is that a number and i know that a lot of the discussion was about recruitment for fire and police and exams for those recruitments. and the promotional exams. my understanding was there was going to be two promotional exams in the coming year and maybe 19 over the following four years. and it did not seem like a very large number for us to justify the space. so some of it was simply how we looked at the numbers and there needs to be clarification because i did receive an e-mail saying that there would be no savings in terms of that $35,000, that they are currently using. >> with permission, i don't know, perhaps, that was miscommunicated. i don't know, i don't have that e-mail here. we believe that there is savings, dave has described those savings and they will add significantly reduce our reliance on hotel rooms for testing for those exams and i would note that we have a commitment for use from gsa to

use the testing rooms for some of their large events. and so, we think that it also provides the opportunity for when it fits into our schedule, for testing, that we are able to have the departments use them and they don't have to go to the outside of the city as well. >> mr. chairman, actually if the department is committing that they are going to save the $30,000 in the hotel rooms, we would recommend approval. if the department is suggesting that the board of supervisors request the controller to submit rescinding legislation of the moneys that you just appropriated in this year's next year budget, this year, now, beginning july 1, then we would recommend approval of this item. we are not... there is... the only way that you can get savings is you have to take it out of the budget. and savings does not just materialize, you have appropriated the funds and now

you have to rescind the funds. >> we are prior to sign the leases of the legislation to determine whether or not there were funds available. and in this particular instance, before i sign this, we checked to determine whether or not there was money, there is not money in the line item, but there is money in other places in their operating budget, that the department has committed to transferring in order to fund this increase, should this lease go through. so that is a commitment from the department and from the controller's office that there is not going to be an ask for additional funds in this year, for this increased space, they will have to make reductions in other places. >> and you can identify where the reductions would be from? >> at the staff level, we did talk about the reductions for other leased space, but there

could be other savings as well in other places. >> mr. chairman, we are not disputing the source of funds for the lease, for the increased cost of the lease at all. our point is that the department is now stating that they will be able to save money by not having to rent as much for hotel space. and that money is now in the budget. the only way that you can take that out of the budget is to rescind it and that will require separate legislation. if the department is in agreement with that and the board of supervisors wants to do that, we would recommend approval of it. >> let me suggest one thing at this point. given our break off and so forth, again, might i suggest that we forward this to the full board in the next ensuing six days we could have a discussion and we could get the cost savings estimates and whether we do rescind legislation or end up with a surplus at the end of the year we can figure out how to deal with that. and i am not concerned about that, but we could get details

so we are not having a back and forth today and get to the bottom of this i would imagine. >> would that be okay from your perspective. >> yes, at the pleasure of the board. >> supervisor mar? >> i am actually very supportive of that process, i know that it is only six short days, but my hope is that as much of that information that miss campbell and mr. rose just laid out that your office can provide as much of that justification as possible and even for me to understand that $30,000 whether or how much of it is going to be savings and how much might not be savings as well, but data would be helpful and i am just wondering why there was not maybe more of an effort to get the information to the budget analyst so that we did not have to go through this some what confusing discussion here right now. okay. >> and if i could respond. i think that we were not aware

that it was, there was particular controversy associated with it. we believe that we had answered the questions and we will attempt to answer the questions and we hope that we can get specifically what the questions are. and i think that we have contemplated this savings in our budget the $30,000 and i think that we will certainly provide additional information and follow up with miss campbell and she will undoubtly tell us exactly what metrics are needed and we hope that you will find them compelling. >> supervisor avalos? >> thank you. when you say contemplated, the same in the budget meaning that you actually had budgeted $30,000 less? or rented space? >> i just confirmed that with, not with... no, for the hotel costs yes, if we have this space over here, that we will not so much hotel over there, yes. >> and i do believe that there is other ways that cost savings can be measured or found, and

one is the appropriation, and there is also just carrying forward as well, and you don't spend as much money as you budgeted and but i would let this and i am okay, you know, getting the information for next tuesday. and so moving forward, with this now. >> and last question that i have is when you do your testing and all of that, there is no work orders? dhr, it is your budget to do testing for the departments. for hiring staff for a departments in a city, it is just part of your budget authority; is that correct?. >> it depends on what kind of exam, but generally yes, we have the public safety and the funds to do the police testing and the fire testing for the public safety side, and further exams for the city wide exams we run them in sometimes departments provide if they want us to run an exam they will fund that if they are the ones who needed it etc.. but generally, sometimes we split the cost, if the big exam would be supported perhaps by the documents that need to hire

