i'm the chair, aaron peskin, joined by matt haney and shortly by safai. our clerk, do you have announcements? >> be sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. any documents should be submitted to the clerk >> supervisor peskin: thank you. could you read the first item. >> item number 1 is ordinance ordering the summary street vacation of the 900 block of francisco street as part of the development of francisco --% approximate -- >> supervisor peskin: i think actually -- >> i apologize. ordinance amending the plumbing code to add a requirement for the placement and minimum size of building traps and affirming the appropriate findings. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. who do we have here for this earth-shattering piece of legislation? >> steve, from dbi, chief plumbing inspector. this was a clerical error that was missed. it's always been in the code. it's something we're re-entering back into the code for the amendments. i have this section here. put up here, if you want. section 1008.0, building traps, it gives you everything required for a 4

supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee. i would like to concur with many of the things that the district supervisor who represents the part of the city where this project is taking place just stated. he referenced -- and i will say her name, because she and i were in the same contest in the year 2000 when i first ran for supervisor and that is meagan levitan, who did indeed in her e-mail say it was one of the easiest votes that they took. and i would point all of you to the letter or the document that mr. williams on behalf of the ceqa appeal put on the overhead, which said this is an adverse impact. and i want us all to do this based on policy. yes, we are elected officials, so we are de facto politicians, but when there is something in the record that says this is adverse, that it is an impact, i don't think that we can say it's not an impact under ceqa. so i completely respect what supervisor haney has put forth relative to approving item 21 and tabling items 22 and 23. and i don't know how many of you were on this board

seconded by supervisor peskin.with no objection, we'll rescind the vote. >> clerk: shall i read the item. >> was requested for closed session on labor negotiation april 16 to be scheduled for 4:00 p.m. can we have a motion to amend the motion to include the 4:00 p.m. time. >> so moved. >> motion made by supervisor peskin. is there a second? seconded by supervisor mandelman. let's are roll call because the house has changed. >> clerk: [roll call] >> commissioner: so we'll take a roll call. we're amending to include the 4:00 p.m. time for item 41 which is the pg&e litigation. roll call, please. >> clerk: on the amendment to add -- >> i want clarification. i read out it would be april 16. is april 16 or april 9. >> clerk: april 9. >> i'm not talking about changing the day. i'm only talking about to include the 4:00 p.m. time. thank you. could i have a roll call on the amendment? >> clerk: on the amendment. [roll call] there are 11 ayes. >> great. colleagues can we take this item as amended, same house, same call. with

i went to peskin's office and made a presentation in front of him. i told him you can't keep doing this because you're going to create a negative cash flow. the last seven months of ed lee's life, he told each and every department you have to cutback 10%, stop employing people in your department and cutback on your expenses because you had an $85 million cash flow. and when you took over after his death, you still had an $88.5 million cash flow. when the president did his tax cuts and unnecessary tax regulations, all the big companies, multibillion dollar companies such as apple came back to the united states and started booming. apple brought back 500 billion to the united states. that's how you got your 11.5 in your budget. the tax figures that you presented today were disproved by ed lee. companies including twitter broke all the records yesterday, so your figures are not up to date because the record was just broke yesterday. and about the tech boom, the tech boom starts with the races, justin herman plaza, when you started with the fillmore and

we are joined by supervisor peskin. good morning. >> supervisor peskin: good morning, chair ronen. thank you for hearing this again, and i think this is two of the three times that this will need to be in this committee. i can see deputy city attorney givner nodding his head. all of the amendments except for one i discussed in detail at the last meeting but had not yet been approved as to form by the city attorney. they are now approved as to form by the city attorney, and i'll give the clerk the signed original and a couple of copies. the only other change that has materialized in the intervening week is at page 16, lines 1 through 5 have been deleted, and that was a provision that created a new crime, if you will, which was a misdemeanor for violation of this ordinance, and many departments expressed concern about this, and frankly, i don't want to be -- i don't think we want to be in the policy business of creating more crimes, and i think there are more recourses if violations occur. so other than that, everything else, i discussed in copious detail at the last meeting. and wha

