>> good morning, congratulations on your recent election. i'm charles, former chair of common cause, but i'm representing myself today and i've used rarely when i could, this opportunity to tell you about a project which is 100% affordable, 100% for profit here in the city and i don't know if either of the supervisors here today have seen the project, but i suggest that you might want to see it. it's an old project, you may already know about it, so pardon my advocacy, but if you haven't seen it i suggest you go see it. it's called yerba buena commons. it's about 280 units of affordable and it was built for profit. the template in the financial

package is really impressive so i suggest you might go take a tour of that project because it might give you some ideas on how the private sector can work with the public sector and put such a project together. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who'd like to provide public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to thank both miss hayward and miss foster for coming here today and providing the update. this hearing was held primarily as i said because the civil grand jury made a recommendation. we, at this time, president tang, i'd like to table this hearing. however, this does not preclude us from having future hearings about housing and specific relevant things that are important to moving this plan of 30,000 new and

rehabbed units forward for our city, so thank you again, and is there a motion to table this hearing? >> i also through the chair just wanted to acknowledge the work from mo hcd staff. i know our office has been working very closely with you and planning to figure out how to better solve the affordability issues, especially for middle and moderate income levels and that's something really important to me an our district residents so look forward to continuing that work despite tabling this hearing. with that, i second your motion and -- >> okay, without objection, this hearing is tabled. madam clerk, can you call item 2? >> item 2 is on ordinance amending the [inaudible] received further social securities. >> okay. so i want to open this up for public comment. are there any other members of the public who'd like to make public comment on item 2,

please come forward? >> my name is ryan patterson and thank you for the opportunity to speak. this is an interesting proposal today. we're here under fairly unique circumstances where there was perhaps an inadvertent misrepresentation during the passage of the original law last year, misrepresentation about what that law contained and the provision is that's issued today is whether people who provide permit consulting services must disclose to the public how much they charge, what their fees are for each permit. there was a promise to make that right after the law was passed and make sure that the law that was enacted ultimately reflected what everyone at the table understood was going to be the law and in the proposal.

so we were looking forward to this coming up today. we were disappointed to hear that it was tabled and really hope and ask you to take it from the table and consider it and pass this ordinance. the disclosures at issue here are harmful. they may cause us

>> i make my business doing construction work in san francisco. i believe most of the time i'm exempt under the rules, but the rules are not very clear when engineers are providing services so i'm very concerned about having to disclose my

competitive advantage as, in most of my clients view me as a contractor, which i'm not. i'm a licensed structural engineer, but i'm going to be asked to disclose my compensation to the public so my clients can look? i'm at a loss what benefit it does. now, also in comment to this, most permit consultants are engineers, contractors, architects. they're not raising hundreds of thousands of dollars. they're in the construction industry. there may be another group of people that i don't see doing something, but i'm basically doing construction and having to disclose what i get paid so everyone can see it, it's kind of an unfair competitive advantage. maybe there should be some rules for lawyers doing this, but most permit consultants

are architects or engineers. this is going to harm the industry. thank you, are there any other members of the public. please come forward. >> good day. my name is erik jacob son. i i was involved in the writing of this legislation towards the end. i had a number of conversations with david chiu at lents and his assistant. and i feel that this portion of the legislation was approved in error. we had a number of conversations and we were promised this portion of legislation was going to be removed after it was passed. i was told by the legislative aid that it was approved in error and there was going to be an effort made to repair this legislation. it now seems that this is being tabled and we're not really being heard out. as it's been said by some of the other people in the

community, this hurts our competitive advantage and it basically publicizes to other contractors and people who are exempt from the legislation, what our fees are. it gives them the opportunity to roll our services into their proposals. we provide a variety of services. we do cold consulting. we really provide a description of the process to our clients and often what we charge for those services wouldn't really reflect what it is that we do. we would disclose what our rates are for a specific project and that all appears to be compensation for permit consulting when really what we're providing is a variety of services. this legislation doesn't take that into account. it was hastily drafted and

really doesn't understand what it intends to regulate. i would appreciate it if you'd take that into account and could revisit this at some other time. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who'd like to provide public comment at this time? >> good morning, my name is [inaudible]. i'm a licensed contractor for 25 years and i do the permit consulting and i don't want my budget to be publicly -- what happened to my privacy. i have -- at the end of the year i pay my taxes. between a client and me we write the check, i have all my checks deposited. at the end of the year, i have a partner we pay uncle

