discussion of us vigorously defend and vigorously bolster city college stations in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. (applause) >> thank you, sheriff mirkarimi. hi, my name is [speaker not understood] wallace, i'm an esl teacher at the [speaker not understood] city college three blocks away at eddy street. malia cohen, thank you for sponsoring this. i was one of the teachers that came to speak with you in your office in march and we really, really appreciate the unanimous resolution that the board of supervisors passed in support of ccsf. i was a student at city college in the '80s. i did my student teaching there as a masters student at s.f. state. i'll be working with two students from the masters program in the tsaw program at sf state. so, that's important. they are really fearful of what could happen in the next year with the special trustee because we feel like civic center campus might be vulnerable to being closed and i would really like to advocate

that we need to keep the vic i can center campus open. i was speaking with edgar torres who is the chair of latino studies department and he noted that as the mission becomes more gentrified, a lot of immigrants are moving to the tenderloin ~ and we really need to be able to serve that population. i also just want to make the point that over the last year the faculty and staff at ccsf formed 14 different work groups to address every recommendation that the accjc cited us on and we put in a lot of hours to try and meet their recommendations. so, it's been a huge slap in the face that we are at this point now. we think it's very unjust and undeserved and thank you very much for your support today. (applause) >> thank you. next speaker. hi, supervisors. thank you, supervisor cohen,

for holding this hearing and supervisor avalos. my name is dennis [speaker not understood]. by the way, i went to city college three years, 1957 to 1960. and then later in the middle of my printing trades career, i decided i wanted to see if i could do something else so i went back to study physiology which was available to me. but that's not what i'm here for. i think you guys know because you've heard it all, that this is a political fight not an education fight. it's a political fight to hold onto this ability to have this kind of capacity to offer. what really is the only working class institution in san francisco that serves more than 90,000 adults here, and many of them are working full time or half time. so, the question to you is because i can't figure it out, is who can change this decision? who do we put pressure on, aside from [speaker not understood] and meetings and hearings which are all going to be very important to educate people, who makes the decision to reverse this?

it's a self-appealing committee that is -- i read about it. it's not a credible body. it's not somebody that you can talk to. so, who is the target of the political pressure? i don't know, but i hope when you guys get involved because i think it's going to take you guys to do this as well as a whole lot of the rest of us. i hope you can figure out exactly who we target because it's only a year. and i heard the statement today it's going to take a very long time to do this evaluation process. there isn't that much time. so, what do we do in the year and how do we do it? because if times goes on and thing linger and there's no target, the year will pass and they will make the decision and they just may downsize the college because that may be what they're doing using threat of closure as leverage. leverage closure to scare the

crap out of people. >> thank you. next speaker. (applause) hi, thank you for you all for your stamina. what you do for city college and what you do every day. it is a phenomenal amount of energy you put into. this my name is tracy wheeler. i left a very high pressure job about 10 years ago and took 10 classes at city college that shifted me out of corporate marketing. i worked for the gap, and into mission marketing advocacy for -- [speaker not understood] i worked with southern exposure for 7 years and i now work for bennington college helping them negotiate some of the same forces, different, but very similar forces that are massing on the horizon of higher education. this is, as everybody said, i really big battle. it's a battle for our values. i think it could potentially be the conversation for san francisco right now, not just about city college, but also about who we are as a city,

what our values are and what we believe in. i think any city that gets called the snobbiest city in the country, which we he just were by travel and leisure, a city that get tarred by the same brush that silicon valley is. with google, all the things going on, we really need to talk about not just what city college offers, but what it means as an institution of diversity, of accessibility, of welcome in a city at a time when the counter narrative is that we're closing down, we're not accessible, and we're not interested in anybody who is not rich. so, please, please, i hope that we can all work together and take this very seriously. thank you. >> thank you. (applause) >> are there any other members of the public who would like to comment? if so, please come forward. and seeing no one else come forward, we can close public comment. >> all right. public comment is closed. [gavel]