thank you again to supervisor peskin. i just want our community to know that safety is first and foremost, but we have to protect rights as well. >> thank you. if there's no other comments from my colleagues, i would like to open this up for public comment. i have a bunch of speaker cards, and i will call out a few names. i know this room is very crowded again, there is an overflow room , but i will ask people whose names i call to sign up to my left or right. [calling names] >> and i will call some other names after we get through this testimony. go ahead, whoever. >> first question, alice is not going to speak, can she yield her time to me. >> she can. >> each speaker will have two minutes. >> supervisors, i'm from stop crime s.f. we have not seen supervisor peskin shasha amendments of our comments on the legislation as written. creating policies for security cameras and technology makes good sense, yes there are serious several -- civil liberties questions at stake, but the devils are in the details, and there are a lo

thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i know that supervisor safai has questions.i just want to, first of all, thank the commission and staff. i mean, this is a conversation that i took a run at over a decade ago with a little bit of result, but not the comprehensive result that we really need. and commissioner black is absolutely right, which is a quarter of a century ago, san francisco was at the forefront and we've fallen way behind. whether you love historic preservation or want development, this is the tool. i think it would be great to get this done in two-and-a-half years and given the development pressures we're under, that is probably the right thing to do. i have had a conversation with the representative of the historic preservation fund committee, which many, many years ago was the recipient of money from the settlement of litigation and i was actually able to get an appropriation for that committee in last year's budget, which remains unspent. so i have broached and will continue to broach with the fund committee whether or not some of that money -- or

i want us appreciate supervisor peskin. we had this conversation very early on, maybe a month or two into the election and we had a debate on the floor, and you took that debate and transitioned it to this particular property, resurrected something that he had been working on for almost a decade, and here we are, less then a year later, and we have a real opportunity to do something special, and we are not selling it as an opportunity for private investment, but we are really looking for it to maximize affordable housing. i just want to appreciate your leadership on that. >> thank you. any comments from fire? >> chief rivera, chief nicholson >> good afternoon, supervisors. chief janine nicholson, san francisco fire department. we have been working closely with john updike and with the developers to make sure that all our operational and logistical needs are met, and we are feeling really good about it and we support this project 100%. >> a new station 13 and new station 35, unbelievable. >> bring it. [laughter]. >> chief ri

[calling of vote] peskin no. ronen aye. stefani aye. walton aye. there are 7 ayes. -- there are 8 ayes and two nos with supervisor mar and peskin in the dissent. >> president yee: this motion passes. so, thank you, moving now to consider the conditional use appeal. item 25, 26, 27. consideration of the appeal of the conditional use authorization involves analysis of whether the planning commission's determination to authorize the project was appropriate. this hearing is a quasi judicial to reverse the planning decision or to authorize conditional use with additional conditions, eight votes of the board are required. do we have a motion? supervisor peskin. -- i believe that the project is not necessarily or desirable or compatible with the surrounding community. and because it impacts on the neighborhood and park use, i've concluded that the size and shape of the building is inconsistent to the general welfare of people living and working in the area. and the mass of the building is not compatible with the scale of the surrounding district, especial

we have not seen supervisor peskin shasha amendments of our comments on the legislation as written. creating policies for security cameras and technology makes good sense, yes there are serious several -- civil liberties questions at stake, but the devils are in the details, and there are a lot of doubles in the details at this ordinance. first they are the process devils. this ordinance says that the progress must come up with a policy for security technology, and then the board of supervisors must approve the policy, and if you can't approve a policy within a certain period of time, then the security cameras and the acquisition gets shut down. is that confusing? yes. suppose we are talking about a policy on the use of life-saving medical quitman technology, that would be a good idea. we want cardiac defibrillators in the right places. the board failed to approve a policy on medical technology within a certain amount of time and will you shut down the acquisition of medical equipment at s.f. general? would you take it out of ambulances or no longer require that? i think some of the

item. >> chair peskin,

>> yes, thank you, chair peskin. you know, thank you for looking at -- and some of this is in my neighborhood -- hate hashbury and cole valley, things that will help pedestrians get through daylighting, and speed bumps, especially with t.n.c.s using clayton as a through town, a through way. this is my question, though: with oakenville, you talked about enforcement. you talked about enforcement with blocking. and right now we're looking at changing page street, going down to octavia, to get on the freeway. this is the way it was supposed to be through the market octavia plan, always it was supposed to be a pedestrian and bike street, safety street. and we've allowed the traffic to go there and also on hate street, even though there is a red bus line. but they're now looking at diverting most of the traffic back on to oak, right, and keeping those, like page street a pedestrian and bike. the biggest worry is blocking. and this is, i think, an enforcement issue because people just go right out in the middle of whatever