same whatever we have to pay him. this is invasion of privacy for what i do for a living. besides that we have five, six of us over here who have been dealing with this for the past five to seven years. what about these people not involved in this, they have no clue. they're creating a huge chaos in planning department and all kind of things is going to get involved and i don't know where to begin. we need some guidance, we need somebody to tell us what to do, what to write. what do we have to report. how do we ref have to report it? as a contractor do i have to report a job or do i have to report the owner's income. it's going to be chaos and we appreciate to put this one aside. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members

of the public who'd like to provide public comment can you please line up i was at both

meetings and i wanted to be witness to that. thank you very much. >> are there any other members of the public who'd like to provide pb at this time. seeing none, public comment is closed. supertang. >> just a couple questions. say this legislation was not going to be tabled, it was only going to be addressing the requirement that but all of the other requirements that were put in at the end of june will still stand. >> yes. >> okay. so i mean, i hear the public loud and clear and i definitely defer to the sponsor of this particular legislation on any future conversations you want to have with the community or what you'd like to do in relation to this legislation. >> okay.

thank you president tang. i was caught off guard by the number of e-mails i received in opposition to this legislation. as all of you know, supervisor chiu is now assemblyman chiu and this is one of the pieces of legislation that he had planned to move forward. it was my understanding that the last line of the legislation was put into the legislation as somewhat of a mistake and this was legislation to correct that mistake. unfortunately i was not prepared for a lot of the backlash that would come with bringing this legislation forward in order to help assemblyman chiu complete his agenda on the board of supervisors so i had agreed to

table it because it wasn't a issue that i was actively engaged in and i didn't feel comfortable fighting for legislation that i was not instrumental in preparing and proposing. and so at this time, and hearing some of the feedback from some of the members here, i'm happy instead of to table it, continue this to the call of the chair in order to develop a more detailed understand and do more outreach to some of those individuals who have concerns about removing that line in the first place and make sure that i understand their concerns and understand the intent, not only of the folks of assemblyman chiu, but i understand some of the folks that were instrumental in developing this legislation, i want to make sure they're

comfortable with this legislation, and it's my understanding that some are not and that's what the problem is. i mean, the fact of the matter is i didn't think that it would be as time consuming and con tro ver ver shl as it was going fox which is why i agreed to take on the responsibility and since it has interfered with me to do my other duties as supervisor, i decided to table it. but at this time i'm willing to continue the item to the call to chair in order to invest some more time into making a decision as to believe it whether or not we should move forward with the legislation and we will probably not bring this item back to gao until sometime in january. should we specify a date,

madam clerk? >> you can specify or continue to the call of the chair and bring it forward. >> okay. president chiu, do you have any recommendations? >> i would just say that if we continue to call the chair without date specified there will be noticing requirements when it comes up, but i think it gives your office or whor else is involved in the conversations the ability to be flexible with timing in terms of negotiation. >> with that, i move to continue this item to the call of the chair. without objection this item is moved to the call of the chair. madam clerk can you call item 3. >> item 3 [inaudible] required to provide a response on the implementationings contained in the 13 #14shgs civil grand jury report entitled rising sea levels at our doorsteps. >> we have a number of folks here to talk about that item.

mr. frank [inaudible]. >> from the mayor's office. >> oh, okay. >> we also have here and a number of other city staff department staff. >> can you say your name gej? again? >> roger kim. >> i don't know why i have you on my list. >> we have some folks who weren't able to make it because of weather. i'm stepping in to make a quick presentation. good afternoon. our office has been coordinating in response to this civil grand jury report, but also work around the city on sea level rise. so just wanted to give you a quick update on where we're at. i know our office submitted written comments back to you so just want to spend a few minutes. and i also have colleagues here from capital planning committee, the port, the city engineer and the department of environment to answer any questions.

so first of all, i'm happy to report that after the mayor asked the city to develop guidelines for how we're going to be addressing sea level rise that the city capital planning committee has adopted our guidance for incorporated sea level rise into capital planning into san francisco and this is a plan to assess vulnerability, assess risk, measures of adaptation, measures of moving forward and they were recommending that those implementations have been implemented and that's 1a and b. with respect to the recommendation that the planning code should be amended to show areas that are at most risk to sea level rise, as we mentioned in our response, the port and the pec have already published maps depicting these areas along the bay and ocean shoreline,

showing what the bay and zone could be that are vulnerable to future flooding. these maps have been incorporated by the planning department's gis system and [inaudible] to sea level rise and so we don't think that amending the planning code to include these maps is not necessary and that amendment to the planning code to prohibit development at this point are not warranted either. with respect to recommendation 3 with respect to the port building code, i want to report that we are continuing to work on this. the city planning department is seeking additional funding right now to add sea level rise add da, dapation praning to its work program so we expect to come back in 2015 with more information on our path forward. that also applied to recommendation 12b, which recommends creating a local

