guys support this, strongly support this. so, you know, not only for the diversity of our community, but for the kids. thank you. [speaker not understood]. >> thank you very much. next speaker. good afternoon, board of supervisors, president, [speaker not understood]. my name is [speaker not understood], district . i don't want to take it lightly, but it's funny. i mean, [speaker not understood], okay, something is wrong. they do it again. remember the previous appearance? he said the culture is for people, like the roots of a

tree. the question is what do we want to have? communities, especially minorities [speaker not understood] who are -- they don't see anything about the people, the culture. instead what they hear is [speaker not understood], discrimination. it's a way of life. i think we have to focus that even so, this is going to be profitable for the city, beneficial for the city. [speaker not understood] they have all the gain, values [speaker not understood], no question about that. [speaker not understood] have an identity and roots where they came from, they feel bad who they are.

i propose that that child is going to grow up to be a strong productive member of the community. so, please reject this appeal. [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public wish to speak in support of the project sponsor? sir, are you coming to speak? okay. seeing none, let us now go to the appellant for final rebuttal. >> thank you, members of the board. i have nothing to add to my previous comments. >> okay. colleagues, any questions to any of the parties involved in these appeals? seeing none at this time, this hearing has been held and is filed. [gavel] >> the matter is in the hands of the board. supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. president. i just want to take this

opportunity to thank the members of the community that have come out time and time again to talk about the importance of this project. i also appreciate not only the members of the mexican-american latino community, but the members of other communities that have come out to support this project. and, you know, i respect people's rights to bring these kinds of appeals forward, but i think it's unfortunate that this process has gotten us to the point where this appellant continues to rehash the same argument, the same issues. i think that's unfortunate. and i don't think that was the intent of this process. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. just wanted to concur with some of the comments of supervisor campos. i think that what is before us today in terms of the subdivision of the parcel is consistent with what this board has already approved time and

again regarding the project at 706 mission and the mexican museum and the subdivisions that are before us, really are in alignment with the project that has already been approved by this board. so, seeing that, i'd like to make a motion to approve item 24 and to table item 25 and 26 -- [multiple voices] >> let's break it up into two separate motion. if we can start with that. >> he second. >> second by supervisor avalos. colleagues, any discussion? okay, can we take that -- why don't we take a roll call vote on that motion. madam clerk. >> on the motion to approve item 24 and table 25 and 26, supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor dado? chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye.

supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the motion is approved. [gavel] >> and on the related appeal, supervisor kim. >> thank you. on the related appeal i'd like to make a motion to approve item 28 and to table items 29 and 30. >> okay, supervisor kim has made a motion. is there a second to that? seconded by supervisor campos. colleagues, can we do that without objection? without objection that should be the case and the motion is approved. [gavel] >> colleagues, why don't we go back to item 10. >> item 10 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to reauthorize the reentry council and revise the membership, powers and duties, and sunset date. ~ to revise >> roll call vote. >> on item 10, supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye.

supervisor campos? >> supervisor campos? >> campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. there are 11 ayes. >> this is passed on first reading. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 11 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the committee on city workforce alignment, to give the committee responsibility for planning and coordinating the city's workforce development programs, and to make other changes to the procedures governing the planning and implementation of workforce development programs. >> supervisor chiu? >> thank you, madam chair. colleagues, this is an ordinance that comes out of years of work. you may remember in the last board of supervisors before any

of us came here, there was an attempt through initial audit by budget analyst to rehaul workforce development program. unfortunately after a number of years that work is not done and i had last year asked for an audit of our city's workforce agencies to really understand what we are not doing and it turns out that in our city, when it comes to our workforce programs, we have not had an overall strategy. we have not had metrics of success. we have not had targeted populations we're trying to help with the workforce programs. we have not had the uniform budget. this administrative code change and this ordinance would really help to establish for the first time the coordination of workforce efforts to create a committee made up of representatives from a variety of departments responsible for workforce agencies to plan and coordinate our programs and to really create a multi-year strategy in how we are helping to make sure that all of our communities in san francisco