custodians and dpw and real estate and pec etc.. >> and so the police and fire don't pay for that. >> well we have that in the budget because we took over that whole testing program. >> thank you. >> just the last thing, is confusing is perhaps, a miscommunication coming from your office or a conflicting information on that last e-mail that miss campbell raised saying that the 30,000 was in the savings or even just the clarity on that would be helpful for me. >> we would be happy to provide that. >> okay. thank you. >> colleagues any further questions or discussion? i want to thank dhr and our budget analysts office for their work and continue work on this in the next few days, at this point we will open it up to public comment? anybody wish to comment on item 26? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and okay, colleagues, if you have a motion to this to the full board without recommendation. we can do that without

opposition. >> as referred without recommendation. >> correct. >> mr. clerk, do we have any other business in front of us? >> that completes the agenda to today. have a great break, everyone we are adjourned.

♪ >> i am so looking forward to the street fair tomorrow. >> it is in the mission, how are we going to get there? we are not driving. >> well what do you suggest? >> there are a lot of great transportation choices in the city and there is one place to find them all, sfnta.com. >> sfmta.com. >> it is the walking parking,

and riding muni and it is all here in one place. >> sitting in front of my computer waiting transportation options that is not exactly how i want to spend my saturday night. >> the new sfmta.com is mobile friendly, it works great on a tablet, smart phone or a lap top, it is built to go wherever we go. >> cool. >> but, let's just take the same route tomorrow that we always take, okay? >> it might be much more fun to ride our bikes. >> i am going to be way too tired to ride all the way home. >> okay, how about this, we can ride our bikes there and then we can take muni home and it even shows us how to take the bikes on the bus, so simple right here on my phone. >> neat. we can finish making travel plans over dinner, now let's go eat. >> how about about that organic

vegan gluten free rest rft. >> can't we go to the food truck. >> do you want to walk or take a taxi. >> there is an alert right here telling us there is heavy traffic in soma. >> let's walk there and then take a taxi or muni back. >> that new website gives us a lot of options. >> it sure does and we can use it again next weekend when we go to see the giants. there is a new destination section on the website that shows us how to get to at&t park. >> there is a section, and account alerts and information on parking and all kinds of stuff, it is so easy to use that even you can use it. >> that is smart. >> are you giving me a compliment. >> i think that i am. >> wow, thanks. >> now you can buy dinner. sfmta.com. access useful information, any

test, test, test, test, test, test, test, test >> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee. i'm scott wiener the chair of the committee. and others. i want to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting today's hearing. and madam clerk any announcements >> yes, please silence any devise arrest items acted upon today will be on september agenda. >> item one is the granting of

the permission to come up the hospital operations at 835 jackson street. >> thank you mr. chair this is a simple resolution to move forward the chinese project. in order to allow some tanks and vaults to be included in the public right-of-way. i want to ask t dw to present the presentation and i have a couple of quick technical amendments so we can resolve the matter quickly >> good morning. i'm john from the department of public works. we have received a question from the chinese hospital. among them is a 5 though gallon

storage tank for 4 transforms and two water storage tanks and a rainwater storage tank for reuse of rainwater. there's a petroleum station located under the sidewalk at 8:30 jackson street. those are the facilities that are identified in the encroachment permit >> great. thank you i don't have any questions. we can go to public comment. i have a cough of technical comments. i'll record this into the record. there are a couple of references inform the public utilities commission on items 8 and 9 it

is to be determined by the public utility commission and some language should be strictly and on page 3 line 6 there's a refers to the san francisco water department it should be for the public works commission. so those are technical amendments i'll move when we go to public comment. >> great is there any public comment on to me number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. i'll forward this to those the board >> so first could we move the technical amendments. >> yes. >> and i'll move this for the full board tomorrow. >> item 2 is an ordinance for

the use of self-prethat he would to permits the projects to the city of san francisco. >> supervisor kim is the leg legislator and they want this to be turned to the call of the chair for rehe scheduling at a later time. >> i'm happy to support given that supervisor customs not here it's solicited an interesting conversations. over the last twoou hours i've heard that the industry is trying to found a better way to muffler the sounds out of their planes. okay. is there any public comment on

item number 2. i have two cards. before we take public comment i neglected to mention that supervisor kim was unable to be here can

