the ordinance before you would recognize small business month in may 2013. the san francisco planning code, building code to waive fees for the month of may for certain facade improvements. diana from supervisor tang's office was -- is here to speak about the ordinance. and after she's finished speaking, i'll continue with my presentation. thanks. >> good afternoon, commissioners, dee anna keson for supervisor tang's office. [speaker not understood] waiving fees for awning, signs, pedestrian level lighting. we introduced this last year and it was unanimously passed at the board. to help educate small business owners about the improvements and fees that -- the fees that went around -- that surrounded improving certain facades like awnings and signs. we got great feedback in terms of how it was very educational for small business owners to learn about these certain types of fees and replacement permits. and this year we hope to do the same kind of educational outreach. it will be city-wide. so, we're hoping to work with the supervisors' offices, the office of s

commissioners, i would like to point out one error in the proposed ordinance in your packet. the proposed ordinance contains a typo in the subsection titled geography line 12 on page 3. it references and assesses 39 12, the correct block is 39 13. i'd also like to call to your attention two letters of support that have come into the planning department after your packets went out. one is from the mission bay citizens advisory committee. the other one is from the potrero boosters neighborhood association. i'll give those to the secretary for your review. as mentioned, planning staff recommends approval to the board of supervisors. the proposed types of map change to create the art and design educational special use district with the noted correction referencing assessor's block 39 13 lots 2 and 3. this concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. thank you. >> is project sponsor here? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm miguel [speaker not understood]. i like this overhead, thank you. my name is david meckel. i'm the director of campus planning for the cali

so, what i have is a summary of the amendments to that ordinance. this is from -- the summary has been provided by supervisor farrell and staff has not confirmed any of the content in here, but i could either report this to you or give it to the commission secretary for you to review during the hearing. >> that would be a good review during the hearing at this point , in the interest of time. but i think it's important. >> thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> i have a question for direct r ram on a slightly different topic. plan bay area is out now from the mtc. it's been in the paper ~. i saw an article about how the extension and article on displace many. i wanted to understand what role planning department staff is playing in the process or what kind of analysis staff had been doing regarding the plan. >> surely. we had been involved a couple of years with abag and mtc on the formation of the plan. we commented several times particularly around the issues of the projections for housing and job development in the region and obviously in the city. some

the bubble ordinance, the buffer ordinance that we are introducing today, is a buffer ordinance that was carefully drafted following the guideness, that federal courts have provided with respect to this matter. this piece of legislation is consistent with the ruling in the first circle in the kolen v, oakly, where it basically talked about how a buffer zone ordinance is a valid time, place, and manner regulation that truly strikes the right balance between the free speech and the right of people in our community to access healthcare in the stand alone klin i objects. this ordinance is contra neutral because it protects the rights of perspective patients, to these clinics, a perspective of what the message is. people, who have opposed buffer zones in the past have argued before courts that because these buffer zones arguably prevent the close personal contact between the speaker and the patient, that somehow that violates the first amendment. the fact is that the courts have made it very clear that the right to the first amendment to free speech is not absolute and it is not absolute e

would go - would there by 2 the $9,379 and that would cover the costs we recommend you approve the ordinance in item 4 - on page 13 of our report we point out that the department has previously collected $374,989 on personality from sold waste folks and we therefore make a recommendation to amend the ordinance to request the dpa submit an annual report so the board of supervisors knows what's in the fund and we recommend you approve the ordinance >> someone from d b.a. any questions? >> i have reviewed the propped amendment and dpa should recommend it. >> thank you, mr. rows. i'd like to open up on public commit to item it through 4 >> i'm glad you've built this up you've built up the health budget up you've built it up-and-up and up and now your buckets solid. and it's still going to make it - give it all you've got. your solid as a budget rock and you give it all you got. and a thank you, mr. paul son-in-law. anyone else want to commit? seeing none public commit t is closed. can we move the budget >> yes i'll move the budget. >> we can move without objection and now move the other items. >