are taking part in that 21st century economy. so, with that i want to thank supervisors cohen and breed for their co-sponsorship and ask for your support. and with that, colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? without objection this ordinance is passed on the first reading. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you call items 12 through 15? >> item 12 is an ordinance amending the administrative code, by adding chapter 94, sections 94.1 through 94.7, to establish a plaza program that coordinates city activities in some city-owned plazas on public property and public right-of-way; create a process to identify stewards to activate plazas under the jurisdiction of the city's real estate division and regulate such plazas; establishing administrative fees for the plaza program; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. ~ program. item 13 is an ordinance amending the planning code, by amending sections 234, 234.1, 234.2, and 605, in order to modify and make technical amendments to the provisions of public use zoning districts; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ item 14 is an ordinance amending the public works code, by adding section 792, to establish a permit program for plazas on the public right-of-way; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. ~ public right-of-way

and item 15 is an ordinance amending the police code to include "plazas" as identified in administrative code, chapter 94, as a type of limited live performance locale, and establish various requirements applicable to such plazas; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. ~ applicable to such plazases. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, colleagues and san franciscans. the san francisco plaza program is an exciting new urban plaza stewardship program that aims to build on community efforts to, to implement more innovative sustainable and livable solutions that engage and support san francisco's many vibrant communities. i'm happy to sponsor this legislation today. i believe it will have many positive long-term benefits to our city's plazas and open spaces. this legislation gives the city a tool to activate plazas with events like farmers market street, limited live performances, movie nights, local food and retail opportunities. this legislation will enhance opportunities for economic development, partnership with community members and proposes streamline and permitting

process for stewards to the plaza making activation easier and more sustainable. colleagues, you have in front of you a copy of three nonsubstantive amendments to the administrative code and the -- these amendments simply clarify, one, a 90-day rfp time period for city plazas which mirror the time period already stated for street plazas. the second amendment, because this item was continued at the planning commission, the program target implementation goal of april 1st is now out of date and they're now setting an implementation goal date of july 1st and the goal of adding three plazas to the program by the end of 2014. it is now amended to read "by the end of fiscal year 2014-2015." the third amendment is an amendment to allow written

public comment on submitted proposals for stewardship before the rfp review committee does final touring. i have with me robin havens and ken rich from moewd to help answer any final questions, but i think these are straightforward and i would welcome your support on this initiative. thank you. >> thank you. as i understand, supervisor cohen, you have amendments to this. >> that is correct. i have three amendments. >> okay, if i could have them. okay. so, i'm going to clarify, supervisor cohen has made a number of amendments to item 12. can i have a second to those amendments? seconded by supervisor mar. colleagues, can we take the amendments without objection? without objection that should be the case. [gavel] >> thank you. >> and i want to just take a moment to thank supervisor cohen as well as staff from oewd on addressing some of the concerns raised by neighbors in my district. and with that, colleagues, on items 12 through 15, can we take a roll call vote. >> on item 12 as amended

through 15, supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the ordinances are passed on first reading including item 12 as amended. [gavel] >> and with that, if we can go to our committee reports, madam clerk, if you can call them starting at item 31. >> item 31 was not forwarded to the board as a committee report. >> and item 32. >> item 32 was considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on thursday, may 15th and was forwarded to the board as a committee report recommended as amended with a new title. >> supervisor yee.

>> mr. president, excuse me, supervisor yee. i'll read the item. it's an item [speaker not understood]. >> supervisor yee. >> since the sunshine ordinance at last week's rules committee meeting, the [speaker not understood] shows us how important open government is to the constituents of san francisco and we understand that many of the seats on the task force are currently being held over by existing members. and it is my commitment to make appointments to all expired seats soon as possible. unfortunately last week's meeting the committee was only able to reach consensus on three applicants at the time. there were 11 open seats and

this really caused a little confusion there. so, let me clarify. although we only forwarded three names, all remaining candidates are still being considered. we intend -- we intend on hearing the remaining seats at the next scheduled rules committee meeting on june 5th, 2014. during the last meeting, though, we also heard concerns about the diversity of the task force. so, i really wanted to encourage any interested people to apply so that we may continue to further diversify our task force. thank you very much. >> thank you. supervisor tang. >> thank you. and i appreciate supervisor yee's comments. some of them were actually similar ones i was going to make. unfortunately we only had actually two members of our committee at the rules committee meeting and, so, i

think to be fair as well as given the number of candidates, we really hoped to, to appoint more individuals to the task force at our next scheduled rules committee meeting. i also had the opportunity to speak with two of the organizations that do have designated seats on the task force. i believe that we had great conversations about how it is that we can mentor future applicants to serve on the task force and become interested in it as well as increasing the amount and level of diversity of the candidates as supervisor yee mentioned. so, just to reiterate, none of the candidates who applied are out of the running. they are still being considered and we still only hope to move along the confirmations at a future meeting. thank you. >> supervisor avalos. >> i appreciate the work that the rules committee members had done on selection for these candidates who are before us today. but i really feel that the process was kind of incomplete and i'd like to be able to