>> it doesn't prohibit identifying marks on aircraft that are speculated if it's under the ownership of the aircraft owner. so i don't know what the agreement is between good year blimp but there maybe an exception >> mr. walker. >> good afternoon. i'm alex from the beautiful. i think it's going to - i'm glad to hear about the muffle. and the biggest issue is with

the faa response if they're continuing to having difficulties getting a response we're happy to have our d c america to contact them. and i'll be happy to certify in any way possible. thanks again for carrying this legislation >> thank you. any additional public comments? >> good afternoon supervisors i'm steven. i'm a concerned citizen of san francisco county. i've lived here for 55 years and i'm disturbed about what happens over the park. a couple of saturdays ago we had 3 banners from papers above us

so this is corporate sky graffiti. and we're very concerned about the impact of tourism too. this city is progressive but when it has an impact of its beans flying over the city we're concerned about the air and noise and visual pollution. what's the impact upon our bird population let alone the human population. i'm in support of the baen and the elimination of all banners flying over san francisco county. this is getting a little bit ridiculous. the americans are taking 35 bits of advertising and if we can't

look at the beautiful of the golden gate bridge we're not a beautiful city. i thank you for taking my testimony and i hope that san francisco has a better tomorrow >> thank you very much. >> next speaker >> david elliott lewis. i'm against the prohibition i see it as a prohibition cabins free speech. while a lot of the speak might be commercial it gives an opportunity for groups to get their message out. not everybody follows twitter or facebook. i think getting a message out even 55 the unconventional ways

i think it's a diversity we tolerate in our city. i hope this won't move forward. and i hope you won't ban this informational splie >> any additional public comment on to me 2. seeing none, public comment is closed. i am supportive of supporting this to those the to the call of the chair. and as i indicated a previous hearing i'm not a fan of aerial advisement i'm not a fan of those aerial advertisements. what i also is a and i think i indicated many of this in the past hearing i think this this

legislation was rushed in the way s it was brought forward. and the normal deliver way we bring it forward it was dividing the file and we're duplicating the file and to take it from a brief america's cup restriction. i spoke this morning with i don't remember the name of the come that has about half of the market share on san francisco bay they indicate no outreach has been done to them and if they're the largest player and if they're the largest i'm assuming no one to the other operators as well. if you're going to be banning an

industry it make sense to have outreach of this to say if there's a resolution. i'm also concerned about whether it would be legal to ban aerial advertising under the fellow law. i know this area of the law is a a bit of a mess with hawaii said they could restrict this and there's been some regulations since them but it's unclear if that case law is applicable. so to go through expensive legislation to end up what the state go i want to be careful. so a continuance to the to the call of the chair make sense in

terms of allowing the author to nail down the legal guidance to know what our chances are in court if the legislation is passed. so can we continue this to the to the call of the chair >> madam clerk call item 3. >> it's the planning code to have the standard i see conformity for residential uses. we have a gentleman from supervisor avalos offices. and supervisor avalos what like this continued to the call of the chair we're hoping to have the city attorney to move forward on a portion of the project. to give you a brief update. the planning staff outlines this as 3 parts of the legislation.

the main part is section 33 of the criteria considered when considering merges of residential units. it's our tennis to bring this more 40 in line with having an option to have affordable housing. we're hoping to move forward on this. another part of the legislation section 181 deals with legally inconsistent non-residential units. there is some question on how those relate to the second unions. those are not traditionally in-law units their traditionally built before the zoning of the city and it's on a parcel that's

zoned for two unit. we want to have legal protection for those units. at the planning commission they asked for additional time to look at this so we want to introduce new legislation and the planning commission will reconsider this on september 19th. we've hoping to move forward on the criteria in september on a separate track to get our minds around this in the legislation. with that i'll leave it >> thank you very much so to continue to the call of the chair. >> yes, that's right. and supervisor avalos will be introducing new legislation >> the plan is to introduce amendments that remove section

181 to twisted the file but we can do that tomorrow. >> should we then - will this item number 3 if that's not relevant should we table it. >> we're planning to have this legislation h that will have everything but section 181 and we'll have a new option to go back to planning. >> i want item number 3 to remain alive. >> yes, sir. >> we'll annoy open this item up for public comment? >> david east i do not lewis. i don't understand the chances being property but to the extent

they give more protection i've lived in the city i've never seen such a high rate of evictions and above construction of condos and apartments. something is wrong in the city in terms of protecting the lower middle class and the poor. and demolitions are a part of this so if it's slowed i think we should support this >> any additional comment on item number 3. seeing none, to the call of the chair? >> so move forward. >> madam clerk any additional information for the economy. >> that is all.

>> okay. so we're coeconomy. >> that is all. >> okay. so we'r