failure to comply with the sunshine ordinance. i'm furnishing you request that i responded from february 2010 to february 2013. i have also furnished you with the records of hours spent annually by me in research in response to sunshine request and prep for sunshine hearing. 227.55 hours and current fiscal year of 16.15 hours. i may have been technically in violation for failing to release information. while admitting to not responding on a timely basis. i did respond with a letter to mr. clark. i did not send a knowledgeable representative. i followed the attorneys advice. it's suggestive and contradictory provided to me by my city attorney and finally after respond to go request that were thoroughly received by the city attorney. i disagree with the task force finding that i have inadequate responses and a lack of intent to comply with the sunshine ordinance in the future, unquote. i would be more than happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. public comment on this matter? >> my name is robert clark. i'm a witness to the fact

and if the board approves those remaining ordinances. the final ordinances that were adopted it would establish the city's reservation fund and to cross funds across two districts. that concludes my report. i heard there was no board of appeals report for his item. thank you >> good morning. i'm here to give you a brief summary. the agricultural review committee met yesterday. at the committee they nominated andrew wolf from his chair and a continued a proposed san francisco ferry terminal expansion. this is 3 expansions a public plaza and he that's between the two ferrys. during the commissioner comments in question the proposed revision doesn't include any parking area. the committees comments were concerned were largely around the canopy structures and they will be address at a future hearing date. i also want to point out that due to the preservation conference in may a number of staff will be at the conference. at the full historic he prejsz hearing the commission nominated and elected bob attorney a landmark historian as their repre

the ordinance the supervisor kim's ordinance provides in section 31.1 that a negative declaration be filed anytime it's issued by the planning department and no longer than the 30 days avenue it's adopted after the city approves the promise >> let's say if the park project in the case of a categorical exception? >> it's anything up so long as there is still a discretionary approval action. so it would be the final discretionary principle of law >> so if you have a park renovation so the two categorical exemption the deadline to appeal would be the final discretionary act? >> so long as it's thirty days. >> that could be within the thirty days? >> it still has to be a discretionary. >> so in san francisco it's still thirty days. >> generally they would still be discretion for the city to act on with sequa. whether you could still implement changes to the project >> so what if another building permit is pulled could that trigger a sequa appeal? >> yes, but if it was a negative declaration the two ordinances your ordinance and supervisor kim's ordinance i think have pretty sure the same

but because if you do that under the sunshine ordinance there is a waiver requirement. it sounds like it's better for her to get them through this non-task sunshine mean. >> i will accept that. >> it sounds like there was a concession that the response was not timely so i think we should issue a letter explaining that you all should try to get better in the future and try to make these responses timely and cross your t's and i don't think there is a violation of 67.21 c. i think they met their burden given sli ya was -- and my reading of the complaint at issue is that it related primarily to the employment file and miss -- alice was the right person for that. >> i'm comfortable with that. >> is there a motion to make that determination? >> so moved. >> we had public comment. >> all in favor? >> second. >> you want to say something? >> the 2 request from miss carter in the packet neither of them refer to the sunshine ordinance. i don't know this person who was apparently the driver, i would assume she is not well versed in the sunshine and i would assume she was just tryi

you are here to enforce provisions of the sunshine ordinance. you are not here to allow good government guide to supercede, trump, the sunshine ordinance. there are many things in mr. herrera's good government guide that are not worthy of being used as toilet paper. you will see the parallel to the problem mr. hartz is encountering with the good government guide similar issue in your next agenda item and mr. wooding's case in which the good government guide also contains material on page 89 that is not worthy of a public rest room. page 89 of the good government guide says that departmental destruction policies for material that remains on back up tapes or analogous paper records that the department may have lawfully discarded but may be found in the city-owned dumpster, these are the public records act that would be separate. and the sunshine ordinance requires to search the trash for such records that is pure nonsense, the back up tapes are there for daily use, speaking as an experienced secretary, i know that almost every secretary in this cit

