go in the city, people are very, very frustrated with the deterioration of our public transportation system and especially as we're adding new development with low parking ratios. which are just starting to come online now, a lot of people are really nervous about what that means for the transportation system and the strain on muni. it's just a very nervous time for the future of transportation in the city. and so i am not suggesting that -- i am just suggesting that we go back to our baseline. it's actually above that baseline for affordable housing fees, because at it's tier a. at transit it should be at that baseline, which is still inadequate, but this would be as currently proposed.

>> i am seeing these amendments for the first time now and i don't have time to talk to community folks, so i will not be supporting these amendments today. >> i am also seeing these amendments and hearing this discussion for the first time. first and foremost as we said before, i would absolutely want an analysis of what the current legislation has vis-a-vis what supervisor wiener is amending. at the moment of hearing the discussion, i am inclined to support this, but i would like to really understand the numbers. and if we could see potentially even a pro forma of what one of these projects would look like, of what we are providing to

housing and transit. i think that would make sense. i do think longer term, and i know our colleagues, my colleagues appreciate this. we have to figure out how to resolve these issues, so we're not pitting housing versus transit and i think it entails in part a longer conversation about how we found a woefully inadequately funded transit system. but at least as this was been presented today for the handful of projects that is where my inclination is, but i want to state to both my colleagues i want to see how this pencils out and we'll have another discussion next week on it. >> okay. >> so with that, prepared to support amendment, but again, reserving the opportunity to have further discussion next week. >> and this is true, and this may be end up applying for the au issue, that we'll be getting more information over the week

and that we can consider that as it comes in. >> are we proposing to make the amendments in a week or are we proposing to make the amendments today? >> i think we can do either. >> i guess the question is if we -- the idea is to move this out of committee next week; right? >> city attorney, if we could just ask. >> this amendment is substantive. >> so if we did it next week, it would require further continuance. >> if i could ask our city attorney, if we made these amendments and for whatever reason we got information that suggested that we should do something differently, would that still require -- what? >> rescinding them? >> rescinding them next week. >> deputy city attorney john givner, your question if you want back to the language as proposed today? >> correct. we have imperfect information. we don't have all the information that we need in

front of us to really understand the economic impact of today's proposal versus what we had in the legislation coming to us? i want to be able to move the conversation forward and hopefully next week not delay moving this out to the full board. >> if you make the amendment today, you can rescind the amendment and go back to the current language next week without additional. >> why don't we do that? >> okay. i won't be supporting the amendment today, if there are further conversations over the week, that may change, but i hope that my colleagues on board will respect the feelings of the constituents. >> being no further comment, madame clerk will will you call the roll. >> on the plosion of amendments, supervisor chiu? >> aye. >> supervisor kim? >> no. >> kim, no. >> supervisor wiener? >> wiener aye. >> there are two ayes and one no. >> that motion passes. [ gavel ]

>> then i guess regarding the final peace on grandfathering, is it better for us to take the amendments today and rescind them the following week as we get more information? i just want to make sure that as supervisor wiener said, that with both issues actually that we're able to still consider that as we get more information? so with 340 11th street, i want to respect the process. the i appreciate the property owner taking the time and i feel that the conversations have been fruitful and i am hoping that we come to consensus by next monday. as planning is going through its global negotiations around a u, so leaving that decision to planninging in its negotiations and kind of grandfathering in just the cu.

>> the question is again if you make the amendment today, and then rescind it next week? >> what would be your advice? should we do today to potentially rescind or next week and continue in committee? >> if you want to leave the option to send it out of committee next week, you should make the motion and leaving open the option to rescind it next week and pass it out of committee then. if you don't make the amendment today and decide to make it next week, it would require additional continuance. >> thank you. what i will do, but i will process what the statement that i will make a motion to amend on grandfathering. one is to actually the opposite option, not to grandfather in 340 11th street and i want to be clear that we are not doing this to preempt discussions with the property owners and

