avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 9 ayes and two no's. >> resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 30. >> item 30 is a resolution urging the california state legislature to pass assembly bill 1263, which creates "medi-cal: communical," a program that provide reliable access to language interpretation for medi-cal beneficiaries who are limited english proficient. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. and i do believe that and i think president chiu was also a co-sponsor, just for the record. the reason why we're introducing this resolution supporting assembly bill 1263 by speaker perez is that we want to send a very clear message it's important for governor brown to sign this piece of legislation. it will ensure that non-english speakers are people that have limited english skills have access to an interpreter when they go and receive medical attention. i can tell you from my own experience growing up as an immigrant who, when we first came here did not speak the language. you get sick, it's really hard to convey the right information to people when you go see a doctor. oftentimes, by the way, it means that the children of immigrant families end up playing the role of interpreter and quite frankly i think it's unfair to expect that of kid because you're talking many times with very technical information in terms of what the symptoms are. and many things get lost in translation and unfortunately that loss in translation has resulted in many people being wrongly diagnosed and not getting the right treatment. so, this is really critical information that really goes to the heart of basic health care for the millions of californians that are limited english proficient. it's about 7 million in california and the 40% of households where another language is spoken. so, i think it's important for us to be on record and it is our hope that governor brown will be signing this law. thank you. >> colleagues, any other discussion? let's take a roll call vote on item 30. >> on item 30, supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 11 ayes. >> resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> madam clerk, could you read the in memoriams? >> yes, mr. president. today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following individuals. on behalf of supervisor cohen, for the late mr. bill thread gill. >> and is there any more business in front of the body? >> that concludes our business for today, mr. president. >> i want to thank sfgov-tv for their coverage of tonight apt 1850sing and with that unless there is any more business, ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. [gavel] okay. our final speaker is a friend a friend to the business community. a man who understands was it take to a create a job which is an investment. mayor ed lee is a person who have's brought a lot of stability to san francisco especially, after steady eddy were because ed has a background in administration and being tasked what getting things done an

avalos? avalos present. supervisor breed? breed present. supervisor campos? campos present. supervisor chiu? chiu present. supervisor cohen? cohen present. supervisor farrell? farrell present. supervisor kim? kim absent. supervisor mar? mar absent. supervisor tang? tang present. supervisor wiener? wiener present. supervisor yee? yee present. mr. president -- supervisor mar? mar present. mr. president, you have a quorum. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us for the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> madam clerk, do we have any communications? >> i have no communications, mr. president. >> could we go to our new business, item 1? >> item 1 is an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to remove provisions that refer to the former transfer tax review board that expired by operation of law on january 1, 2013. >> roll call, please. >> on item 1, supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim absent. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 10 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed on the first read. [gavel] >> if i could ask for some order here? i know we have a lot of folks, we do have a lot of business today. thank you. item 2. >> item 2 is an ordinance providing revenue and levying property taxes at a combined rate of $1.1880 on each $100 valuation of taxable property for the city and county of san francisco, san francisco unified school district, san francisco community college district, bay area rapid transit district, and bay area air quality management district, and establishing a pass-through rate of $0.0880 per $100 of assessed value for residential tenants pursuant to administrative code, chapter 37, for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2014. >> colleagues, can we do this same house same call? without objection this ordinance is passed on the first read. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 3 is a resolution approvi

avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> colleagues, why don't we go to our second special order at 3:00 p.m.. madam clerk, could you call items 21 through 24? >> items 21 through 24 comprise the special order at 3:00 p.m.. persons interested in planning commission approval on july 8, 2013, conditional use authorization to increase enrollment at an existing preschool and allow for an accessory religious facility within the preschool on property located at 3771 and 3781 cesar chavez street. item 22 is the motion approving the commission's decision to approve the conditional use authorization. item 23 is a motion disapproving the commission's decision. and item 24 is the motion directing the clerk to prepare findings. >> colleagues, for this hearing we would be considering whether the planning commission's conditional use authorization to increase enrollment at an existing preschool and to allow for an accessory religious facility within this preschool was appropriate. before we proceed, i'd like to ask supervisor wiener if you have any updates that you would like to share before the hearing. >> thank you, mr. president. after several mediation sessions conducted by myself and my staff, the parties have agreed to a resolution. and i want to first thank my legislative aide andres power for really playing a critical role in getting this resolved. and, so, i want to just appropriately outline for the board what my motion will be, and we will have the parties then come up and affirm that they have agreed to it, then i'll make the appropriate motion. so, what we will be proposing is to take the planning commission's conditional use and to add additional conditions to it. and, colleagues, just by way of context this is a proposal to expand the enrollment at a preschool on the block of cesar chavez between dolores and guerrero. if you're familiar with that block, it has challenges around traffic because it is the last block on cesar chavez as a small neighborhood street before it blooms out into something approaching a freeway east of guerrero street. so, there are some traffic issues there so we wanted to just work out those issues in a way that would allow the preschool to expand. so, it would be -- the additional conditions that i'll describe and i've circulated the actual document, will allow the project sponsor to enroll up to 29 children for the first nine months. after nine months there would be an expansion to 42 months unless civilian administrator determines the violations of the permit has occurred, and expansion [speaker not understood] should be authorized. the project sponsor would provide one curb side monitor at the drop-off location for cars that are dropping off kids and one additional monitor could be a teacher to bring the children from the sidewalk into the building during morning drop-offs. the project sponsor would have to communicate and require that parents and guardians as well during dropping off and picking up of children must only pull forward into the loading zone, not reverse pull-in. and that they have to move up to the front if a space opens up in front of them in order to avoid backing up the entire block. during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up, driveways shall be temporarily blocked and this property with cones, another temporary means. the project sponsor shall minimize unattended vehicles by communicate totionv all parents and guardians that they should avoid leaving vehicles unattended when dropping off children. the planning commission required that the project sponsor apply for a white loading zone from the mta. if the mta grants the white loading zone, the project sponsor shall operate the loading zone with the following conditions, and specifically that the number of vehicles during morning and afternoon drop-off and pick-up at the white zone shall be limited. a maximum of 28 individual vehicles may use the curb side white zone between the hours of 7:30 and a.m., and similarly 28 vehicles may use the curb site white zone between the hours of 3:00 and 5:30 p.m. under armour finally, the project sponsor shall produce a drop off plan to all families and shall document presental guardian understanding and consent to those requirements. 9:00 a.m. so, colleagues, those are the amendments in substance to the conditional use. and i would now ask that the appellants and the project sponsor approach the lecturn and i have distributed to them a copy of what i have distributed to you and i would just ask them to state your name, what role you have here, and state that you are agreeing to the resolution. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. my name is richard [speaker not understood]. i'm the appellant. i represent citizens concerned about sues aer chavez street. i represent over 100 people, residents of san francisco who are concerned about this block. we truly appreciate supervisor wiener's time, efforts, listening skills and judgment in reaching this settlement. we agree with supervisor wiener that the carrot and stick approach serves the best prospect of changing and correcting [speaker not understood]'s behavior. so, with that, we're hopeful. they for the last two weeks under the pressure of this appeal and their expectation, they wanted to get a license for the child care from the state licensing agency. they have for the first time behaved legally, lawfully, and safely. two weeks end the isn't but it's a good start and i hope that's where we'll be. thank you. i do withdraw the appeal upon condition of this motion. >> okay. so, you agreed to the resolution as stated? >>> yes. >> okay, thank you. >>> thank you, supervisor wiener and all the supervisors here for your time today. i accept the resolution the way supervisor wiener presented it and thank you so much for all your help to get to this point. >> if you could state your name. >>> [speaker not understood]. >> and you are the project sponsor? >>> i'm the project sponsor [speaker not understood], thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. president, should i make a motion after public comment? >> actually i technically need to go through the hearing i've been advised by the city attorney. we can do that as a pro forma. let me ask if there are any other initial comments. supervisor yee? >> yes. i just wanted to publicly thank commissioner wiener for working out this compromise. i know in dealing with these child care facility issues a good 25, 30 years, these can get very contentious. and yet it's hard for many people in the public to understand that in san francisco, even today we still lack enough space to care for our young ones. and it's very difficult because our city is relatively [speaker not understood] at this point and there are very few facilities being built brand-new to accommodate our young children. and so oftentimes what we find for the last 30 years is that we need to take existing facilities to start to serve our young ones in the city. so, this is good compromise. i'm glad you did this because i'm ready to support any expansion of the providing service for our young ones. >> thank you, supervisor yee. and i also wanted to thank all of our colleagues, thank supervisor wiener for his work in resolving this. just to be consistent with the technical part of our hearing, why don't we open up this hearing. let me first ask if the appellant would like to make a presentation of up to 10 minutes. okay, if not, let me ask if there are any members of the public that wish to speak in support of the appeal. okay, seeing none, planning department would have an opportunity if you wish to make a presentation. is there anything you'd like to say? >> thank you, president chiu. the department does not need to make our presentation for this, but we would like to through the chair express our gratitude to supervisor wiener for bringing the parties of the appeal together and working out a compromise that is amenable to both parties. as to the conditions, i'm here to represent the department and say we will do our best to enforce these conditions. we would like to note that the last condition that has been proposed today would be especially difficult to determine if there was an alleged violation if it was an actual violation or not. but we do understand through supervisor wiener that the appellants have expressed they are willing to help provide evidence if a violation is alleged and this would be very helpful in our ability to enforce this last condition. thank you. >> thank you to planning. now let me ask if the project sponsor wishes to make any presentations for up to 10 minutes. seeing none, are there any members of the public that wish to speak in opposition to the appeal? seeing none, and then finally, is there any rebuttal by the appellant? okay, with that this hearing has been held and is closed. [gavel] >> items 22, 23 and 24 are in front of us. supervisor wiener. >> so, mr. president, i will make a motion to reject the conditional use granted by the planning commission and to adopt a revised conditional use consisting of the conditions that the planning commission imposed as well as those outlined in the document that i have distributed and that i described. so, the motion will be to table item 22, to amend and move item 23 as described by me, and to adopt item 24 instructing the clerk to prepare findings. >> colleagues, supervisor wiener has made a motion as he proposed. is there a second to that motion? seconded by supervisor mar. colleagues, any discussion? can we take a roll call vote on that motion? >> supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos. campos aye. supervisor chiu. chiu aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the motion passes. [gavel] >> thank you, supervisor wiener and to all the parties of that appeal. why don't we go to our committee reports. madam clerk, could you call items 25 and 26. >> items 25 and 26 were considered by the government and audit oversight committee at a regular meeting september 12, 2013 and forwarded to the board as committee reports. ordinance 25 is a ordinance adopting and implementing amendment no. 5 to the 2007-2015 memorandum of understanding between the city and county of san francisco and the san francisco police officers' association (units p-1 & p-2a) by implementing specified term and conditionses of employment for fiscal years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018. ~ >> colleagues, can we take these items same house same call? without objection, these items are passed on the first read. [gavel] >> mr. president, pa

avalos avalos present and supervisor breed, breed present and chu precedent and supervisor cowen, cowen present and supervisor farrell, farrell present and kim, kim present and mary present and tanking tank present and yee absent mr. president, you have a quorum. ladies and gentlemen, please join us in the allegiance. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. madam clerk, do we have any communications there are none >> items 1 through 6 those items are countered routine unless a member objects it be severed. >> roll call vote. >> supervisor farrell. >> i can farrell i. kim i. supervisor mar >> marie arrest supervisor tang. >> supervisor wiener. weaning i arrest supervisor yee. yee absent and avalos i and supervisor breed >> oh, i. >> and supervisor campos, campos i. there are 10 i's >> next 7. >> it's an ordinance amendment the tax regulation code that refer to the are former tax board that xiert on january 21st, 2013. >> colleagues same house, same call. >> this is the next item that levies the property taxed for the city and county of san francisco the community college district and the bay area quality district in a pass through rate for the period erntd june 20, 2013. >> same house, same call this ordinance is finally passed. >> ordinance 9 is an ordinance to provide standards for financial hardship applications of capital improvement costs and requiring the rent board to provide rent notice addressing the hardship. same house, same call this ordinance is finally passed >> ordinance 10 to administer prohibit law enforcement officials from detaining citizens after they've become released from custody. >> thank you, president chiu. this ordinance is ready to go but i'd like to