think that we can actually approve the members all together. i mean, the seats, there's enough applicants to fill all the seats. it seems like that could be before the rules committee. i know the june 5th rules committee meeting, member who wasn't there, david campos will be there and i'm hoping that we can make a motion to send back these names back to the committee to be able to hear all together with the other applicants and together [speaker not understood] that one more time. i do realize there was a lot of work involved, but to me it would make a lot of sense to do that, especially because i don't feel comfortable with all the candidates who are here before us right now. >> supervisor campos. >> that was a motion. i made a motion to send back. >> oh, i'm sorry. supervisor avalos has made a motion to send these back to committee. is there a second to that? seconded by supervisor campos. supervisor campos.

>> thank you. i do want to begin by noting that i do serve on the rules committee and i was not present at the meeting. i had a long-time previously scheduled appointment where i was flying to chicago on behalf of hotel workers from two local hotels and we were -- i was leading a delegation of worker to meet with shareholders that own these two hotels that have taken pretty harsh anti-worker stances. and, so, i couldn't be at the meeting because of that. we did try to get a replacement. we couldn't do that. ~ in the end. i do want to thank the committee and my fellow committee members for the work that they did and i know that the chair of the committee and his staff, they run a pretty tight ship and they want to

move quickly on all of these things and i really appreciate that. i do believe, though, that there are larger issues, which is why i'm supporting the motion to send this back. and i am concerned about a number of things. i am concerned that the rules committee along the lines that have been done before did not move forward the nominations by sbj, mark [speaker not understood] and ali winston as well as the league of women voters nominee, alison washburn. i do believe that it's important to have diversity, but i also believe that when you have qualified applicants and the law actually requires that you fill these seats, that it's important to move those -- the people that have applied forward. and i do have a concern, quite

frankly, that we are in violation of what the ordinance, the sunshine ordinance requires. i also think that there were a number of other candidates that could have been moved forward, including the highly qualified lee hepner and, you know, while i actually appreciate that some of these names didn't move forward, i think that it's important for us to look at these appointments in their totality so that we're not in any way not following what the sunshine ordinance require. i do have a question for legal counsel, though. >> mr. givner? >> so, i guess, you know, my main concern is that by not moving forward the nomination by the sbj and the league of

women voters that we are essentially in violation of the sunshine ordinance. and i was wondering if you could comment, through the chair, if you could comment on that in term of the legality of the board simply saying, we're not going to fill those vacancies. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the sunshine ordinance provides that those organizations will nominate and the board will confirm. ultimately, the ordinance itself doesn't restrict the board to approving the nominees that are submitted by those organizations. so, at this point the organization has, has -- each organization basically has two options. to come back to the board with the same nominee and ask -- urge the board to confirm that nominee, or to come back to the board with a different nominee or a different list of names that the sunshine ordinance suggested is an option. >> my understanding is the

intent of the ordinance was to ensure that there were representatives of certain communities and in this case, you know, you're talking about journalist, you're talking about the league of women voters. and since the board is not moving forward on those appointments as has been the case before, could there be a finding of violation of the board for failing to meet that requirement? that's just one question that i had. >> ultimately the board has discretion in its, in its appointment. and as with many different types of advisory bodies in the city, there are various qualifications for different seats. the board sometimes has trouble finding people who meet those qualifications or have [speaker not understood] for a while, and other times the board simply does not choose to

confirm or appoint the people who have applied at the rules committee or who have been nominated by the organization. that alone is not a violation of the sunshine ordinance because the ordinance doesn't restrain the board of supervisors discretion in making appointment. >> just finally, in terms of the appointment of a representative from the disabled community, if we fail to include that, would that be a violation? >> the sunshine ordinance provides that one of the 11 voting members must be a person with a disability. my understanding is that currently there is a hold over member of the task force who meets that qualification. so, the board could act on the nominees that are before you and, and maintain -- continue to have the task force comply with that requirement.