venue owners. it's been a great and productive discussion. i would like us to get this out of committee, since the community has been waiting so long for this to move forward. so i will make a motion to do that and a motion to grandfather au pending a final answer from planning or city attorney whether this would impact the negotiations or not? which i assume is the main considerations that the committee members would consider. and i can divide those into two motions. >> i think i would appreciate it two motions. i would support the purple building. i think it's appropriate. with regards to aau, as what i understand as was repeated before, there were conversations around a more global settlement around the different issues, given there has been numerous enforcement and other issues alleged here. and i would feel more comfortable defering that until

that more global settlement occurs. and i think at that point it would be appropriate to move forward. planning code changes such as the one proposed here, to move forward as whatever gets decided as part of that. >> since you split them on the 11th street motion, it sounds like that is unanimous. you made two separate motions, correct? so why don't we take the 11th street motion to remove the grandfathering. can we do it without objection? >> sorry, supervisor. >> yes. >> it's not actually on this motion, but on the previous fee change. i just wanted to throw out for everyone's information, the change in the fee may require an additional notice. and we'll figure that out with the clerk's office and the planning department as soon as we can. i can't determine on the fly right now whether it will be. if it does require additional notice, it would trigger a

two-week delay instead of just one week. >> what would trigger a two-week delay? >> when the board is considering new or increased fees. the clerk's office is required to publish a special notice. and so i can't say and it sounds like -- >> is this in regards to chair wiener's? >> yes. >> [kha*-eur/] chair wiener's actually reduces it. >> it sounds like it's not entirely clear. it reduces a to b is a reduction. the deleted sentence potentially increases the fee. and so i guess bottom line is that we can figure that out. and we will after this meeting. i just wanted you to be aware you, and we would just have to confer with department about the actual effects.

>> and we would know the answer to that presumably shortly? >> yes. >> and if that impacts anyone's view on the matter, that a change could be made next week. i don't think a one week versus two weeks is that big a deal, but if it were to be an issue for someone that can be dealt with next monday? >> the other thing i would suggest if we could figure out and maybe we continue this to the call of the chair, so if it is two weeks you could schedule it two weeks from now. is that part of thinking? >> i would defer to supervisor kim and if it require another week, we could always continue it again. supervisor kim? >> i would feel more comfortable having it scheduled for next week, but i am happy to let our community know it got continued, so they wouldn't waste their time and come out. >> whichever you do prefer, supervisor. >> i do prefer one week. >> back to the removal of the grand fathering for the 11th

street property. colleagues can we take that out objection? that will be the order. [ gavel ] and i want to acknowledge supervisor kim and her staff for spending an awful lot of time on that one parcel and i wanted to express my gratitude for that. i know you and your staff took that incredibly seriously. thank you. now to the academy of arts university property. i guess my take on this issue is if it's the case that this can be considered as part of the settlement agreement and resulting presumably, with a department agreement as president chiu said. if on the other hand for reasons that i'm not aware of and it's the case it would not

somehow we possible to dole with that as part of the settlement agreement, then i may have a different position on this. because as i understand the history here, this is currently in use as part of the educational -- as part of aau. they are always had the ability for a long time to go in for a cu to legalize it. they did it without permits. they then went in a year-ago and applied for a cu and the current zoning as proposed would end that cu process for them. i am a little uncomfortable permanently eliminating their ability too use that under the current law they do have the ability to get a cu, they should have done that a while ago. so it's important information for me to know whether this can be resolved in the settlement agreement? right now, with the legislation

saying "no grandfathering." supervisor kim's motion is to grandfather. so if we were to not grandfather today, but to grandfather next week, that would require a continuance next week? >> that is right. >> so i would be willing to support the grandfathering today pending getting further information and if that information is that this can be dealt with in the settlement agreement, then i would be in favor of stripping out that grandfathering. but given that it would be -- just so we don't have to have multiple continuances. >> that is fine with me. i would like to hear from the city attorney's office whether or not that is possible. >> i think i have gotten mixed responses and i am comfortable also going back to the planning commission's original recommendation, if it doesn't impact a global negotiation.

