent with the purposes of the intendant sources of the fund. then it goes down here and says according to the finance director, once the allocations are combined, the administrative account -- this is explaining what they do. there were charging each of the sub funds an administrative fee, putting it into what basically is a slush fund, and they spent $269,000 inappropriately. i recently attended a meeting of the visual arts committee of the san francisco arts commission. and, basically, i will tell you, the only people that were there or myself and one other member of the public. there were the staff and interested parties. in other words, the people who were making money on the deals before them.

the had an agenda with 20 items on it, half of which they had allotted five minutes, and they were totally hostile to public comment. every single time during one of those items, they would take the five minutes to the staff would take the entire time or more to do their report. they would then proceed to have a short discussion. if a member of the public up, they would make the comment, we are running behind, we're running behind, we cannot take this time. i do not know what it is they do not understand about the word public in public art. now what is going to happen to that agenda is it is going to appear in the consent agenda for the full art commission, where there will be no discussion of it their right there, and no chance for the public to discussion. i was there with a number of people at a different meeting, and they told me they do not even bother to go, because they basically understand that the arts commission does not want public input. they want staff reports, which

they approve, and then they simply pass it on to the full commission. [bell rings] when that did the things mentioned in this report is the staff feels intimidated. in other words, if they see miscarriages of justice are violations of the law, they are afraid to reported to their wrote supervisors for fear of retribution. so giving the san francisco arts commission additional funding at this point, in light of the fact that the city comptroller's office has found them incapable of handling properly the millions of dollars they get each year, is ludicrous. [bell rings] supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, let me bring to your attention that, say, if we have a project like the water system improvement project, 4, .2 billion. the sewer system improvement

project, over $6 billion. the art commission gets a substantial portion of this money. on other projects, many of them in the millions of dollars, the art commission gets a substantial amount of money. what we need to do in you all need to do, and when i say we, the people, we need to shine light. and if you are representatives, you should shine lights. by shining light, i mean you have to be educated on issues, and some of you all are not paying attention, because you are biased. if you are biased, it is fine. but as the previous speaker said, there are few who understand of the freedom of information act. to understand the public records act, who understand the grounds that. we attend the meetings, and we

represent, because we have something to gain, but because we want to shine light. what is happening here is this, some supervisor's made the met write and think they're helping the art commission, but you know -- make deem it right and think they're helping the art commission, but you know that recently the director of the arts commission was found to be lacking in leadership and in other things. if i say his name, some supervisor will stand up and say, oh, you're not allowed it to say somebody's name. but when we vote for directors, we say their name all the time. but then we come before such meetings, we're not supposed to say their names. i am group is out because good leaders and the way, show the way, and go the way.

the art commission is a corrupt organization. all over the city, in the bayview and in other areas, they get the money in disbanded peter it is a small clique. a small clique of people that do as they please. we have representatives who always say, you know, they believe in transparency. but far from being transparent, far from being accountable, the they will do things that have worse lee impacted the population. in some cases, it has infected the youth. some supervisor may deem it right to make some amendments. the whole art commission needs to be put on notice. [bell rings] thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. next. >> after noon, a land-use

double-good afternoon, land-use supervisors. ♪ public art and a trust to free and what ever happened why did you keep it free? so many things we would have done but budget clouds but in our way i have looked at districts from all sides now win and lose it is a city illusion i really do not know yet all city hall and now it is just another land use day and you'll say and help us and you'll pay so many things you would have done but the city clouds got in our way i have looked at all districts from all sides now win and lose and still try somehow it is what a city i recall

i really do not know you at all its city hall ♪ supervisor mar: thank you, mr. paulson. anyone else from the public that would like to speak? seeing them, public comment is closed. you're asking for a three-week continuance. i believe that presidents' day is february 20, so there is no land use meeting. it would be the following meeting, which is february 27. can we take the amendments without objection, colleagues? thank you. without objection, we will continue this until the meeting of february 27. supervisor chiu: 1 comment. i know there are where a couple public comments are in the recent issues happening in the arts commission. many of us have been concerned about the situation, and we hope that there are changes to how the arts commission is managing itself to move that forward. but this is not legislation about whether or not we helping the arts commission or not. this is really legislation about the requirement of developers of

using 1% of their project costs to spend on cards. right now, the law says that that money needs to be spent on on-site art, usually in the lobby way of these public buildings. this legislation is about loosening those requirements so that money can be spent on community-based art programs within the city, project early in the downtown area. i just want to clarify that and look forward to the conversation we will have about this in about four years. supervisor mar: thank you continued. we have had a request to call item number 3 had an item number two. can we do that without objection, colleagues? thank you. >> item number 3, ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map to allow patients to medical care clinics into a parcels in the special use district and add them to the india basin special use district. >> we have a presentation for mr. matt snider.

i am sorry. the sponsor is supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: i want to talk about what we're dealing with here. the item today is a rezoning of the percival -- a parcel, 3450, on 3rd street, about a medical license use in excess of 5000 square feet. this is needed to facilitate the location of the center for youth will listen to all prevention center. this partnership which you'll hear about shortly is unique in that it centralizes the private and public agencies responsible for responding to a childhood trauma and the help impacts associated with it in order to ensure that our cities children have the conference of treatment. i have heard some concerns from many of the neighbors around this particular parcel, most dealing with the compatibility

with the pdr-2 zoning. it permits social services, like the one that will be in use. it is proposed up to 5000 square feet. but after speaking with a number of community members, as well as our partners at the port, we, along with the project sponsor, have agreed to amend this to actually reduce the square footage of this proposed pact project, from 7000 -- reduced to 7000 square feet. a provided copies of this changed legislation. i feel it is a pretty good compromise given the compatibility for other surrounding uses a around this parcel. a number of speakers will speak today to give light on this issue. we have matt snyder from the planning department. then joe robinson, director of community and behavioral sciences at the department of

public health. then we will hear from a doctor from the center of youth will this, as well as a member of the child abuse prevention center. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am from planning department staff. as supervisor cohen mentioned, she introduced this for the location of the center youth and wellness and san francisco convention center. the legislation was forwarded to the planning department, and the commission for did you. it was heard on december 13. the planning commission unanimously approved the changes before forwarding it on it to you. i will walk through exactly what this is and how things are

changing on the ground. currently, we're at the northern portion of the bayview community. pdr districts generally are within the general northern area of the bayview. along third street, as you leave the bayview community and across fourth street, there two special use district on the western side, there is a design and development special use district. this was put in place in 2008 when we did the initial pdr zoning to allow some more office uses, uses beyond what is generally permitted in pdr, given the third street location. on the other side of the street, the eastern side, you had the india basin industrial park special use district. for those parcels that face third street, the special use district does a very similar thing. it opens up the uses to not just pdr