supervisor avalos? avalos present. supervisor breed? breed present. supervisor campos? campos absent. supervisor chiu? >> here. >> chiu present. supervisor cohen? cohen present. supervisor farrell? farrell present. supervisor kim? kim present. supervisor mar? mar present. supervisor tang? tang present. supervisor wiener? wiener absent. supervisor yee? yee present. supervisor campos? campos present. mr. president, you have a quorum. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all . >> madam clerk, any communications? >> i have no communications, mr. president. >> and could you read our 2:00 p.m. special order? >> the first item of business is the policy discussion between mayor edwin lee and members of the board of supervisors. this week representing the odd districts, specifically districts 1, 3, 5, 9, and 11. the mayor may address the board initially for up

avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. there are 11 ayes. >> those resolutionses are adopted and motions accepted. [gavel] >> and item 5. >> item 5 is a resolution reiterating the board of supervisors's support for clean power sf, citing the board's role as the preeminent policy making body in san francisco, urging the public utilities commission to set not-to-exceed rates for clean power sf without any further delay, and promising further action if the public utilities commission fails to set rates. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. colleagues, i would like to ask for a continuance for this item to next week's board meeting. >> colleagues, supervisor breed has made a motion to continue for one week. seconded by supervisor avalos. if we could take that motion to continue without objection. that shall be the case to the 17th of september. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you read the in memoriams? >> yes, mr. president. today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals. on behalf of supervisor mar for the late ms. susan heron zib ot. on behalf of supervisor tang for the late young kevin john mcguire. on behalf of the full board of supervisors for the late ms. gail bishop. ms. evelyn wilson. and ms. christine vandemere. >> and is there any more business in front of the body? >> that concludes our business for today, mr. president. >> ladies and gentlemen, i want to thank sfgov-tv and greg burk for their work. with that, unless theretion any more business, we are adjourned for the day. [gavel] >> san francisco parks, golden gate park transforms into one of the greatest music festivals of all time, let's journey, inside, outside land. ♪ >> to this, our 6th year doing the outside lands and

