part bang and rec. the reason is, there's no communication amongst these department heads. [bell rings] and i am know because i am in city hall. we lack the services. therefore, community reform is the thing of the new age right now, which i am going to be, hopefully, getting some supervisors to put some community reforms in, so we can have these meetings. when we come here, things can be more clear to the people peter right now, i doubt people know what is going on in these processes. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other speakers who wish to comment on item number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have this item before us. can we entertain a motion? supervisor olague: move to approve. supervisor chu: motion with recommendations and with approval of conditions. to be clear, as we were articulating the approval with conditions, item number one, on

that approval, sales and service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. each day of the week. thank you. ok, we do that without objection. thank you. let's return to item number one. >> supervisors, there's two additional conditions would like to add on to the license. the first one is that there shall be no off-sale in containers less than 32 ounces. also, all off-sale shall be restricted to craft beers. thank you. supervisor chu: ok, so the additional two conditions, note off-sale items less than 32 ounces, restricted to craft beers. and the project sponsor has

agreed? ok. given those two items were those two additional conditions, do we have a motion? supervisor olague: i move to approve with conditions. supervisor chu: thank you. we have a motion to approve the items as articulated, with the conditions. we will do that without objection. thank you. caller, are there any other items? >> no, madam chair. supervisor chu: thank you. we are adjourned.

>> 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, but community-related retail and small office uses. their proposal before us was to avenge the map and the planning code so the subject parcel, the

most further north parcel on the western side, switch it from design and development special use district to the india basin industrial park special use district. and to make one small change in the text of the special use district. s supervisor cohen mentioned, it was originally for medical clinic used, proposed that 15,000, but they negotiated down to 7000 square feet. we have looked at with the similarities are between the two special used districts. we thought that these were similar enough that it made very little difference whether it was in the india basin or the design and develop a special use district. and the nature of the parcels as well. the special use districts did try to do something similar and open abuses beyond the pdr along third street, so we think the legislation is appropriate.

and made such a recommendation to the planning commission. the planning commission agreed and unanimously approved the proposal before forwarding it on to you. this concludes my presentation, and i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> i am here for community help services. i am the medical director for community behavioral services. i am here in support of the project. we thought the organizers of the project have been extremely collaborative and thoughtful for this area. said the department of public health and and community help are in favor of the project. thank you. supervisor mar: it is and

industrial area, a clinic for youth and families. i am wondering, are there dangers of particulate matter or any other dangers in an industrial area for a facility like this? >> i think we need to explore the area more. i do not know the specifics, but i think that is something that needs to come up in the process. but the location is important for family access. supervisor cohen: when you make your comments, can you address one thing, the helalth node and the undesirable in the uprising this facility inside the health node? and can you tell me how many pieces of property you looked at? >> it would be my pleasure to comment on that. my name is dr. nadine burke

harris, founding position of the cpuc bayview help center. it was not until august of last year, the medical director. that i am here in my role as the ceo of the center for youth wellness. the reason i transitioned out of my previous role and into this role is based on the experiences that i have had in caring for children of the bayview-hunters point community for the past five years. in have done a wonderful job at the clinic in reducing hospitalizations and improving immunization rates for the kids in the community. in my experience, the number one health threat to kids in the community is exposure to violence and trauma. there is a tremendous amount of research that has emerged over the last 20 years to

demonstrate that these exposures are damaging to children, not only in terms of the things that you would expect in that we know about, in terms of the risks for learning problems, behavior problems, mental health problems, but it turns out that the data shows that these exposures increase our kids risks to heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hepatitis, to depression commit to becoming i.v. drug users, etc., significantly. the american academy of pediatrics, in december 2011, came out with a recommendation about children's exposure to toxic stress. the issue is, what to do about it? that is with the center for youth all this in the south advocacy center has come together to try to create, a first of its kind, first in the nation center to address this

issue for the kids, particularly for the kids of this community. in the process, we have brought together the best and brightest. and we have partnered with the city government in the city's effort to develop a child advocacy center, as well as the cpmc bayview child health center, which has been doing this work with our kids for the past five years. as we, together, went and looked at where we were going to locate this new center, we looked at over 20 spaces in bayview. seven of those spaces were in the health node. we were looking at the size, obviously, something that accommodate all of the different services. and of course, whether or not it was economically feasible within our budget. there were certainly spaces that

would have been more desirable of what we would like, but it did not accommodate either the size of our budget. we also said down and talk with folks at the department of public health about trying to locate a part of the southeast health center redevelopment. we have specific constraints in our funding, thanks to the generous support of the community that raised $4.2 million for this effort. but we have to have our doors open by the end of this year. that was a constraint that there donor put on this funding, or else their donors would not deliver the check. so as we met with folks from southeast health center, there recognized that there were not in a stage of planning where we would be able to do this at the same time, so we got the

blessings, go ahead. these are compatible uses, and it is actually great for us to have, both along the third street corridor, and even though we're not in the health node, we receive support and blessings from dph to move forward with our project. this center represents the answer to a tremendous community need. if there is one thing i could say, it is that my experience in working with the committee, the thing that keeps things from happening, particularly in baby- hunters point, or that when obstacles come up, it is so hard to move past them. it is so hard to come up with solutions, particularly because the children that we're advocating for the not have any -- we're not making money. this is not a money-making center. they do not have anyone else to advocate for them.

so this, for us, is part of the process of making sure that this community does not remain one of san francisco's most underserved communities. so i encourage you to support this legislation. thank you. supervisor cohen: thank you. >> honorable supervisors. thank you so much for hearing this matter today. musri the executive director of the san francisco child abuse prevention center and a partner in developing the center for use wellness in the children's advocacy center of san francisco, which will be operated by the san francisco shot prevention center. i know you have received many letters of support and information about this matter. we have some additional information that i would like to provide to you today. i am here today in