And welcome to august 2, 2016 meeting of the board of supervisors. Mme. Clerk, can you please call the roll . Thank you mme. Pres. Supervisor avalos. Here. Pres. Breed. Present. Supervisor campus. Present. 17 03 56 supervisor cohen. Present. Supervisor farrell. Present. Supervisor kim. Not present. Supervisor mar. Present. Supervisor peskin. Present. Supervisor tang. Tang not present. Supervisor wiener. Here. Supervisor yee. Here. Mme. Pres. , you have a quorum. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, can you please join us for the pledge of allegiance . [pledge of allegiance] members, are there any changes to the Meeting Minutes of june 28, 2016. Seeing none is there a motion to approve . We have a motion to approve by supervisor mar and seconded by supervisor tang. Seeing none is there a motion to approve . Colleagues can we take this without objection, without objection those Meeting Minutes will pass after Public Comment. [gavel] mme. Clerk, can you please read our first item. Read our first item. Mme. Sec. Can you please call the roll [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. This vote item is approved unanimously. [gavel] next item please. Item 2 [reading item] can we take this same house same call . Without objection this is passed unanimously. Mme. Clerk can you please read item 8. [reading ordinance] colleagues, can we take this same house same call . Without objection, this ordinance is passed unanimously. [gavel] mme. City clerk can you please read item 11 through 18. [reading ordinances] thank you mme. Clerk. Colleagues, can we please take this item same house same call . Without objection, these ordinancesare passed unanimously. [gavel] mme. City clerk, item number 10. Item 10 isdwayne richardson 90,000]ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by ricardo palikikogarcia, stanley harris, and Keith Dwayne Richardson against the city and county of San Francisco for 90,000; the lawsuit was filed on march 16, 2016, in United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of california, case no. C161305 jcs; entitled ricardo palikikogarcia, et al. V. City and county of San Francisco, et al. ; the lawsuit involves allegations of excessive force, cruel and unusual punishment, and egregious government conduct. Colleagues can i have a motion to excuse pres. Breed from this . Without objection,we passed this motion unanimously. Mme. City clerk can you please take the roll [roll call vote] there are 10 ayes. This ordinance is finally passed. Thank you mme. Clerk. Can we please go to item number 18. Item number 18 is an ordinancecamposordinance amending the administrative code to create a fourth preference for people who live or work in San Francisco, in addition to existing preferences in allocating City Affordable Housing units, and to create an additional category of eligible displaced tenants that includes tenants displaced by fire;and to determine a ceqa vote. Thank you mme. Clerk. Can we have a roll call vote. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. The ordinance finally passes unanimously travel to quick item 19 mme. Clerk. Item 19 is an ordinance amending the planning code for wireless telecommunication facilities. Colleagues, can we please take this item same house same call . Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed unanimously. [gavel] mme. City clerk, can you please call item 19 [reading item] can we please take this same house same call . Mme. Clerk can you please call the roll . [roll call vote] there are 10 ayes. The ordinance is finally passed unanimously. [gavel] item 22. Item 22 is an ordinance for the building codeto require building owners and homeowners associations to provide fire Safety Information to residents in buildings with three or more dwelling units, and annual fire Safety Information and training to residents in buildings with 16 or more units; making findings as to local conditions pursuant to the California Health and safety code. Mme. Clerk can you please add my name is a cosponsor. Yes mme. Pres. And when that item can you please call the roll [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. The ordinance is finally passed unanimously. [gavel] item 23 reading item 23 colleagues, can we please take this item same house, same call . Without objection, the ordinance is passed unanimously. [gavel] mme. City clerk can you please read items 23 and 24 . [reading resolutions] colleagues, can we please take this item same house same call . Without objection, the resolutions are finally passed unanimously. [gavel] mme. City clerk please read item 26 [reading resolution] mme. City clerk please add my name to this ordinance. Colleagues, can we please take this item same house same call . Without objection, this is passed unanimously. [gavel] mme. City clerk please read item 27. Reading item and 27] same house same call . Without objection this is passed unanimously. [gavel] mme. City clerk please read item 28. [reading item 28] supervisor kim. Thank you pres. Breed, i just have some amendments to make to item 29. This is a correction this is not a negative declaration this is a mitigated negative declaration and i believe there was a representative from the Mayors Office of housing that needs to read this declaration. Thank you supervisors and that is correct this amendment is just to clarify the reference to the ceqa documents and as you can see there is a strike through beginning on lines 15 through 21 page 3 and then on line 23 there is a Commission Motion and it should be referencing motion 17875 and the next page, page 4, they have added three paragraphs to describe the project approval process through the ceqa process. I can read that for you if you would like. This is approved in the planning Commission Motion and it determines in the motion 17875 was adequate adequate for the scope. [inaudible] 2013 cvx and the Planning Department found that the acquisition andplan lease were consistent with 101. 