avalos? avalos present. supervisor breed? breed present. supervisor campos? campos absent. supervisor chiu? >> here. >> chiu present. supervisor cohen? cohen present. supervisor farrell? farrell present. supervisor kim? kim present. supervisor mar? mar present. supervisor tang? tang present. supervisor wiener? wiener absent. supervisor yee? yee present. supervisor campos? campos present. mr. president, you have a quorum. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all . >> madam clerk, any communications? >> i have no communications, mr. president. >> and could you read our 2:00 p.m. special order? >> the first item of business is the policy discussion between mayor edwin lee and members of the board of supervisors. this week representing the odd districts, specifically districts 1, 3, 5, 9, and 11. the mayor may address the board initially for up to five minutes. the president will recognize the supervisor who will present their own questions to the mayor, follow-up questions are in order as long as the entire discussion does not exceed five minutes per supervisor. >> thank you, madam clerk. i want to welcome back the mayor for our september question time. if you have any opening comments, i'd like to hear them. >> thank you, president chiu. and good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors. good afternoon to our public for joining us this afternoon. i know we have quite a few questions to get through today, but i wanted to first take a moment to thank all of the first responders for their quick and coordinated work to fight the california rim fire. there were thousands of firefighters on the ground over the past few weeks battling the third largest fire in california's history and helping to protect our city's assets. and i want to offer my sincere thanks to the men and women who risk their lives to stop this fire. i also want to thank all of the staff of the san francisco public utilities commission who took all available steps to ensure that san francisco's water and power supply continued uninterrupted despite the great threats to our facilities in the sierra. from general manager harlan kelly to all of the staff, you kept our water system safe and for that we are all very thankful. even now as we're here today at question time, the public utilities commission are upstairs getting an update on the many months and significant work ahead to restore and repair our sierra water and power facilities. san francisco is lucky to have some of the best, brightest and most prepared city employees for situations just like this. i also want to thank supervisor mark farrell for his leadership as acting mayor during the time and i want to thank you, supervisor farrell. for that, let's get started with the questions. >> thank you. why don't we hear from our first colleague, supervisor mar from district 1. >> thank you for being here, mr. mayor. as you know, san francisco has set ambitious goals and i thank you for your strong leadership also in ambitious goals and implementing our climate change efforts in the city. in many ways, our city is making incredible strides in this direction from increasing bicycling to pursuing zero waste goals to hiring our new excellent environmental policy advisor to you, roger kim, who has a strong background in environmental justice and community engagement. however, the public utilities commission has repeatedly failed to set rates for clean power sf, the most impactful local proposal yet designed to cut and curb our carbon emissions. this program was adopted by the board of supervisors, the legislative body of the city. however, there are some allegations that your office is stalling its implementation. what specifically are you doing as the city's head executive to implement our clean power sf policy in a timely fashion? >> thank you, supervisor mar, for asking this first question in a series of questions all on the same topic. i know that many members of the board of supervisors are upset about the san francisco public utilities commission's recent vote to reject proposed rates for the community choice aggregation. the fact that all of this month's questions focus on ccas, an indication of the level of attention that all of us are paying to this important topic. i'll do my best to answer each of your specific questions without repeating myself. let me start, supervisor mar, by addressing your comment that the san francisco public utilities commission has repeatedly failed to set rates for the community choice aggregation. the puc's primary charter mandated duties are to protect the rate payers and ensure clean drinking water for 2-1/2 million bay area customers, collect and treat wastewater and stormwater in san francisco, and deliver power for the municipal needs of the city and county of san francisco. this obligation to the rate payers and the fulfillment of these core charter responsibilities which i know all five commissioners take very seriously is the overriding concern they have when faced with any issue. after getting lobbied very hard by advocates and members of this board to approve a program, the commissioners ultimately decided that the proposed rates for the community choice aggregation weren't a deal for san francisco. here's why i think they made that decision. as you know, supervisor, that the program they were asked to approve was very different from the variety of programs that the board of supervisors authorized over the years, including in 2007 and most recently in 2012. in september of 2012, when the board authorized our san francisco public utilities commission to enter into a contract with shell oil, the program that was in front of you included 95% renewable energy mix on day one. this included many hundreds of megawatts of energy that's called firmed and shaped. this means truly green electrons produced by truly green power sources that make their way to san francisco to power our city. this is what a green power program should look like. through a combination of truly green power, mostly produced right here in california, san francisco's cca would have made great progress towards our city's shared environmental goals. but that's not the deal with the shell oil that the puc commission just rejected. the program that they said no to included only 25% true renewable energy. this is a serious degradation of the environmental benefits. the san francisco public utilities commission took a look at the deal that the staff had negotiated with shell and the commissioners decided that using 75% renewable energy credits or recs did not provide the green benefits this board of supervisors had repeatedly insisted upon. recs, as you know, supervisor, are like certificates. they can be traded from one wall street speculator to another. they derive their value from commodity trading just like stocks. by the time those recs reach our community choice aggregation program, their environmental benefits are far removed. we're not even sure whether we can achieve any greenhouse gas savings from recs. we'd be dependent upon shell oil to help us reach our city's climate goals. and this certainly doesn't help reduce greenhouse gas emissions here in san francisco. this is all to say the public utilities commission did its job, protecting the rate payers when it made a fair and informed decision that the environmental benefits of cca had degraded so significantly. supervisor, that's not defying the board of supervisors. in fact, the city attorney, dennis herrera's office [speaker not understood] that the commission is authorized, not required or compelled, but authorized to set rates for community choice aggregation. so, the public utilities commission took a look at the latest version of cca and said, this is not what the board adopted and this isn't good for the rate payers. i would submit that the commissioners exercised their oversight rule as an independent commission under the charter and i'd argue that protecting tax payers and rate payers is precisely what the commission exists to do. supervisor, you asked what my office is doing to support the city's clean energy goals and what we can do together. i think there's very great deal we can do and i'll detail that more in my answers in the next two questions. but i will say that we are leaders and signing a contract with a fossil fuel company in texas that forces san franciscan residents to pay more for electricity that isn't generated here and doesn't produce direct local jobs or environmental benefits doesn't measure up to what our residents deserve and expect. thank you. >> i have the next question. mr. mayor, could you please outline your objections to the clean power s.f. program as approved last year on an 8 to 3 vote by the board of supervisors? >> thank you, board president chiu. i agreed with the majority of the public utilities commission when they asserted that the community choice aggregation program that was presented to them no longer had any direct immediate local environmental benefit. but the lack of a true climate change impact of this cca is not its only fatal flaw. it's also gotten progressively more expensive as time has gone on. back in 2007 the board insisted that a cca program would meet or beat pg&e's rate, meaning that cca power should cost 7.9 cents or less per kilowatt hour. the theory was that if we wanted to convince people to participate in a green energy program, we couldn't hit them with massive monthly bills or they'd likely opt out. that was good logic. but over the years the costs crept up and up and up, and last year this board authorized the puc to set rates at 12.8 cents per kilowatt hour. we ran the risk of large scale opt outs, but the logic was that the environmental benefits were so strong that san francisco would vote with their wallets and absorb the increases. set aside for the moment that there would be dangerous opt out aspects of this program, i feared that such an expensive cca would run the risk of sticking mono lingual and elderly san franciscan with soaring energy bills without fair knowledge. i made those concerns known and staff recommended reducing the rate to 10.9 cents per kilowatt hour. this is still significantly above the original goals of cca to meet or beat existing energy rates. and in order to achieve these savings on the residential rates, staff had no choice but to make the program cheaper by degrading the quality of greenness of the energy that the cca offered. so, instead of bundled energy and firmed and shaped energy, the commission was presented a contract to buy certificates from shell. they did the right thing then and they rejected this program and these proposed rates. your question, supervisor chiu, is about my objections. well, let me answer directly. the program as it evolved year over year moved too far from the good environmental policy and fair treatment of our city's diverse electricity rate payers. let me tell you, then, and what i think good environmental policy is. i know that this is supervisor breed's question as well, examine if you permit me, i'll begin now to explain. first, i'm very proud to welcome mr. roger kim to my staff. and with his extensive background and relationship with environmental movement in california, roger will help ensure that our environmental programs and efforts reach all of our residents, something that is a priority of mine. our environmental policy agenda should be ambitious in achieving greenhouse, gas and energy goals. and it should also deliver local jobs, improve our