>> thank you. >> supervisor tang. >> sure, i actually just wanted -- this came up as well during committee so i wanted to pose the question since this has been a motion to send this back to rules committee. many of the applicants actually suggested that the board of supervisors because we've been holding up appointments that they had core issues. a question was posed about if we were to move forward three names or not, how would that impact the ability of the task force to continue operation. deputy city attorney jon givner again. my understanding is there are a number of hold overs whose terms expired and continue to serve on the task force. and, so, not reappointing -- not appointing people to replace those hold overs immediately would not cause legal problems in terms of the task force not having a quorum. of course, if members resign or

are unable to attend meetings, they could have quorum problems, but it's not a, it's not a legal restriction on the board considering these appointments today. >> thank you. and i also just wanted to respond to some of the comments made as well. i think that there's been a lot of suggestion that we are not planning to move forward certain recommendationses from certain seats. none of us have indicated that. and again, like i said, i've had conversations with sjp, the league of women voters had really positive conversations with them. so looking forward to continuing that dialogue. we seek a very difficult verse pool of candidates, so thank you. >> thank you. supervisor yee. >> thank you. so, we did spend a lot of time on this issue and asked many of the questions that are being raised at this point. i want to be real clear that the three that we have put

forward, the [speaker not understood] in the committee we're supporting. so, the outcome to bring them back wouldn't make any difference to me and i would not be supporting this amendment because i don't want to put people through something that they don't need to go through. the other thing would be that in regards to several of the nominees, it what just no agreement to put them forward at the time, but the decision to do was not to say that we don't want them. we just needed to have two votes to move some of the others forward. so, that's why we wanted to duplicate the file, is that what it was? so that none of the candidates would be eliminated. so, i will not be supporting the amendment. >> supervisor breed. >> i just want a point of

clarification. so, my understanding some of -- all three of the names you put forward are people who actually served on the sunshine task force? yes, okay. and the other, i guess, i wanted to ask the city attorney about, the requirements in terms of meeting because i did follow-up with one of the candidates in regards to their [speaker not understood]. so my understanding they don't have a regular meeting day and the regular meeting changes consistently. so, it's not like, for example, we meet every tuesday. they're meeting maybe on tuesday, they may be on the 17ing. they're very random which make it difficult for some members to attend. so, i just wanted some clarification about whether or not that's the case. >> deputy city attorney jon givner again. i can't speak to that. i don't know what the task

force's schedule is. i'm not familiar enough with the bylaws to know [speaker not understood]. >> but they decide when they meet? >> committees and task forceses can always hold special meetings on dates that they're choosing. most advise iery and policy bodies have regular meetings at set times. ~ advisory i just don't know about the sunshine ordinance task force. ment i don't know what their schedule is. >> okay, thank you. >> can i -- >> any further questions? supervisor yee? >> no, just to answer your question, from the committee meetings we asked the same questions about -- because one of the candidates that we are actually putting forward indicated there were several absences. and, so, we asked the question why. and it's been confirmed from different members that they have moved the committee

meetings and that made it hard for certain people to schedule because of their personal situation with kids and so forth. so, yes, they did -- for whatever reason they didn't have the regular meetings on a certain calendar date. >> thank you. >> supervisor breed, do you have any follow-up? >> i just had a comment. as a former member of the rules committee and i know how long some of those meetings could be and the process and, you know, how tedious and how hard of a decision it is oftentimes to make when you have so many incredible candidates. i think that you have chosen some really great candidates. i think from my understanding they have served and they have done a good job on the sunshine ordinance task force. i happen to know personally two of those members and will be happy to put my name behind

those two individuals in addition to one of the other individuals who i reviewed credentials forward and followed up and discovered we have three very good candidates and i think you did a very good job of choosing them. it appears that there are going to be other options in the future and, so, i'm happy to move this item forward and support the recommendations made by the rules committee. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just had a point of clarification. so, there were five open seats considered at rules committee? >> [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. >> we have another 13. i think there were 11. were there 11? there what much more than 5. >> through the president to supervisor kim, i understand there were 11 open before the task force.

>> so 11 were open and of those 11 we forwarded 3. i just wanted to get a sense. and to our city attorney, when we have not filled a vacancy, then the proceeding [speaker not understood] a member so they cannot aloe sign. ~ resign. that is how the sunshine ordinance has been meeting its quorum? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. that's correct. i believe there are several members whose, whose terms have, have ended who are holding over, which is allowed under the sunshine ordinance task force, but not under certain charter created committees -- commissions. >> okay, thank you. and seats 1 through 5 are the ones that must be appointed or nominated by an organization. i don't believe that we've confirmed any of those and my assumption is