1 with the department of city planning dated april 21, 2016 on file with the clerk and on the bottom of page 4 page 24 and 25 the reference is further clarified that the board of supervisor has clarified the mitigated negative declaration is found to be an adequate decisionmaking project for the department and planning Commission Motion including the adoption of the mmr p and further finds that the mitigated negative declaration has been adopted that there is been no substantial project circumstances and previously identified significant impacts and theres no new information of substantial importance that would set forth for the that would set forth for the mitigated negative declarations. Supervisor kim has made a motion to amend based on the items added into the record. Is there a second . This is seconded by supervisor campos and without objection these are passed unanimously [gavel] and colleagues can we take the items as amended same house same call. Without objection these amendments are passed unanimously. [gavel] mme. City clerk item 30. [reading item 30] supervisor cohen thank you mme. Pres. To make sure that we have the appropriate protocol in place i would like to make some suggestions to make sure that we modify in a responsible way the item that is before us. We have two minor amendments that have been distributed to you both of them are on page 4. I will read them into the record. First i would like to remove the clause lines 3 through seven completely which reference the Second Amendment and the final resolve clause found in lines 20 through 21 which will move the second half of the sentence of these protocol these will allow the negotiations to move forward and the protocols continue to move forward this is a simple and straightforward amendment Jillian Gillett is here to answer any questions that you may have we have r representatives hear from the staff and this is as per protocol. So supervisor cohen,has made a motion and this is seconded by supervisor peskin. Without objection, this amendment is approved unanimously. [gavel] supervisor peskin. Thank you mme. Pres. The city share of this has grown from 60 million 8 im sorry mr. Let a few of my colleagues could not hear you and you please repeat that and speak into the microphone. Thank you supervisor peskin. When would the protocol be achieved and why should we vote for this before the protocol is in place. Supervisor in order to accommodate caltrans schedule , for those interviewed a protocol like this im not sure to the answer to that because this is pending additional review. So in regard to my previous question why should we review this before the protocol is in place . Is this in reference to the caltrans protocol . Hi, katy with caltrans and i have been working with our partners since that time and we also saw the amendments today and we feel very important that the mo you needs to move forward today part of the commitment and the timing on this would expire before the end of the month the other partners have taken action on this and all of them unanimously and so we are happy to take questions and we would appreciate your timely vote today because we feel it is important to move this vote for word. To the representative from caltrans, respectfully you havent really answered the question as to number one why the protocol is being removed to the resolution that is in front of us and number two, what is the negotiation that is taking place relative to the protocol . We are signing a blank check here gran to mr. Perkins and on top of this 60 million that weve already committed i think respectfully you owe the legislative branch of government an explanation and maybe mr. Perkins if you feel you can answer this, and i dont want to delay this but i want to go into this with our eyes wide open because we are committing ourselves to a blank check for 16 million that we have not identified and i dont understand and i dont think that any of the members and i wont put words in your mouth but we dont understand exactly how were moving the protocol and when it is going to change and what it will change by and what it means. Thank you, this is being removed by the request not of caltrans. We are finding out about this around the same time as you are and so oh, would you like to jump in . I would like to also refer to the San Francisco da who is been part of this process. I am going to recognize before you respond for supervisor wiener to respond. The reason this r is being replaced by a stronger and better protocol is that we dont believe this protocol is adequate and as weve been discussing how we can have better oversight, we saw with the recent situation with the translation Powers Authority that the commission stepped in with greater oversight and we ended up having to backfill a significant change because that oversight had listed earlier and that was an independent entity and we had the city stepped in we want to have that oversight now and normally we might hold this until after the break to put this in but there is a significant timing issue here that if we dont approve this there could be ramifications with the federal funding and if we ramifications by the end of this year and i had a deal leah and there might be ideally a more beefedup protocol and they might be passing it with the existing language and we believe the existing language is not an adequate protocol andwe would note that we are agreeing to what we believe is not a good oversight and so, it is our view that we need to put better oversight in and eight is not an ideal situation but we feel that this is the best oversight given the circumstances. Supervisor peskin did you want to give a response . thank you mme. Supervisor. There is no question we would like to get the full Funding Agreement in prior to the Obama Administration in place and