department city attorney, gibner. it doesn't require additional hearing in committee. >> you helped me with this language, we are not really altering in anyway the powers of the managers, just making it consistent which has already been in the park code consistent with first amendment rights. >> that's correct. it's proposed in this ordinance noted that general manager would retain the authority to close the parks in certain emergencies. that authority also exist in the park code, lts -- although the language was a little different. it's the cross-reference in 3.3 in this ordinance and 3.03 included some language that was added in 1981-82. that the commission or general manager could not close the park or any park building in order to stifle 1st amendment activity. we've tinkered with that language a little bit to make clear the parks and recreation commission cannot close any park building or any portion of a park because of the content or viewpoint of any 1st amendment protected activity in the park or building. >>

gibner, under the law that was passed earlier this year, there is not a ground under the appeal to adjust the fee unless we find there is not a relationship and nexus of the impact of the development. >> deputy city attorney john gibner. that is correct. there is only one ground for reducing or our adjusting the waiver fee that there is no relation between the nexus impact. >> and as well as the appellant ability due economic or disability. >> that is correct. >> that we might carefully constructed upon which is on this base. >> that's right. the fee is based on a determination of the nexus and the nexus study provides the largest fee that the board could have imposed for conversions. but it was in the board's legislative discretion to impose lesser fees or create exceptions legislatively for people who meet certain income requirements. >> thank you, one follow up question, i was informed by my staff that there was one or two ellis act evictions at this site. could you let us know if that's the case. i can ask any of the city staffers. >> we don't have the research on it. that issue is go

>> deputy city attorney john gibner. i'm not sure if we can speak total practicality of keeping that information. >> we keep gender and race profiles for all citation for the reason of transparency to ensure there is no racial profiling. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar? >> yeah. can i say i'm supportive of these amendments. i think what we are losing is how these legislation are targeting the city. it sounds like it's going to pass by 6-5. let's get on with it and vote and vote our conscious on this if we can please. >> any further discussion. on the amendment as offered by supervisor kim, colleagues can we take this amendment without objection. unless there is any further discussion. let's take a roll call vote on the underlying ordinance. supervisor breed, were you on the roster? >> yes, i want to make a clarification because this impacts district 5 more than other districts. and where i'm not able to get a clear understanding of is how these things are tracked from the parks and recreation department in terms of issua

gibner. colleagues, i propose we conduct the hearing ways typically do. first the appellant will have 10 minutes to present her case for the appeal for the condominium conversion fee and next the public can speak for 2 minutes and following that relevant city departments including on housing and others will have 10 minutes for presenting their analysis on the condominium fee and those supporting the application of the fee may have up to 2 minutes and the appellants may have 3 minutes for rebuttal. any objections to this proceeding? if not, why don't we hear from the appellant. okay. >> good afternoon, everybody. my name is christina. i am the person leasing on 849 sanchez street. what i'm trying to, based on the nexus, i of course have no chance on having you understand what my situation specifically to me because i have a disability not only of -- but i need you to understand what my situation has been to first find a house and second keep it. first of all i'm having a hard time understanding why the city would have somebody like me pay an impact fee of

. >> we have an amendment by john gibner? >> as you know there are two ordinances on the subject of massage practitioners before the committee today. supervisor tang's ordinance and dph ordinances overlap in ways and we wanted to make sure there was no conflict in the language when they pass the board. so we are suggesting that the committee take out a section from the dph ordinance which overlaps with an amendment that supervisor tang is making that is to remove section 29.6 from the dph ordinance. it's a non-subject amendment. this already has the appropriate change in the law. >> thank you very much. i would like to make a motion to amend. >> i motion and second. >> we just made a motion to item no. 1. all right. seeing no objection. this motion passes. thank you very much. >> madam clerk? >> i would like to recommend to send that to the full board. >> thank you very much. the motion passes unanimously. madam clerk please call item no. 2. >> amended the health code required by massage practitioners to wear identification c

department city attorney, gibner.

maybe john gibner. if the board decides to approve the waiver or reduction, i just want to know what the following process would be if the process i will move forward if the appellant had paid the fee and no. 2, who is the body as to the waiver and reduction. >> deputy city attorney, john gibner. if the board decides to wave or reduce the fee, that would be a determination that the board would make based on findings that the nexus study does not apply or does not stand up in this case. the board would today articulate some findings to that effect to me and the clerks office. we would prepare and additional motion for next week's meeting or the subsequent meeting laying out the board's findings to support the waiver or reduction. the board would also today determine whether to wave the fee entirely or reduce it and the amount to reduce it and again, that determination, the amount of the fee whether it's $8,000 or 0 would be a nexus determination by the board. >> thank you, colleagues, any final questions

deputy city attorney john gibner. the board is approving a contract that authorizes the mta to purchase the 5 thousand additional meters, so in that sense, that piece is binding mta may purchase 5 thousand for optional meters. supervisor avalos' amendment includes an additional whereas clause that talks about the allocation of those meters, that is not binding on the mta, the mta has exclusive authority to determine how to allocate the meters, but the resolution reflects the board's understanding of the mta's intent at this time to allocate the meters in the way set forth in the resolution. er >> thank you. if i may then through the chair, if i can ask director ris k*en, and again, i support this item, i think the amendments that have been made make sense but given that the language that is i think the reason why so many of you are supporting this is not binding on the mta, i want to make sure i have a clear understanding that the mta as far as you know, as far as you're concerned, it's committed to making sure that y

. >> john gibner. the board could make that amendment and pass the item on first read. you can make the amendment and pass it today. >> supervisor yee? good points. i'm wondering if there is someone in between. in terms of medical people they usually have someone. they usually have a name tag of some sort. it doesn't usually give you the full name. it addresses some of the concerns that avalos is alluding to and whether or not it could be a compromise. >> supervisor breed? >> yes, thank you, i just -- have a problem with them wearing the id. some of the establishments seem to face. someone who frequents places like massage places and nail places and other places oftentimes sz quite confusing and you don't know necessarily if an actual license belongs to an actual individual. i wanted to make sure that there is a legislation that was meant in terms of may not necessarily be for the can you see mer but if there is a challenge or audit or ever anything done to try and figure out if the establishment is credible then having the actual id on the person and identifying that p

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney, sorry to interrupt the calling of the items. item 10 is an item that was sponsored by the tax collector. it's a resolution that requires board approval to allow the tax collector to pursue a certain claim for a recovery of funds. the item probably should -- will be considered in closed session by this committee at a future date, but today it was scheduled on the agenda under the settlement portion of the agenda and because this item isn't a settlement, we'd recommend that the committee continue this item to the next rules committee meeting when you can consider it in a separately agendized closed session. >> okay, any questions about that, colleagues? >> no. >> seeing none, can somebody make a motion to continue. is there any public comment on this -- which item, all of them? just 10, right? >> 10. >> any public comment on item number 10? seeing none, public comment is closed. can i have a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair? >> so moved. >> no objection, item will continue. so, is there any public comment on i