health, and support our local economy for the benefit of all san francisco residents, especially those in our communities that need those opportunities the most. it needs to be real and tangible and not based on vague promises of a plan that will appear sometime in the future. i believe in the city's aggressive greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. we are on track to achieve 25% reduction by 2017. in partnership with the board, we just launched the bay area bike share program with 350 bicycles in 35 stations in san francisco, and we expect to get to 500 bicycleses and 50 stations in 2014. and as you know, san francisco's 80% landfill diversion rate is the highest in any city in north america. the housing authority, working with the department of environment, to implement our recycling and composting programs saved $1.1 million on their trash bill since the end of just last year. this amount represents one-7th of the housing authority's annual shortfall. and there are even bigger savings to come as we work with the remaining housing authority buildings. that means more resources for important services and building maintenance that our public housing residents need and deserve. these are just a few examples of good environmental policy. real tangible results for our planning and for the people of our city. supervisor chiu, with your leadership and the leadership of your colleagues, i hope we can unite around policies like these and work together. thank you. >> thank you. our next question will be read by our district 5 colleague, supervisor breed. >> thank you. thank you for being here, mr. mayor. my question is, recognizing the constraints imposed by state law, particularly with respect to opt out provisions, how would a clean power program need to be structured so that you will support it? are you willing to work with the board of supervisors and have your staff and commissioners work with the board of supervisors to revive clean power sf so that you can support it? can we come to the table and make clean power a reality without any further delay? >> thank you, supervisor breed. well, i've explained my environmental goals and i hope i have been clear about why the cca program and the commission rejected -- their rejection does not come close to meeting these goals. you propose, supervisor breed, to have a discussion about a new clean power program. in my eyes, a clean power program with cca is just one way that we can accomplish our twin goals of environmental benefit and job creation. the short answer to your question, supervisor breed, is yes. i am of, of keyertion, willing to discuss any program that can reduce san francisco's collective greenhouse gas emissions ~. but i would also ask, then, supervisor, that you express a willingness to explore other alternative ways to create jobs for our citizens while simultaneously doing good for the environment. i am very open to exploring all avenues that might be available to expand this work. as one of my first actions as mayor, i formed the mayor's renewable energy task force composed of business leaders, energy experts, and community leaders. i continue to believe as renewable energy task force believed that increasing energy efficiency is a critical first step to reaching san francisco's renewable energy goal. by maximizing energy efficiency and encouraging conservation, we reduced the amount of electricity generation that is needed. saving energy through energy efficiency improvements is less costly than any new energy supply whether fossil fuel based or renewable. and, so, we must continue to be aggressive in this area. the good thing about energy efficiency is that it gives the city the biggest bang for the buck. the energy cost savings exceed the price of implementing energy efficiency measures which makes good economic sense. and i know you really appreciate this, supervisor breed, because it creates good jobs for san francisco. it is good for the environment and good for our economy. with san francisco's trail blazing green building codes, lead gold certification is required for all-new commercial buildings. as a result, some of the most energy efficient new buildings in the nation are here in san francisco. to tackle energy use in existing buildings, we have been implementing our groundbreaking commercial building energy performance ordinance. through building energy audits, we can reduce energy use in commercial buildings, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help property owners develop plans to improve energy efficiency. our ordinance is already [affectedeffected]} almost 800 private sector buildings, totaling 124 million square feet and 350 municipal buildings in less than two years. with information about this building's energy use in hand, we encourage our property owners to partner in utilizing green finance sf to implement energy efficiency projects that will save them money and move us another step forward towards our greenhouse gas and renewable energy goals. i want the city to continue to be aggressive on energy efficiency and there is much more we can do. of course, we still need to increase our incity renewable city generation and create jobs at the same time. go solar sf ~ is one part of that strategy. since 2008, go solar sf has helped install over 2000 solar installations, created 6.2 megawatts of clean renewable energy, and 107 jobs. through this program, we are dispeling the notion that solar renewable energy is just for the rich. the promise of green economy and clean renewable energy needs to be accessible to all communities. in fact, go solar sf, our low-income homeowners and workers in disadvantaged neighborhoods lead the way to a clean energy future in san francisco. as you know, i added back $2,000,000 to the go solar program making a total of $4 million available for incentives this year. we're making [speaker not understood] and creating jobs and i'm very open to exploring all other avenues that might be available to achieve this goal. thank you, supervisor. >> thank you. >> supervisor campos will ask the next question. >> thank you, mr. president. thank you, mr. mayor. hope you had a good summer. i don't know about my colleagues, but i certainly appreciated being able to delve into one subject in-depth. i think that's a good thing. i think we can do that about other subjects. my question along the lines whatv my colleagues have asked, as you know the board of supervisors has been very supportive of clean power sf and i think that for some of us it's not -- some of the actions of the commission at times strike the commission going against the policy that the board of supervisors set when it approved clean power sf. just wondering your thoughts on that. >> well, thank you, supervisor. you know, beyond being appropriate, i think that the san francisco public utilities commission did was the best interest of the city ~ and a full fillment of their charter responsibilities to the taxpayer and the rate payers. supervisor, you asked for a program that was 85% firmed and shaped, 10% bundled and only a paltry 5% recs. you wanted to create 31 megawatts of city-owned solar, 72 megawatts of local distributed generation, and 150 megawatt wind farm. you also wanted local jobs. the program lost those aspects in the 12 months since you voted for it in an effort to set rates. the public utilities commission took a look at the program last month and said, no, and i believe they said no because cca no longer included any firmed and shaped electricity and instead increased its dependence on paper certificates by 1500%. they looked at no investment in immediate local jobs. they looked at the program and saw zero direct investment, creating city-owned renewable assets like wind farms and solar panels. only vague promises yet to be made rather than specific, measurable, guaranteed outcomes for local jobs and local renewable development. they looked at all these factors and the commission said no. as i said at the very beginning of this question time. the san francisco public utilities commission's primary responsibility is to protect the rate payers and in rejecting these rates with shell energy north america, they are not going against the board of supervisors. i think they were fulfilling what they believed are their sworn duties and responsibilities under the city charter. really, the critical issue here is that recs have a questionable environmental benefit. just don't take my word for it. the former general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission said last year that doing a program that is mostly recs is kind of putting lip stick on a pig in some sense. your underlined power is still down power. you're buying renewable credits for somebody doing green power. i don't know how i can say it more clearly than that, supervisor campos. i also recall a lafco meeting. six months ago when you, supervisor, made sure to point out that a major differentiating benefit of our cca program was that it did not include recs. look, i understand that sometimes circumstances change and that the programs need to be flexible and respond to changing circumstances. but when the final product is so vastly different from the original intent, decision-makers like the public utilities commission need to exercise their oversight role. that's exactly what the commission did in this case and i'm glad they did. another part of the program that the board approved is the state law requirement that any community choice aggregation program be opt out, which supervisor breed mentioned in her question. i believe that any public power program would need to be opt in, allowing residents to make an informed choice about their power bills. i'm committed to pursuing state legislation to allow cca to be opt in and i hope you, supervisor campos, and all the other members of the board, will partner with us to go to sacramento and demand that our residents be allowed to control their own choices. i would be eager to work with you to make this happen at the state legislature as soon as possible. but to answer your question again directly, i strongly believe that the commission did the right thing when it took a look at the program before it which hardly resembles the program authorized by this board just 12 months ago and rejected it. this is the charter mandated duty and i believe they upheld the standards set for them for protecting the rate payers. thank you, supervisor. >> thank you. our final question will be asked by supervisor john avalos. >> thank you. welcome, mr. mayor. i'll just abbreviate my question. why does your office continue to oppose providing city rate payers with an alternative to pg&e's monopoly by implementing clean power sf? >> thank you. you know, supervisor, i think that it would be good for me to go back to when i was -- became mayor in 2011. you'll recall one of my top five priorities was implementing the landmark local hire that you championed and that i have been very proud to partner with you and work with you as a signature piece of legislation which has made a difference for our city and helped us put many of our local residents back to work. you also recently proposed and passed at the board of supervisors a strongly worded resolution urging the city and county of san francisco to divest its resources and sever ties with fossil fuel companies. so, i do want to suggest to you that a steadfast support for a sole source contract with a large multinational fossil fuel corporation that would compe

supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> colleagues, why don't we go to our second special order at 3:00 p.m.. madam clerk, could you call items 21 through 24? >> items 21 through 24 comprise the special order at 3:00 p.m.. persons interested in planning commission approval on july 8, 2013, conditional use authorization to increase enrollment at an existing preschool and allow for an accessory religious facility within the preschool on property located at 3771 and 3781 cesar chavez street. item 22 is the motion approving the commission's decision to approve the conditional use authorization. item 23 is a motion disapproving the commission's decision. and item 24 is the motion directing the clerk to prepare findings. >> colleagues, for this hearing we would be considering whether the planning commission's conditional use authorization to increase enrollment at an existing preschool and to allow for an accessory religious facility within thi

avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos. campos aye. supervisor chiu. chiu aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the motion passes. [gavel] >> thank you, supervisor wiener and to all the parties of that appeal. why don't we go to our committee reports. madam clerk, could you call items 25 and 26. >> items 25 and 26 were considered by the government and audit oversight committee at a regular meeting september 12, 2013 and forwarded to the board as committee reports. ordinance 25 is a ordinance adopting and implementing amendment no. 5 to the 2007-2015 memorandum of understanding between the city and county of san francisco and the san francisco police officers' association (units p-1 & p-2a) by implementing specified term and conditionses of employment for fiscal years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018. ~ >> colleagues, can we take these items same house same call? without objection, these items are passed on the first read. [gavel] >> mr. president, pardon me, mr. president. i only read item 25. i'd like to call 26. >> call item 26. >> >> item 26, an ordinance adopting and implementing amendment no. 5 to the 2007-2015 memorandum of understanding between the city and county of san francisco and the san francisco police officers' association (unit p-2b) by implementing specified terms and conditions of employment for fiscal years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018. >> colleagues, can we do this same house same call? without objection this ordinance is passed on the first read. [gavel] >> and why don't we go to -- back to item 18. madam clerk. >> item 18 is a resolution determining that the transfer of a type 21 off-sale general license from 701 fillmore street to 6333 geary boulevard (district 1), to patrick davis for grocery outlet, inc., dba grocery outlet, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco, in accordance with california business and professions code, section 23958.4. ~ public convenience >> colleagues, can we do this same house same call? without objection this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> with that, we only have the due process item for which i know we are still awaiting some resolution. so, why don't we now go to roll call for introductions. >> supervisor cohen, you're first on roll call for introductions. >> thank you very much, i have a very brief introduction today. i'd like to enter into the record a request that we close the board meeting out in the memory of mr. bill tread gill. he was an important and effective community leader in visitacion valley. mr. tread gill formed el dorado neighborhood benefit association in 1992 which spanned from girard street and harkness avenue. this organization's mission was to create unity among -- unity, promote safety methods by forming a neighborhood watch group. he also joined the visitacion valley community center in 2000 where he served as the vice president and secretary under three executive directors. when president clinton asked communities to promote and enhance diversity in 2004, mr. tread gill served as a team leader for the center. only three centers in the nation participated and in 2005 before the well known [speaker not understood], visitacion valley [speaker not understood] of america, mr. tread gill spoke on the african-american migration to visitacion valley by being one of the oldest black families recognized in the valley. he will be -- mr. tread gill was an advocate for the valley, community. he helped organize plans for new visitacion valley library. he served on the community advisory role for the t-3rd street line. he helped institute senior and child care services in the valley and was extremely active in the community, particularly around the safe watch development project. mr. tread gill will be missed dearly. his beloved wife preceded him in death in march of 2013 just prior to their 50th wedding anniversary. his legacy and journey will live in the visitacion valley and reflects highly on his integrity and character. he is represented father hood, leadership and commitment. humility as well as courage. the rest i submit, madam clerk. >> thank you, supervisor cohen. supervisor farrell. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, today i am introducing a resolution that will create a new partnership between the city and county of san francisco and [speaker not understood]. kiba.org is a san francisco based nonprofit that was formed in 2005 first primarily focused on providing 0% interest micro finance loans to businesses and entrepreneurs in the developing world. and i want to thank supervisors campos and me for their co-sponsorship. we all know the small business community is the backbone of our local economy and this new partnership helps build on our commitment to work inside and outside of city hall to provide additional adequate resources to our small business community. in every neighborhood in san francisco there are hard working small business owners and entrepreneurs who currently lack access to the capital they need to start or expand their businesses. the same people who are laying the foundations of our local economy here in san francisco. when small businesses do well we all do well and they help create thriving neighborhoods and economies that we all hold dear here in san francisco. but the vast majority of small business owners and budding entrepreneurs came out, access the capital they need to start their businesses or expand as they want. they're denied loans for any number of reasons. and what these entrepreneurs do have is the passion, the plan and the people in their community that know and trust them. today with this resolution we have the opportunity to engage in and empower our communities in new ways with this partnership being one of the tools in the tool box to do so. kiva.org has provided [speaker not understood] worldwide since 2005 through their website. kiva's platform operates by having what they refer to as a trustee. make recommendations about business owners and entrepreneurs that they have a personal relationship with. in 2011 kiva launched a new program called kiva zip here in the united states to directly connect kiva lenders to small business entrepreneurs in our country. the name of kiva zip is to expand financial opportunities and access to capital for small business owners who otherwise lack them. to reduce the cost of capital for borrowers who need it and enhance connectedness between lenders and borrowers. kiva zip loans start at $5,000 each, but once borrowers successfully repay their first loan, they have the ability to gain access to even more capital. to date over 12,000 lenders have loaned to u.s. entrepreneurs and small business owners and in just two short years kiva has helped small businesses and entrepreneurs access more than $1 million on loan capital. lastly, 47% of the loans made on kiva zip have been to female entrepreneurs and 50% of the loans have been made to ethnic minorities who typically face more severe financial exclusion. over the past few months my office has worked very closely with kiva representatives and city departments and staff to determine which would be the most beneficial partnership