but, i see no reference to that issue in the sunshine ordinance task force findings. so there is nothing before me that i can find that raises that issue. although it has been raised here tonight, and it will trouble me if different members of the public were treated differently or if the statements were treated differently but that seems to have been mentioned but never addressed by the sunshine task force and therefore, there is nothing that i see before me that i can do anything about. when the ethics commission itself, changed our practice, to put the 150-word statements in the body of the document, we did not do it because we thought that we were in any kind of violation up until then. we did it because we thought that it was responsive, because we thought it would reduce frustration and the members of the public would find it evidence of good faith. but not because we thought that it was required. so i think that it is a good thing to see that the library commission is now prepared to raise for its future practice doing the same thing. but i don't see it as requi

pilpal said the purpose of the sunshine ordinance when it was on the ballot was not to deal with the records retention issue but disclosure of documents that have been retained. we have a separate chapter of the admin code that deals with record retentions and i think that probably answers the question. >> in light of that, the way that i preliminary would come out was that there was a violation with respect to the failure to provide the records by the end of the next business day, by miss gong. she had a response, from miss buell, she claims to have gotten a response from mr. buell, miss ballard. sorry there are a lot of people i'm learning about today. and there was a response from miss mcauthor reflecting that mr. buell had done the search and a response from mr. ginsberg as well. but held on to the or did not give the response in a timely fashion when she had them on june 6th. so, there i would find that there was a willful violation of 67.25. i don't think although i am some what surprised i must say that there is not a requirement and frankly, miss ballard, i highly recommend t

>> john, gibner city attorney, and just a few provisions in the ordinance, and the ordinance approving the contract, waived the concern requirements. and two of those requirements that are proposed to be waived can't be waived because they are adopted by the voter initiatives and one is government comment code, which you are both familiar with, that prohibts contractors from getting campaign contribution to elected officials, and the other is administrative code section or chapter 12 g, that prohibts city money from being used for political activities and so our recommendation is that you strike those sections of the ordinance on page 4, lines 8 through 11. and the contract itself, provides that the parties will be subject to all applicable laws and so the contract acknowledges that pg&e will continue to be subject to these provisions. >> okay. obviously we would completely agree to it accept that the amendments and leave it at that. >> supervisor avalos? >> just a couple of questions, is there any schematic designs so far of the hydroelectric generate ors? >> i am sorry i didn't under

, as supervisor wiener indicated at the beginning, is an ordinance that really is about a very small piece of our process. it would not change how we do our environmental review and the bulk of what happens before a project ever comes to appeal. it is also not about curtailing appeals. ceqa provides for the ability to appeal. we think that's completely appropriate and we stand behind the work that we do on the environmental review. the aspect of it that is i'd say a little difficult to stand behind is needing to get city attorney opinion on whether an appeal is timely. and the reason that we need to do that is because under the current system, appeals can be filed up to the end of the administrative appeal period on the final approval action and for each appeal filed we have to figure out if the project is or isn't pending its final approval action. i do want to thank supervisor wiener very much for working with those of our planning commission and historic preservation commission. and for continuing to make amendments. i also want to thank mr. power

the impetus behind the ordinance is to assist small businesses in contributing to the revitalizationof the corridor, and making small improvements. we heard from business owners, a lot offended not know if you wanted to make improvements to fix awnings and signs, do you have to go to the permit process and pay a certain fee? we used this fee waiver to educate businesses and the community and let them know what they would have to do with regards to this process. this year would like to do the same thing and really outreach the communities in partnership with offices such as the office of small businesses, invest in neighborhoods, just caught and there is other organizations to get this fee waiver out into the community, let people know that it is available to them you have a packet of materials and draft form that we would like to provide to the community. the first is a fact sheet summary regarding what they would have to do on the process. we are in the process of translating allsup into chinese and spanish. we would be able to outreach to more communities. and in addition we would

a long evening, it was something to the effect that the reason we have the brown act and the sunshine ordinance the california public records act is because government activity must be as transparent as possible. and i think that you found tonight and both of the cases that you have heard that the goment transparency is not very transparent. and whether we talk about it in terms of e-mails or we talk about it in terms of budget and finances, or we talk about what is happening in particular department or not happening. obviously, you face the task now ahead of you, of figuring out how government activity and it means government across the board for all of us, be transparent as possible. what my government is staying about me and what your government is saying about you, behind your back, possibly, without your knowing it, what kind of financial records are made available to the public, are they complete or they whole or understandable? what kind of other policy decisions are made? that are really sunshine to the public in compliness? i don't envy you the job that you have ahead. and i know that