>> well, thank you, everyone, for being here and for providing your input and your stamina as well for this hearing. it's been about three hours, i think, maybe more. this has been a learning process for me. i've spent the past year looking at how come there's all these different points of view that aren't seeming to geling together and to* give me a right sense to weigh in on the issue. in fact since it's under my jurisdiction. but i thought that when the board of trustees ~ were suspended that we needed to provide some kind of public space for people to come together. i've had real concerns. i actually throwing up the fact or the idea that the accrediting commission is completely unaccountable, that it doesn't have any linkage to state public education institutions except that it can rule over some of them at the local level, has been a scary

thought and one that i think needs further investigation. i haven't read aft's or cft's report. i'm going to look at that. i think it's important to, you know, question that, but i also think at the same time it's important that there is a strong process that is going to work towards keeping the college open, keeping accreditation together. i do think there is significant resources as reported by archy mendoza, the mayor's education director that the mayor's office is involved at some level. i do think that the mayor's office needs to have a public space to be able to share its work and also a place where the public can exhort the mayor's office to be accountable to the community. i'm happy to hear assembly member tom ammiano's office is active >> citith level. i think we need to hear from congressional leaders as well as what is happening at the federal level as well. the issue could go to the

federal level about who has accountable -- the accjc could be accountable to. there were comments we'll hear about that as well. it was before the hearing i met with students from smac and coleman advocates. someone actually concerning me over the past years, how come there's students and faculty that don't seem to be on the same page on a lot of things. the students who came and spoke really spoke with a lot of emotion about how they feel their voice hasn't been heard. that's something i think cannot be denied. and one of the things i hope to come out of this hearing would be how there could be some way to get people to the other end of work so their voices can be heard from the other side. i think the students need to have sense that the school is making headway and not just hearing their voices, but implementing their ideas into action that come from them. it is something that -- the only way they're going to actually feel there is actual

meaningful change that is happening. this process doesn't lead to some changes being made, there is the opportunity to have their voices implemented. i'd like to see that happen. my office is -- works on a myriad of issues here at city hall, but i am willing to devote some of my staff and interns' time to be able to, you know, hear from community groups, from labor groups, from people who are administrators and faculty at the college, perhaps even the trustee and others to sort out what's going on and have a stronger point of view. i'm willing to work towards building greater unity within the city to make sure that we can actually make valid changes and keep this college together. and, so, i offer that, you know, in the coming months to do that. and, you know, people can contact me directly by e-mail. my office phone, telephone lines, personally, my staff

will be working directly with raquel [speaker not understood]. and calling my office and e-mailing her would be a way to go as well. i'm also on facebook. so, with that, if there are -- i think supervisor tang has comments as well. but i do really appreciate people coming here and i want to make sure that we are playing a role to support the efforts to save and improve city college. >> all right. well, i just wanted to really thank supervisor avalos for your leadership on this issue and of course thank you to all the people who came out and spoke. we really enjoyed listening about the diversity of opinions you have and experiences that you've had through city college. certainly i even have peers to this day who decided to go back to city college to take extra courses. so, we truly do know how important it is to maintain this incredible institution. and i know that all of the members on the board of supervisors don't want to see it closed. i think that regardless of whatever your opinion is on the

accrediting commission that improvements that have been recommended to city college will help in the long run. a lot of people spoke about not only just maintaining city college, but making sure it thrives in the future. i think that the improvements that will be made and that have already been made would not only help the students who are currently there, the people who are currently working there, but people who in the future will decide to go to city college. so, i know that all the members of the board and especially supervisor avalos who will work very hard to make sure city college can remain a viable institution in the future, so, thank you everyone for coming out. >> if we could perhaps continue this to the call of the chair. >> perfect, okay. let's go ahead and close out public comment. i don't know if i -- okay. public comment is closed. [gavel] >> there's been a motion to file to the call of the chair and it's been seconded and it's been unanimous. this motion is accepted and filed. is there anything else you wanted to say? >> just to continue -- >> i'm sorry, continued to the call of the chair. >> thank you.

>> it's been a long day, folks. okay, thank you, everyone, for coming out. and i thank you for caring. (applause) >> madam clerk, are there any other matters before this body? >> that concludes our business for the day. >> thank you, this body is adjourned. [gavel] >> thank you. [adjourned] 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. >> madamrk