between kiva and the city of san francisco for our small business community. i'm extremely grateful that the office of he economic and work force development has agreed to act as the official city trustee who will be armed with the responsibility of helping to identify and recommend small businesses that can qualify as kiva borrowers in order to get access to kiva's large individual lending community. to be very clear, there is no liability financial or otherwise for the city for us entering into this new partnership with kiva. kiva zip trustee solely identify businesses for the platform but do not finance, guarantee or have any fiduciary duties. the trustees pledge to help by introducing those businesses and entrepreneurs to their networks and acting as a character reference to provide credibility for their business. over the coming months oewd is going to establish and open transparent process and by what qualifications potential borrowers in the city of san francisco will need in order to earn the official city recommendation to be an official kiva borrower. i also wanted to leave by personal example and personally now sign up as an official kiva zip trustee and have recommended abundant market in district 2 to be my first recommended kiva borrower. patrick and his wife abundant market are five months now into the business. they are an incredible local niche food store focused on selling food and drink choices with a european influence. they expressed interest in wanting to expand their business to provide catering and marketing opportunities and i hope my exposure to their network will help them reach their goal. on another note i know my office has been in contact and mev with each of the individual supervisors offices to get everyone else motivated and sign up as trustees as well so we can present a unified front as a city that we're willing to work inside and outside of our walls here in city hall to help our small business community. i want to thank all those who have been involved in this project over the past few months in bringing this new partnership to light. my staff in particular [speaker not understood] actually clark and justin from kiva and office of he economic work force development. i think we have an opportunity here to keep expanding the city's aide for small business community through this unique partnership. and as a city, we will once again be leading the way with the passage of this resolution by becoming the second city in the nation to officially sign on as a kiva trustee. when we have the opportunity to work with private partners who are willing to aide our neighborhoods and broader community, i think we need to jump on the opportunities when they arise. and i'm hopeful that this partnership will lead to the way for additional resoartiones that can help our small business community so we can continue to find our city's priorities inside and outside of our walls again in city hall that create, encourage, and spur he economic development in our small business community. the rest i submit. >> thank you, is supervisor farrell. supervisor mar? ~ >> thank you. colleagues, as our food security task force has annually looked at hunger and food and security in our city, i think a lot of their studies have shown that despite the he economic prosperity food and security is growing for many seniors and low-income people in our city. there are 37,000 people that currently access our so-called snap program, formerly known as food stamps and. examine ~ and actually today is a nationwide day called the snap call-in day to urge members of congress to vote no on the house reverend boydv can leadership plan to cut $40 billion to cut $40 billion over the next 10 years on funding for snap or food stamps for the vulnerable ~ and people that don't have any food. currently there are over 3 million residents in the state of california, and again over 37,000 people in our city, families and low-income residents that currently receive assistance from snap and our california cal fresh program. snap not only benefits low-income families, it also spurs our local economic activity and supports businesses that serve our low and moderate income communities. there is an estimate from moody's analytic that shows every dollar we spend as a nation on snap or food stamps benefits or generates $1.71 in he economic activities. it almost doubles the he economic activity based on the investment. so, the resolution that i'm introducing today will urge that our city and state officials work towards continued federal funding for snap and urge house members to vote no on any reductions in the snap program. and props to the food security task force and the food bank and the department of public health and many grassroots organizations like the food guardians and the southeast food, southeast task force and others for their work to make sure that hunger and food and security are eliminated in our city and i urge support for this measure. the rest i'll submit. >> thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madam chair. less than a month ago we rolled out our bike share pilot program. it was very exciting and is a really terrific event for the city. it is a pilot program with 350 bikes in san francisco soon to be 500 bikes. and i think i and others in this chambers have been vocal that we need to expand city-wide sooner rather than later and make the investment and make sure we keep it on track so that it is a viable city-wide program to expand and make easier bike use throughout the city. and, so, this past spring, in fact, i authored a resolution and colleagues passed it unanimously urging the mta to quickly move to a city-wide expansion after the launch of the pilot program. now with the pilot program is in place, i'm requesting a hearing ~. however, the mta will report on the experience so far in terms of the data and usage and challenges around the bike share program, and where the agency will give its thoughts as well as the mayor's office and transportation authority about how we can have a timely shift to a city-wide program. so, i look forward to the conversation and i know we'll all work very hard to make this a reality. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. supervisor yee. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, today i'm introducing a resolution to authorize the san francisco department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $1,4 39,000 for the san francisco safe routes to school program ~. the safe routes to school program promotes walking and biking to and from schools throughout san francisco. i have made pedestrian safety a priority since coming into office and nowhere is it more important than around schools. this important work helps reduce the traffic around schools while encouraging pedestrian and bike safety among our young residents. the safety of our children is a huge issue of concern for us as a community. we are a city that prides itself in sustainability. this grant will help educate a new generation about alternative transportation measures such as bicycling and walking, but also advocates for healthier life-styles. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor avalos. >> thank you, madam clerk. a couple aye at ~ items for introduction. one, i've asked the city attorney to help craft legislation about a nuisance business in my district. i'm very, very supportive of local businesses and commercial corridors in my district. mission street, broad street forming my district is ocean avenue as well. one business in particular that has been quite harmful to our community on the corner of excelsior and mission street there is a met stop. you may have seen last night ktbu did a story about the impact of this business and on the neighborhood. net stop is an internet cafe and what you don't see is that people are using the net stop site for typical business. you see it as an internet cafe. there is sweep stakes winning. you can win up to 50, $200 a night and it's drawing in a lot of people who are there under a loophole who are able to gamble. you know, while we can't -- been working for months trying to figure out how to close the loophole. i have to try an