that is really my primary intent. if the answer is that we won't impact that negotiation, then i am comfortable going back to the planning commission and just making that motion today. this week, just so we don't have to continue this plan anymore than we have. so i appreciate that support. thank you, supervisor wiener. >> so on the aau grandfathering, colleagues can we take that amendment without objection? that will be the order. [ gavel ] . okay, any additional amendments? colleagues? no? any comments? >> i will get a chance to thank a lot of people, but i forget to thank danny at my office, who came in midway through the process as april went on maternity leave and has done a tremendous job the last months, picking up this plan and tieing up the loose ends, but i will take time to thank him and the other folks at the next land use and economic development committee. thank you. >> i wanted to acknowledge the

work of the task force. i know for anyone that goes through a long process and going to the board of supervisors and supervisors have opinions that may not always been consistent with the task force and i know it's frustrating and we're all just doing our best to make good policy for the city. so i want to acknowledge and thank the task force, especially mr. niko for the money years of work that we might v. for all the years, i am grateful for those who take that time to move their communities in a positive direction. colleagues is there a motion to move this to one week? >> so moved. >> can we do that without objection? that will be the order. [ gavel ] . >> madame clerk is there any other business before us? >> no, there are no other matter matters. >> then we are adjourned.

the city librarian luis herrera did not violate the sunshine ordinance as to the allegations and also to have the library

commission secretary sue blackman in case you have further questions, thank you. >> mr. hartz, rebuttal? >> commissioners, this is the same argument that he has been presenting for the last three years. the city attorney says we can do it. and the bottom line is why do they want to? why were they so determined forcing me to go to the sunshine ordinance task force on three separate occasions delaying, delaying sending miss blackman to answer when mr. herrera was the one calling the shots. and mr. herrera did not have the integrity to show up and say to the task force here is why i am doing this. i think that speaks volumes. i think that it speaks to the fact that if i am doing something which i probably know is questionable, i certainly don't want to go before a body

who might ask me why are you doing this? i have repeatedly and so have other members of the public asked mr. herrera and the library commission, why are you so determined to stick to this action? and they refused to even discuss it. the only thing they discussed is they asked mr. herrera can we do this, and mr. herrera says, the city attorney says you can. but the city attorney did not say you can, he said you may. it was a choice. i made a conscious choice to exclude these statements to put them some elsewhere. they put them somewhere else because of an addendum it is less likely that someone will read them, it is less likely that someone because they are taken out of context willfully understand them and the relationship of the comments to the other comments that were made by members of the library commission, the city librarian

or other members of the public. and mr. herrera wants to make it seem like, well, we did all of this stuff it was a pulling teeth exercise, first they would not put them in at all then they put them in as an addendum and after two and a half years of going back and forth we are finally agreeing to do it right and we want you to just ignore the fact that for two years we did it wrong. as far as i can tell the document that you have been presented this is the first time that they have included 150 word summaries from other members of the public.

for a while they included some of mine, but didn't include others. so it was like, mr. hartz gets special treatment and his go in the body of the minutes, but these other people can be addendaed. they keep changing their position and changing what they want to do and what, you know, what the requirements are and at no time have they made any decision at the library commission stating that the example that you have is their policy going forward. so basically, as far as the reality goes, they could simply go back tomorrow and change these right back to where they were and very frankly having dealt with mr. herrera for the last two years, and actually having public records withheld from me, had him drag that out for 18 months, finally having to go back to the task force and having them rule it, yes, you did not follow the determination and you still withheld this and we are going

to refer to the board of supervisors for action speaks pretty clearly as to his approach to this. he did not like what we had to say. the library commission did not like what we had say. if if they could not shut us up, and i will remind you this was the same library commission where you voted to recommend to the mayor that the president be removed for silenting public comment. well that kind of taught them a lesson that they are not allowed to silence public comment but if they can marginalize it or depreciate ate they are determined to do that. the simple fact that they have now after all of this time decided to provide you with an example that really has never been discussed at the library commission and mr. herrera has constantly raised one thing he has constantly raised the idea that i don't get to determine