although i have no doubt that the next administration in place will honor that commitment and i would like to know what would the difference be and what is the timeline around the protocol and insofar as it is highly likely that we will have a special Board Meeting next week and i dont know what theitem 243 it comprised of the Planning Departments determination of exemption from the Environmental Review under ceqa for the proposed project of 20 719 brian st. And items 44 through 47 are the public hearing of the public hearing of people interested in a conditional use operation dated june 27, 2016 for a project located at 2007 brian st. And associated with that appeal. So, you only so, you only call through items 43 . Mme. Pres. I called through item 47. Supervisor campos. Thank you mme. Pres. With the agreement of all of the parties involved that like to hereby motion that the items be open to september 13. Supervisor campos made a motion to continue this until september 13 but before that we continue i would like to open this up for Public Comment if theres any members of the public that would like to speak on this item please come forward now. And, just to be clear, keep your marks focused on the continuance and not necessarily the item itself. Thank you. Hello supervisors,yes absolutely the community that is speaking on this issue is expecting to be heard in september so they wouldnt really be prepared to be heard today. So please do it. This is one of the most important tasks of our facilities n San Francisco so thank you very much thank you very much are there anyone else that would like to speak on this item . Seeing none Public Comment is closed [gavel] can we take this without objection and these will be moved it to september 13, 2016 and now lets move to our committee as a whole. Items 50 and 51. The board of supervisors held a motion to be carried for these to be heard as a committee as a whole and the ordinance submitted to the voters are an ordinance amending the authorization of production and art use to be held at an election on april 28, 2021. Supervisor. We are working as hard as we can to protect and prepare for the distribution uses in San Francisco. However weve decided to limit this ordinance to the ordinance in the Mission Neighborhood and also have worked very closely with supervisor david campos office ensuring that we could provide protection in these two neighborhoods and that we would continue to work on other legislation throughout the city but also work throughout these ideas that we got including a clmc as well as other options as well through a legislative process. Before i open up the Public Comment i would like to recognize supervisor wiener. So, at this time, we will open it up to Public Comment. If there any members of the public you would like to provide Public Comment at this time, please come forward. Good afternoon supervisors, i am john the planning displacement of r groups in this city because of the boom and the city has had five years to do something about this and that is why we are here and that is why we are going to the ballot and the one dewclaws that was added tothe mission last week is that the supervisor moved in that we can be amended to the future without limitation all of it any of it and i will take votes and all of you understand why but it should be a par moved by the progressives if we have the majority or some future mayor by our site or by the moderates because they have majority by the mayor it should be worked out together and we agree. That is why we put that clause into the measure. I certainly urge you to support the measure and report november. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker please. Good afternoon supervisors. I sent a letter earlier but i will just read for the record right now. Mary liza here. The threat of cell space cell space is a premier counterculture that is home to countless memories over the decades the our Community Rallied around saving cell spacealthough many of you argued leveling tower. That anyone has the right to purchase and rearrange the view. Is my view not sacred . If mine is not sacred, how is yours . On another big movement is growing around the idea that the fine arts is a public fine art space and must be accessible to the public. Many feel that spaces is at least as important as the opera house. It is much older and has a lot more tradition and history. I am here to tell you that what we have is a culture clash in San Francisco. You can say which edifice is more important. Each has its following own supporters. We just want to share with you with that cell space is ours and much of the problems that we are dealing with today could have been avoided by developers saying okay, you can keep cell space [timer dings] we will just develop around it. Think about that and ask yourself, is it worth it . Thank you. Thank you next speaker please. Hi, thank you i am sharon storier i would like to thank supervisor kim and campos and i would like to thank all of the other supervisors who are trying to figure out some way this is our first way of trying to change the tide of our massive cultural loss. It has been devastating and so far nothing has happened. Is this the first step, and so far only a first step . Yes. Do we need cultural and Community Spaces . Of course we do. Is this enough for the mission . No, its not enough for the mission but it will be helpful to slow things down in the mission and be helpful as a starting place for you guysble to amend it and be able to talk on perhaps tax incentives. Obviously, this is the city that most of us could move into and live in right now. Most of us cant come in and find cultural spaces to work. Mostt of the nonprofits who are leaving or have left couldnt afford to move in right now. So, i think it is really important for us to keep in mind that this is our city and it is incumbent upon our