i appreciate that and look forward to the passage of this ordinance, thank you. >> thank you. >> is there other member of the public who has not spoken who would like to speak on this item? >> seeing, none, we will consider public comment closed. now i want to give supervisor yee an opportunity to make a few remarks. >> sure. >> supervisor? >> thank you. >> supervisor campos. i want to thank the public for coming here today and expressing their opinion in a civil way. and you know what? i am really proud to be one of the nine supervisors that is going to be co-sponsoring this legislation. and i am also very proud supervisor campos for your leadership on this issue. and this,

the first item? >> item no. 1 ordinance the contract modification not to exceed the amount requirement under administration code and authorizeing the director of public works amend as needed architectural services as needed by $150,000. to $1 million for a limit purpose of completing the design on september 2nd, 2010. >> thank you very much. i have a couple words. first of all i have to thank you of this item that i'm introducing is to support the continued revitalization of the opera house. the opera house is the only building in the bay view listed on the national directory of historic places and serves as a key for a gathering place. a restoration structural upgrades and i am improvements to the facility so it can function as a larger sight for community programs and uses. the architectural team and fish has been leading this project with dpw. next i would like to call miss judy. >> welcome. i'm thrilled to be here. i'm doing a very brief presentation and i think you are going to be very excited by what you see for a supervisor tang just a little bit of history. this is one of 4 cultural centers owned b

when the referal from the sunshine ordinance task force i do not see a violation of 67.16. on the specific question on whether the 150-word summaries provided by speakers were properly or improperly included in record of the meetings. the word in the minutes, seems to me to be satisfied by the fact that the documents were pagenated in the examples of of issue here through one through 9 or one through 16 including the addendum, that seems to me the clearest lay version of what is a document? it is a thing that is in a set of continuous pages. they are referred to in the text that were generated by the recording secretary of the meeting. the sunshine ordinance task force cannot add or imply the word in the body of the minutes. that is one way to read it. but that is not in the under-lying law and requirement. we have heard some comment tonight about whether everyone's summary was included whether people were treated the same, whether their summaries were included in the same sort of way. and that might be an issue, i see them going back that it was listed as one of the

they could take video without consent and we support this very much and thank you very much for the ordinance next speaker, please? >> hi, high name is sarah, and i am the assistant director of public affairs for choice california, and i lived here in san francisco in district five and our office is also located downtown in the financial district and i would like to say that i have never had to make a decision. people who go to get reproductive healthcare should not have to face harassment or , intimidation. they deserve better and they have the programs and we would like to thanks supervisor campos for introducing it. >> i cross to the other side of the street where i avoid the area entirely, because, no matter what they say, it is intimidation and harass sxment bullying, and i wonder how many recognize what they do as bullying and i jufptd just a mere resident feel harassed and intimidated or bullied need to cross the street or avoid the area, i wonder what it must be like to be a patient or a family who needs the services and those affordable healthcare that they provide, and i wish that t

she simply doesn't care about anyone's right under the sunshine ordinance. the brown act. california constitution or the constitution of the united states. she simply doesn't give a damn. the ethics commission, the library commission, the police commission and the arts commission have all changed their policy and placed the 450 words summary in the body of the minutes with multiple rulings of the task force and miss akkad is stubborn back to the task force for the hearing. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> president chiu, board of supervisors, i come every once in a while. i represent the tenderloin walking tours. i want to invite new members of the board who i haven't met yet to come out and walk the tenderloin with me. i do about 4 tours a week. so far this year i have done about 450 people. they are doing a documented travel in germany next month and a section in the sacramento bee. i'm trying to demystify the tenderloin. i would like to invite you all when you get a chance to come out. you can get the information from supervisor kim or president chiu. they both kn

