>> san francisco recreation and parks department offers classes for the whole family. rec and parks has a class for everyone. discover what is available now and get ready to get out and play. henri matisse.

frida kahlo. andy warhol. discover the next great artist. get out and play and get inspired with toddler classes. experience art where making a mess is part of the process. classes and the size the artistic process rather than the product. children have the freedom to explore materials at their own pace and in their own way. talks love art, especially when they died into the creative process -- dive into the creative process. at the end of the classes, they have cleaned and washup. of.com great way to get out and play. for more information, visit

sfrecpark.org. that out and play and get into the groove. rec and parks offers dance classes for seniors. first-time beginners or lifetime enthusiasts -- all are welcome. enjoy all types of music. latins also, country and western. it is a great way to exercise while having lots of fun. seniors learn basic moves and practice a variety of routines. improve your posture, balance, and flexibility. it is easy. get up on your feet and step to the beat.

senior dance class is from sf rec and park. a great way to get out and play. >> for more information, >> good morning. mation, today is june -- july 30th, 2013. welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority. my name is john avalos, the chair of the authority. madam clerk, could you please -- actually, the clerk is chang. today we are being broadcast by sfgtv staff, joshua alexander and greg burk. madam clerk, could you please call the roll? >> roll call, commissioner avalos? >> present. >> avalos present. commissioner breed? >> here. >> breed present. >> commissioner campos? >> present. >> campos present. commissioner chiu? >> here.

>> chiu present. commissioner co-en? >> cohen present. >> farrell present. commissioner kim? >> here. >> kim present. commissioner mar? >> here a. >> commissioner mar present. commissioner tang? tang present. commissioner arena? commissioner arena present. commissioner yee? yee present. we have a quorum. >> okay, very good. thank you, colleagues, for being here. i want to make sure we had all of us here today for this special meeting to talk about our selection of an executive director. madam clerk, could you plix call the next item? >> item number 2, closed session, appoint/public employee executive director, information action item. >> great, thank you, colleagues. so, today we will be interviewing three of our top candidates that had been forwarded from the personnel committee. the personnel committee met in june, interviewed nine candidates and today three candidates are moving forward for us to interview in closed session.

these candidates, you have information packets about them in your packets forwarded by the hawkins company. we also have a presentation from the hawkins company prior to the interviews to discuss any questions people may have about any of the candidates and to go over a brief summary of each of the candidates who are going to be presenting themselves before us today. i have a sheet that i passed out that has questions for the candidates. the questions will be four minutes per person per question, and each question is assigned to a member of the personnel committee who will be asking those questions and you'll see that on your sheets in front of you. today we hope to be able to move forward with a selection of a preferred candidate that later will be finalized in a vote in september. we're hoping to have a consensus on a candidate that all of us can agree on supporting. that is something that will be really important that we actually have have really strong working relationships

moving forward with the selected preferred candidate when that person becomes the executive director. and then if we do -- are able to come to consensus, we will be able to spend the next couple weeks to negotiate terms of employment for the candidates and then we'll finalize that in september with a final decision that will come before the board. we may very well decide that we might have two candidates that will move forward just in case as one ranked above the other in case the first ranked candidate decides not to come to agreement before terms, that is an option we'll have before us. that is something we'll have during our closed session and a discussion about which candidates to move forward. so, before going into closed session and before -- we'll have public comment before we have closed session, wonder if colleagues have any comments or questions about the process.

okay. why don't we go on to public comment. my name is francisco di costa and for over 35 years i have been involved with transportation issues. i find this process totally unnecessary. for you supervisors that understand transportation issues, and if you are fully aware of the administrative code, you know that there are one or two of y'all who are drawing out this process, adversely impacting the constituents of san francisco. so, 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 comprehend what is a transit first city, do not go into closed session with a convoluted way of deceiving us. i can clearly see, even though some of you all are 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 adjudicate and make a decision, and i hope that those of you all who have the

strength to do the right thing will choose a right candidate. so, i suppose i'm the only one from the public here. after public comment i'll leave. you'll go somewhere, make a decision and report it to us. at least do you all have some, some -- will y'all explain how that process will happen? because that should have been explained before public comment, i think so. >> thank you. any other member of the public who would like to comment? and seeing none, we will close public comment. [gavel] >> okay, we will now enter into closed session. >>please stand by - meeting in closed session

>> okay, are we live? so, we're coming out of closed session. we went into closed session in the morning session this morning and around 12:45 or maybe 1:30 went into recess so we could actually have the board meeting. i have to make this announcement. and we came out of the board meeting and went back into closed session as the ta. and now we're actually coming into open session. so, colleagues, can we have a motion not to disclose any confidential discussions we had? motion from supervisor farrell and seconded by supervisor cohen. we can take that without objection. and we also made a motion i need report on that we are going to continue the

discussion decision on the final candidate to september 10th of this coming fall, month and a half from now, and we will in the meantime, colleagues, will be conducting their own research and work on getting other candidates and we'll make a decision hopefully september 10th. we will make a decision september 10th. and, so, we can go on to our next item, item number 3 is introduction of new items. >> [inaudible]. >> we actually made that decision in closed session so we're just reporting on that motion that was made. so, we can -- it was a unanimous decision to continue the discussion until september 10th and have that item come before us september 10th. our next item, please. >> item number 3, introduction of new items. this is an information item.

>> okay, colleagues, i believe there is an introduction that will be handed to our clerk. we can fill out public comment. seeing no one come for public comment we'll close public comment on item number 3. [gavel] >> item number 4. >> item number 4, public comment. >> item number 4 is general public comment. and we are going to close general public comment for no member of the public to be here. [gavel] >> item number 5. >> item number 5 adjournment. >> we are adjourned. have a great break. [adjourned] [adjourned] ... [adjourned] ... aah! i'm a lion! yes, you are. come here. let's see how this looks. hey, how's my little horse?

she's a lion. yes, she is. grrr! ha ha! announcer: you don't have to be perfect to be a perfect parent. when you adopt a child from foster care, just being there makes all the difference. 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