supervisor avalos? avalos present. supervisor breed? breed present. supervisor campos? campos present.

that we serve together, and single out in particular john avalos, supervisor avalos for your leadership in this year's budget, supervisor avalos. (applause) >> who is real a great partnership working together. and i also want to thank so many people, but to quickly highlight what mayor lee mentioned and the people he mentioned ~. it's hard to -- you cannot overestimate how important so many people are in city hall to getting this budget done. it's a $7.9 billion budget. it's incredibly important and it matters to the residents of san francisco. and a few people in particular, first of all kate howard, the mayor's budget director. (applause) >> kate and her incredible team as well. every single person on kate's team. (applause) >> for those of you who don't know, they spend countless hours here in city hall, late, late nights, early mornings, hopefully no all nighters in particular, but without them we wouldn't be here today. to ben rosenfield, monique zamuda and the entire controller's office team, thank you so much. (applause) >> kate and ben were really partners in crime in getting this budget done and with us every step of

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. >>

avalos. if we could have a motion to accept the amendments of the whole and amend the ordinance outlined by supervisor avalos. we have a motion by supervisor mar. we can take that motion without objection. now on the ord nandz as amended we have a motion by supervisor mar. if we could take that without objection. without objection this goes forward with the unanimous approval of the committee to the full board. thank you very much. mr. clerk do we have any further business before the committee? >> that concludes the business of the committee. >> thank you the meeting is concluded. thank you all for coming out >> we are approving as many parks as we can, you have a value garden and not too many can claim that and you have an historic building that has been redone in a beautiful fashion and you have that beautiful outdoor ping-pong table and you have got the art commission involved and if you look at them, and we can particularly the gate as you came in, and that is extraordinary. and so these tiles, i am going to recommend that every park come and look at this park, because i think that the way that you have acknowledged donor iss really first class. >> it is nice to come and play and we have been driving by for literally a year. >> it is kind of nice. >> all of the people that are here. ♪ 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 avalosffices. 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 thill reconsider this on septemb

i have a second from supervisor avalos >> i want to thank supervisor avalos i'll be adding this afternoon. >> item 51 is a motion appointing naomi to the entertainment empathies. >> colleagues supervisor wiener. i just want to say how great it is we're able to reappoint her to the entertainment commission. we appointed her last year she brings a strong public height to the empathies commission. it looks like she might move out of the city but i'm very, very happy she's going to be on the commission and a colleagues the last item being unanimously can we take this same house, same call >> we've completed all our special orders why don't we go to item 62 and this was considered on thursday and forwarded to the board as a committee report. it's a resolution to determine the type of 21 off sale general license to tenth street to the wine will be serviced for the night of the city >> colleagues same house, same call? item 63. >> it was considered by the land use committee on monday and was forwarded to the board as the committee report as a new title granting the revokeable title to the right-

avalos who will begin to steer the conversation for this item. ~ accreditation supervisor avalos, would you like to offer opening remarks? >> yes. yes, i would. thank you very much, chair cohen. and thank you for co-sponsoring this hearing along with supervisor campos as well. >> thank you. >> this is an emergency hearing that we've called, really to address big concerns in san francisco about potential closing of city college. we have heard members of the board of supervisors, while we don't have direct jurisdiction over city college, we under just how important city college is to san francisco for so many reasons. we have our work force programs train thousands of people to be prepared for our local aloe economy. in a way, city college serve as an economic engine for the city to help prepare the work force for that. there are many people who use city college to prepare for four-year institutions and allow youth of color, especially [speaker not understood] is an institution where they can actually go on to four-year institutions and city college plays a vital role for that. we have a great deal of vocational training that goes on that -- >> excuse me. ladies and gentlemen, as you come into the committee room, we're trying to handle business here. if you could please come in quietly. and if you do not have a seat, i will have to ask you to go back to the overflow room. supervisor avalos, please continue. >> thank you very much. there is a great deal of vocational training [speaker not understood] that city college is involved in. we have a very high immigrant population in san francisco and many people in the immigrant community are learning english as a second language so they can actually have a better fit to work in our local economy and city college provides support for them as well. we have campuses all over san francisco touching many, many neighborhoods, touching all of our communities in this city. district 11 where i serve on the board of supervisors is right across the street from the main campus of city college and has a strong connection to neighbors and residents throughout the district. and it's a vital institution that we want to be able to protect. through the purpose of this hearing -- excuse me, it's getting hard to concentrate with a lot of talking in the background. so, the purpose of this hearing is really probably for me is to educate myself, ot

before you say anything, i wanted to also -- i know that supervisor avalos wanted to say a few words. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you. i want to say [in spanish]. thank you very much for all your work here in san francisco. i had the pleasure of developing a good relationship with you. that is really important for my district and also just for us together, and really came to really value your work, working with the other consulates in latin america and making sure that we had set in place real strong supports for immigrant community that came from latin america. and that is really important to have especially when we have so much in common. and i just want to say thank you for inviting me to come to many of the events that your consulate had put on, cultural events, [speaker not understood], press conferences as well that were really making sure that we can give constituents and people from all parts of the world living here, the information they need to be safe and secure in this country. i just think it's what your work has been and i wish you all the best in years to come. >> mr. consul general. oh,

avalos on two seats for the "x" excelsior outer mission >> 3. >> is it 3. >> 2. >> two seats. i was impressed by mr. occurring bin and am sure he's reached out to commissioner avalos but he made a good case. thank you. >> thank you my understanding is that there's 2 seats for corrector outer mission and so mined is avalos is moving that we not - >> yep. >> not make a decision on those 3 seats correct. >> correct. >> so we have a motion that we move two gentlemen to this c ac. can we do that await objection. thank you. ms. chang all item 9 >> presentation on feasibility of light rail seating reconfigurati reconfiguration. >> i have to go - >> and colleagues there's a prevention here as well on the mta seat reconfiguration for the light rail. let me ask ms. lombardy how long will this be we have another important meeting coming up. >> good morning lee deputy director the presentation from the municipal transportation authority is fairly brief only on the order of perhaps 10 minutes but, you know, depending upon any questions that the committee might have. >> mr. chairman i'm sitting in just for this item and i know that commissioner kim has to leave and we want to make sure we still have quorum. >> great. >> even though i'm not on the committee i'm sitting for commissioner yee. >> yeah, she, leave and th

i want to recognize supervisor avalos it was the members in the community but i think it's important to recognize supervisor avalos and his staff. it's a ton of work and i know the president of the united states that's it what's that is like. we've heard from the citizens in the city they don't feel safe because they could get deported themselves. i share the story from last week you have seen walking down our hallways talking about his home that was burglarized but didn't call the police because of the fear of being dporlt. f this ordinance is important to build the trust in our public safety infrastructure. no one should fear calling the police when they need help. i'm excited about the passage for that reason i know there are angst and emotions on both sides on the amendments in order to insure passage of this organized. many are worried that any carve outs will continue to chill the public's willingness to seek help or serve witnesses and also waste valuable but limited resources on minimal crime. resources that could be used elsewhere incarceration is high therefore it's important but at the same time we've h

reportados a inmigracion....e l autor de la misma john avalos dice que, hay que mantener una division entre el sistema judicial normal e inmigracion. john avalosrecho constitucional de todos que debemos recibir debido proceso claro para eso existe el sistema penal no es necesario otro sistema mas no es necesario involucrar a inmigracion cesar ---un sospechoso de robarse un coche y luego de chocarlo contra varios cesar ---un sospechoso de robarse un coche y luego de chocarlo contra varios automoviles en san jose, se encuentra grave en el hospital mientras que otro sujeto se dio a la fuga. take vo ---el robo de una camioneta "chevy" sucedio a las 4 de esta maÑana en "almaden valley" cerca de las calles coleman y meridian. ---entre 5 a 10 carros resultaron daÑados y las autoridades recomiendan a las personas a cerrar siempre los automoviles. blanca ---y tambien la policia de san jose est buscando al conductor de un auto que provoco un accidente en cadena. take map ---5 carros se vieron involucrados en el accidente que segun la policia... take vo .... fue iniciado por el conductor de un "jaguar" anoche en la autopista 880 a la altura de la salida