>> supervisor peskin: why didn't oca bring this prior to april 1st? >> supervisors, oca, we had originally planned to have this brought before you on the 1st of april, but because of various delays on our end, we weren't able to get the item before you on time. however, we did amend the current contract so we really don't need it to be as retroactive contract, so there is not going to be a gap in service, but as the item was presented, we already had the item before and the budget and the finance committee with the april 1st date. so from a contractual standpoint we don't need this to be dated april 1st, because we have the current agreement in place until the end of may. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> president yee: supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: just a comment or a statement, at some point, can we get a list of what departments this effects? if we don't already have one? >> president yee: okay. request to who? >> sure. the oca can run a report and submit it to the clerk of the board to show you all of the releases that were done off t

. >> thank you, chair peskin. the legislation is a small attempt for us to address the growing need for childcare facilities in san francisco. we have 23,000 infants and toddlers and nearly 20,000 preschoolers in this city. 85% of the children 0 to 2,do not have licensed care and many have unmelt nee-- unmet needs. there are over 2,000 families on a wait list to receive care at it hit moment continues to grow. while the passage of the early care and education for all last june meant an unprecedented level of investment to eliminate the waiting list and to expand access to our middle income families, we're still awaiting court decisions. at this point in time, we have a long way to go in order to provide services for this growing demand. and we certainly need to do more to support the childcare educators who are barely getting a living wage despite the significance of their work. we all know how expensive it is to seek quality childcare for a child. it can cost more than rent and college tuition. what's becoming mo

>> thank you, chair peskin. i think probably my questions are more more for the m.t.a. representative. obviously we can't have these kind of questions around safety with regards to our trains. anyone who saw the incident that took place, it was absolutely shocking and horrific and unacceptable that we would put our residents and passengers in this kind of situation. i don't remember or recall having any situation like this with the prior trains. it seems to me there are a lot of issues, and sometimes every time people board, of kind of being in some way stuck between the doors and they open up and they don't, as i recall, ever have shut on somebody and dragged them along. so this sa very is a very, very serious concern, and thank god this particular person survived. it was awful that she was injured in the way that she was. there are a couple of questions i have about that. it seems like there are a number of changes that we're going to make with regard to improvements to address some of these safety questions.

. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, if i could just rise to a point of information which is that we could reopen roll call insofar as -- we can't respond to public comment, but there is something that supervisor brown spoke to, and i think the proper way to do this is is that by noon tomorrow, under an introduction form if the clerk of the board is willing, from the board of supervisors to the district attorney, so i think supervisor brown, you have until noon tomorrow -- and actually, we don't even have to reopen roll call. i just wanted to rise to a point of information, and i would be happy to join you in that. [applause] >> president yee: okay. thank you very much, so i'm going to end the discussion for this. and we're -- i'm sorry, where am i? okay. i think we're -- madam clerk, can you call the items for adoption without committee reference? >> clerk: items 37 through 40 compromise the items for adoption from committee. any supervisor my require a resolution to go to committee. >> president yee: would a

supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee. ms. ketchum, this may or may not be ceqa related, may be -- coastal zone and the inapplicability of the cat 4 exemption, but presumably that's papered over well enough with the category 23 exemption, but my separate question is, insofar as the city of san francisco has a local coastal plan, do you as the lead agency apply for a coastal development permit for the city? >> for this event, no, we have not. >> supervisor peskin: you might want to consult with your counsel to see whether or not you ought to do that pursuant to the coastal act. >> it's possible we do. >> supervisor, sarah madeline for the department. our understanding has been, and correct me if i'm mischaracterizing this, that there's a minor piece of the event set up that it's in the coastal zone. it is all back of the house, it is not public access, and, therefore, we have not applied for a coastal permit. >> supervisor peskin: might want to consult your local coastal plan and make sure you're playing by your own rules. >> p