working group of citizens and stakeholders. we certainly agree that we want robust community engagement in our plans moving forward. that will be a part of our process in this and we'll come back in 2015 with how we plan to move forward. on 11d on requesting an insurance premium estimate from fema. they do not offer flood coverage insurance to municipalities, only to private property owners. and according to the fee ma representative there isn't sufficient claim history so we wouldn't compete for that funding so we woend won't be recommending implementation of that measure. ma

representative there isn't sufficient claim history so we wouldn't compete for that funding so we woend won't be recommending implementation of that measure. >> is frank felipe here? okay, come on up, please. just for clarity, are some of the departments here to make a presentation or are you handling the presentationover all. >> yes, we consolidated our presentation and responses together so what i've just presented to you is our group response. >> are there any members of any of the other departments who are going to be making a presentation in any capacity about this be particular issue? >> no other presentations, but they're here to answer questions. >> okay, that's good. >> planning department is here as well.

>> okay. thank you very much. i am going to open this item up to public comment. i have one speaker card from marita. >> i want to thank you for approving the guidance. that's what it is, a guidance and it's very well done, but it needs to be used and i appreciated your talk about rehab on public housing and how it has been ignored all these years. this is an example of how the rolling, rising sea levels problems into the building code, the planning code before these buildings are bit, if they're necessary, is very important. it saves money and livability for the people that will be

living there. also in the response initially the city has repeatedly said that ceqa authorizes the city to mitigate and adapt, but it never says they actually do that and i was wondering if anybody knows of any projects in the city where the authority to mitigate for rising see levels has actually been used because i don't know of any. the warrior stadium is going to be in michigan bay, which is a flood zone. will the permits be released and signed or whatever without these mitigations. it seems a shame it's very short term thinking. also i noticed that fema met with city officials for rising sea level workshop in september and i was wondering what those results were. also one more thing, mr. chiu

was representative from the city to bcbc and i was wondering, since he's now gone if there will be a replacement for the bcbc. i wanted to remind you they have authority, not only other the shorelines of the bay, but marshes, creeks, tributaries, to 100 feet landwork so they're a very imposing presence on what we may do. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who'd like to provide public comment at this time? >> i basically here to speak on -- here we have a new era here in san francisco an you hear all these spin words and what i'm hearing a lot and what i'm seeing a lot where we are not participating with

the mayor's using is work groups. well, let me just say ladies and gentlemen, and even ed lee if he's listening, these work groups are all these work groups. who are in these work groups and who monitors these work groups and who gets the chance to see these documents and these groups and these meetings that they call these work groups? let me say to the city and county as we are on record, i am going to implement a program here at city hall that has never been used before that's outside the box where you call community reform where we as a community, people that will be affected by these work groups, that we need to be at the table in the round table discussion on things that affect the citizens, the people that you're serveing. we as individuals in the media -- this is the new type of social media -- we are, as

you see my little camera here, i'm not crazy, but this is a call dommenting all these work groups an supervisors, having these hearings, you don't get no information. most of questions you asking, what do you get? we'll get back to you. and does that ever get back? i don't think so. but if there was another concept, supervisors, that community people like myself and other, media, be there involved with this so called working groups, what do you working on and who are you working for and who is working these groups? so the spin word now is working groups. >> thank you mr. washington. are there any other members of the public who'd like to provide public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. so at this time, president

tang, there are a number of changes that i am going to propose to the board of supervisors responses to the civil grand jury for this particular purpose, starting with the recommendation 1a, the city should repair and adopt a risk assessment in preparation for developing its comprehensive plan regarding the sea level issue. this recommendation has been implemented with a summary of the implemented action. as reported by mayoral staff at the government audit and oversight meeting on december 11, 2014 on september 22, 2014, the capital planning committee adopted the guidance for incorporated sea level rise into capital planning in san francisco, assessing vulnerability to support adaptation so that's for item

number 1a. and for 1b the city should assess costs of both implementation of adaptation, strategies and potential losses from failing to do so. and the possible -- the recommended response is the recommendation has been implemented an a summary of the implementation actions and our response today is as reported by mayoral staff at the government audit and oversight committee meeting on december 11. the capital planning committee adopted the guidance for incorporated sea level rise into capital planning in san francisco, assessing vulnerability and risk to adaptation. item number 2a, the planning cold should be amened to include maps showing the areas in the city that are most at risk from the impacts of sea

level rise. the planning code should be amended to prohibit the development in at-risk areas unless there's compliance in the city's building code and the port building code is applicable to projects outlined in recommendation 3a and -- choose me. so for 2a -- i think i'm confused by my chart. >> for 2a i would say that that recommendation will not be implemented given that maps have been published that are vulnerable to future flooding through the year 2100.