we support the ordinance for the [speaker not understood] retrofitting and we like to see the ordinance not being tinkered with when it comes through the pass through. however, we do understand hardships so, that we would support, however would like to see the ordinance not being, again, repeat, tinkered with as far as the hardship for the pass through, that stays 100%, not be reduced at any amount. supervisor david chiu i think said for hardship. we understand that. otherwise we'd like to see it as is. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. carnilowitz. is there any additional public comment on item number 5? come on up. >>> [speaker not understood], and i'm speaking for myself for a change. i think this one is going to dramatically affect people with disabilities who are required to live on the ground floor of places. a number of years ago, supervisor ammiano brought something forward about illegal in-laws, except for the height limit. that unfortunately did not pass, but we all know there are hundreds, maybe thousands of illegal in-laws in this city and those probably have actually h

with that guidance i think there is an obligation it looks like under the ordinance to respond for request for public information even if it's for oral information and not necessarily just the document request. >> trying to understand how this works in practice. if you send or make a request for information not documents then, the only obligation is to get provided an oral response. if you don't to have create a document, i e type out the answers to the question so can you call them and say this was what we are doing or answer the questions orally. >> that's right. or make someone available to answer the questions simply. i would note that while we are on the this issue, mr. lazar is not was not charged by the sunshine force with a violation of that section of the ordinance. he was charged with the failure to respond to a public records question, i believe. no. sorry. i meant that 10:30. >> well, that looks like he's met his burden on that. >> what he, mr. lazar has met his burden? >> i'm sorry. he has not met his burden on 67.22 b. " " >> both. 21 and 22. >> 67.21 b appears to refer to a

the amendment is to add an uncodified section to the ordinance providing that the exemption from the inclusionary housing program for california debt limit allocation projects continues to apply to any project that as of today has already received approval from the planning commission or the planning department. dan adams from the mayor's office of housing is here to speak to the legislation and to the proposed amendment. mr. adams. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. thank you, supervisors, for the opportunity to present to you a series of updates and clarifications to our inclusionary program. and i think it is an apt title to the ordinance. what is before you is a set of refinements to our program. it does not represent any kind of major policy changes, but i do want to take a brief moment to walk through what those modifications are. to start out, however, i'd like to bring up ann marie rogers from the planning department to summarize recent recommendations from the planning commission. >> thank you. ms. rogers. >> good afternoon, supervisors. ann marie rogers, planning department s

the ordinance also makes correction of the timing of this requirement which is codified in another ordinance that a preservation and maintenance plan for buildings preserved under the tdr program when tdr's are sold. i want to take a moment to thank my aid who has been working on this packet on the zoning ordinances and i want to thank livable city for their efforts in this regard. the commission unanimously supported this change to the tdr market would like to invite the planning staff to say a few words about this measure. >> thank you. earn star from the planning department star. as supervisor chiu state, the planning commission voed unanimously as regarding a piece of legislation introduced by supervisor chiu, this is under phase one to approve phase one on march 1st, 2012, each pc also heard this piece of legislation on january 18, 2012 and also voted unanimously to prove this legislation. we have our assistant administrator here, dan cider. if you have any specific questions about the tdr program, that concludes my remarks. >> our office wasn't offered a briefing on this legislation. w

. >> the ordinances are finally passed. item 4. >> time 4 is an ordinance appropriating surplus revenues, expenditures, city reserve for state revenue loss and general fund reserve of approximately 45 million to support shortfalls at the san francisco general hospital and laguna honda hospital for fiscal years 2012 through 13. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you, president chiu. colleagues, this is the second supplemental that we've seen in budget and finance committee in the last few months. the first was the public defenders and we're going to have our share for the department for another supplemental tomorrow. unlike those departments, however, this doesn't require two-thirds vote. it passed unanimously with the addition of taking harvey rose's recommended reductions of 1.2 million. but it is $38 million overall and the general fund hit is going to be a little over $12 million. this is something that we're obviously not excited about having, but it is a long-term structural issue that the department of public health has