>> commissioner: supervisor peskin. >> sorry, president yee. there was definitional changes we discussed in committee and i need to pass those out and i don't have them yet. if we can come back to that, that'd be great. >> commissioner: madam clerk call item 16. >> clerk: an ordinance to mend the landmark decision 204 located at 906 broadway to confirm the exterior features to be replaced in kind and affirm the ceqa determination and make appropriate findings. >> commissioner: colleagues, same house, same call? without objection the ordinance is passed on first reading. madam clerk, next item, please. >> clerk: item 17 is a motion to point the following individuals to the veterans affairs commission hanley chan term ending january 31, 2020 and victor oliveri and christopher mcdonald to terms ending january 31, 2023. >> commissioner: colleagues, same house, same call? the motion is approved unanimously. madam clerk, please call the next item. >> clerk: item 18 a motion to appoint service hilary ronen the bay area governments and metropolitan tra

>> thank you chair peskin. i will have some presentations before we take public comment, so if you want to rest your feet , for people who are already lined up, you may just want to sit down and rest for a few minutes before we take public comments. i want to thank the committee, my colleagues, the mayor's office on housing and the department of aging and adult services for attending the hearing today on the city's effort regarding the affordable housing needs of our elders. as you may already know, we have been going through numerous discussions with the housing bond work groups regarding the most urgent affordable housing needs citywide. it is critical that we understand the facts about what is in the affordable housing pipeline, what is missing, and how this correlates with our city's population and the most urgent needs. to call for this hearing because i have personal experience trying to address assisted-living needs for our elders. my mother needed affordable housing that would include support for her da

chairman and supervisor peskin. our firm has been around since 1978 as a firm still represents the very original first client california transit authorization. 1978 i started lobbying at the age of 14. that is not true. the firm is around since 1978. joshua shaw and i took it over in the early 1990s. we are the founding partners of the firm. we have five partners. there are only three in the name but happy to announce that two other partners karen and jason will be on the masthead. we are open to suggestions as far as a new name in the future. i have been lobbying for almost 30 years. i lobbied for counties the entire time in my career. first county i lobbied for was san diego county. since then i represented rural, suburban and urban counties. it is about representing cloth local governments. we represent close to 50 local governments in california. i want to make sure you two memberses the board i want to be clear to you that representing the city and county is one of my personal joys in my career and certainly on

>> thank you, chair peskin. i just want to reiterate i, too, am quite shocked this has happened. i think it erodes people faith in not just our transportation system, but any regulatory board that oversees the transportation system, and that would be us. and the fact that we don't know about these incidences are wrongment and wrong.and i want to check oe older gentleman with the bag of doughnuts, and i was wondering what happened to that gentleman? >> as with the previous incident, i don't have that information, but he was transported, as a result of the incident, to a hospital. >> and when did that happen? >> i don't want to give misinformation. we'll be happen to follow up. >> did it happen before the video that we saw? >> it happened before last friday. >> and you talked about -- you said reported -- chair peskin asked you whether or not these were reported, and you you dwriewfused theword "reportable" and i'm wondering what is the protocol for reporting these incidences. do you report them to the m.t.a., to

net new shadow that it would cast on a park. >> supervisor peskin: through the president to mr.ee, where in section 295 which is proposition k does it say that? >> it's in the 1989 memorandum -- >> supervisor peskin: you said, i'm not trying to try you, section 295 of the code which is proposition k, not the memo that was subscribed to by the planning commission and the rec and park commission five years later. i don't see anything in section 2 focus of -- 295 of the code that says what you said. >> it's not in the text of the planning code section. section 295 directs the two commissions to establish procedures for evaluating shadow impacts. that's what led to that joint memorandum. >> president yee, colleagues, there are two matters that are before us. >> supervisor peskin: one is ceqa matter and one is conditional use matter and i would like to address the first matter because if we don't get pass it, we won't get to the second matter. i understand that the -- let me read it to you. the park shadow ban ordinance of 1984 authored by a former member of this body, supervisor bil