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 so 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

>> good morning today's july 30th, 2013, well, to the transportation authority i'm supervisor avalos the chairman of the committee. today, we're being broadcast by sfgovtv. madam clerk please call the role >> to me - item one roll call

(calling names) we have quorum. >> okay. very good colleagues for being here i want to make sure we have everyone here to talk about our selection of an executive director. >> item number 2 closed section executive director information slash action item. >> today, we'll be interviewing 3 top commitments and the personnel committee met in june and today 3 candidates are moving forward.

those candidates you have information about them in your packet and we also will have a presentation from the awe kins company prior to the interviews to did you any questions about the candidates and go over a brief summary of the candidates. i have a sheet that i passed out for the candidates and it's 4 minutes per question and it's destined to a member of the personnel committee it's on your sheets. today, we hope to be able to move forward with a selection of a preferred candidate that will be fined listed in a vote in september. we're hoping to have a consensus. that will be very important we

can have strong working relationships with the selected candidates when that person becomes the x'd. and if we do have a consensus we'll be spending the next couple of weeks to negotiation terms of employment for the candidate and we'll finalize that in september before the board. we may very well decide we have two candidates moving forward just in case the first candidate decides not to come to agreement on terms. so & we'll have that during our closed session at the very end. so before going into closed session and we're going to have public comment before our closed session colleagues any questions

about the process? okay. why don't we go on to public comment? >> for over 35 years i've been involved with transportation issues. i find this process totally unnecessary for you supervisors who understand transportation issues and if you are fully aware of the administration code you know that are 1 or 2 of you all who are drawing out this process that's adversely impacting the constituents of

san francisco. having said that i know you're going to go into closed session and i hope that those of you who really love san francisco really care about transportation issues, really comprehended what the city needs does not go into closed session with a convoluted way of deceiving us. i can clearly see some of you who are called supervisors you find it very, very difficult to think straight. and this is one of the results. we need now to make a decision we need to adequate and make a

decision and a those you will choose the right candidate. i'm the only one from the public comment you all will go somewhere and at least we'll have some - you'll explain how that process happened and it should have been explained before public comment i think so. thank you any member of the public who would like to commit. seeing none, public comment is closed. okay. we're now g

>> n*e. july 31, 2013, board of appeals, the preceding officer this evening is board vice president ann lazarus and joined by commissioner fung and honda and hurtado. >> at the controls of the board's