these things, the library commission does. and yet now we have these minutes, which are the library commission minutes and he has changed them without any discussion with the library commission. he talks out of both sides of his mouth. >> i thought was to take public comment and then for the commissioners to ask whatever questions we might have of mr. hartz and mr. herrera? is that an acceptable procedure for the commission? >> public comment? >> good afternoon, chair hurtado i'm patrick and here as my private exercising the first amendment rights to free speech. it is troubling, mr. herrera gets up here and talks about 150-word summaries, i believe that the language in the

sunshine ordinance that if you submit 150-word written public testimony to be incorporated without being summarized by anybody. submitted in 150 words and have you to publish it exactly the way that it is submitted. you are here to enforce provisions of the sunshine ordinance. you are not here to allow good government guide to supercede, trump, the sunshine ordinance. there are many things in mr. herrera's good government guide that are not worthy of being used as toilet paper. you will see the parallel to the problem mr. hartz is encountering with the good government guide similar issue in your next agenda item and

mr. wooding's case in which the good government guide also contains material on page 89 that is not worthy of a public rest room. page 89 of the good government guide says that departmental destruction policies for material that remains on back up tapes or analogous paper records that the department may have lawfully discarded but may be found in the city-owned dumpster, these are the public records act that would be separate. and the sunshine ordinance requires to search the trash for such records that is pure nonsense, the back up tapes are

there for daily use, speaking as an experienced secretary, i know that almost every secretary in this city understands from the get-go that if they lose a document, it can be pulled from back up tape. if they inadvertently delete a document, a memo or a draft version of a memo or a version of a document going through a revision cycle. the secretary inadvertently is a human makes an error and deletes something, departmental is there to recover it immediately. i have done so over the 14 years of my career. none of it has been intentionally and it has always been restored from back up tape. mr. herrera good government guide needs to be rewritten and you need to tell them to

rewrite it. >> i'm ron mcclock and i am a citizen and i have been going to the city meetings for 40 years with the arts commission and to the board of supervisors also and i found that this concept of minimum of three minutes is being used as a maximum of three minutes. i have gone to meetings where myself and my brother were the only people at the meetings and yet after three minutes, we have been told our time is up and please sit down. basically shut up. so i have gone to art commission meetings and presented my 150-word statement because i wanted to make sure the points that i wanted to have brought out were put into the minutes of the meeting. the city attorney is incorrectly says that just because you hand in that piece of paper, that that is an not

actually what should be put in the minutes. when i hand that piece of paper in, i'm handing that piece of paper as a summary of what i am saying and as far as i am concerned, because i am given such a short time to really say anything. i can write down on that piece of paper before the meeting, exactly what i want the commission and the boards to hear. and so i would ask that you up hold mr. hartz position, because as a citizen, we at times have to be able to have our words put into the body of the minutes because that is where we intend to say it and because we are being denied the amount of time to say it by writing it down before the meeting and passing it in at that time, that that qualifies as being said at the meeting. thank you.

>> thank you very much. >> stop the hate and don't give money to the friends of the library and don't accept the money from the friends of the library. the provision of being able to allow people to summarize their own words passed by the voters in 1999 in the sunshine ordinance, before it passed i was one of the most blatant victims. i started to submit citizen summaries right after the law went into effect, they created something called appendix a, even though there was no notice in the minutes themselves that there was an appendix, the type face was smaller than anything else in the minutes. s of course, they refused to include the appendix on the on-line version even though the minutes were submitted by e-mail. and after several years, i pointed out to the secretary, that the superior court had every case document on-line and after that, they put the

appendix in a pdf and if you clicked the tiny link on the bottom there was no link back. finally, they stopped distributing the appendix with the draft minutes that are distributed to 250 people. it was not distributed to the commissioners and the public at the library meeting where they were approved. the only place that it was attached to the minutes was the two copies that went to the archive. at that point i stopped submitting them for a while and that was when i started beginning my public comments with stop the hate, stop the ignorance and don't give money to the friends of the library and don't accept money from the friends of the library. they can't claim that they have any claim to good faith or being reasonable because they have never done anything, unless they were forced to. no matter how unreasonable it was. getting rid of the public has always been acceptable