>> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, happy monday to you this meeting is call to order this is the regular meeting of land use and transportation i'm supervisor cowen chair of this committee to my right is supervisor wiener the vice chair and to my left is commissioner renne's our clerk is andrea ashbury and thank you phil jackson and jesse larson for broadcasting this meeting madam clerk, any announcements? electronic devices. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the june 14, 2016,

board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> >> item one an ordinances the administrative code for registering for persons with aids program. >> supervisor wiener is the author of this item. >> thank you, very much. madam chair this legislation will close a pretty glaring and troubling will that in our city's rent ordinance one that denies full rent control protection to a population of long term hiv survivors low income hiv survivors who do in the receive rent control in connection with the federal subsidy as many of you may know be locking people living with hiv aids are some of the most

vulnerable residents several hundred operate in the housing opportunities for persons with aids. >> substance program for low income with hiv those are frequently long term survivors and frequently seniors those are people who have gone to hell and back as part of hiv aids epidemic and deserve our support they need housing security and can't afford a dramatic increases in the rent doing everything we can to protect those residents and assure they remain stable in their housing and community currently within our rental ordinance any recipient of a induce is excluded in the protection that exists for other recipients of federal vouchers this means that two nibdz in a

regulated building one that receives a subsidy and one that receives a section 8 subsidy has different protections under the rental ordinance where the hopping pa recipient getting fewer restricts max no sense people living with hiv aids need housing and rent control and it is unclear why this exception was included in the ordinance back in the day when it was adopted as federal law did not in any way require the loophole exists when we learned about this will that loophole none recently why it is there regardless we know about that and have it within our power to limit 24 loophole spending rent control to hopping pa recipients

hopping pa a based on the difference of the lower of the established rent of the reasonable rent of the unit and thirty percent of the tonight's in case the rent of a studio is $1,500 a month and thirty percent of the attendants income is one though dloors dollars the difference however, that same tenant seize there are 15 hundred rent increased to 2000 thousands the hopping pa didn't cover that above the ceiling the tenant is responsible for the $500 tha that can push people out of the hours through probation officer ordinance that will not be included that ordinance will close that loophole we've made

the effective date of the legislation may 17, 2016, which is a day we introduced the legislation wanted to make sure there was there was not a small window of time for landlords to learn about that and take advantage of that i want to thank sxheepdz for waving the thirty day rule open this to allow you to expedite the passage and the chair more quickly and expeditiously calendaring the item i also want to thank my co-sponsors supervisor campos, supervisor president london breed and i believe that particular you added your name if i'm not mistaken so add supervisor cowen as a co-sponsor and the aids panel for its advocacy on this issue as well as the san francisco apartment association which supports the legislation as well colleagues, we have an

opportunity to take a step forward and protecting some of our month vulnerable residents and making sure we close the loophole i ask for your support. >> thank you, supervisor wiener would it be all right to go to public comment i'll note the mayor's office of housing is here to answer any questions. >> i have 3 speaker cards (calling names) if anyone else that wants to s.p.c.a. after the 3 speakers. >> first up jamie and next will be bill and others. >> my name is jamie. >> staff attorney with the eyes referral pageant and speaking in support of the proposed amendment for the last ten years i've safety clients living in hiv and aids for in their housing

i i have to tell you when folks are at the point ever seeking an attorney they're scared and many of my clients are con fronting a reality they didn't contemplate as surviving of the aging we all know for people knowledge with hiv and aids the ability to maintain their health a only possible to have long term access to stable and affordable housing and at the same time this population is facing immeasurable gallows in remaining much housing loma prieta like programs like the hopping pa address the hiv positive tenants with the stability they need to stay healthy the unprecedented surgery in the rental market is facing decided and supervisor wiener said the protection for the hopping pa are unequal to

other subtracted tenants imagine being told you receive a funding source that there is no legal protection against massive rental increases your neighbor has a section 8 can fight those increases but you can't and you're only choices are only to stay in your housing and with your subsidy or move without your subsidy and facing new housing the language that supervisor wiener amendment targets is just a few words but those having a life-saving program in the hopping pa program. >> thank you. next speaker. is bill. >> good afternoon, supervisors thank you, supervisor wiener for your leadership on this issue the aids referral support this moiftsd amendment that creates legals protections for assisted tenants living with hiv and aids as it stands the ordinance makes

a distinction been low income tenants with rental assistance with the federal section 8 and those federal assistance through the hopping pa program while neither class of tenants enjoys the protection under the ordinance section 8 assisted tenants are afforded protections under some circumstances pursue hopping pa assisted tenants are completely exempt from protections under all circumstances supervisor wieners proposed amendment will get rid of of this ini ill logical thing so they can maintain theory health an having stable housing an amount 2kr0r79 to this that forced them out of their homes thank you. >> thank you. next speaker is just for the record. >> good afternoon. i'm a

housing rights i'm just for the record thank you for considering this for rent protection for hopping pa understanding i 100 percent support it and it may not be too light the two late i may try to help i'm a transgender woman and building in the stabilize and acknowledge any sisters have history and aids being homeless is no fun and homeless can be deadly but especially for people with commodity immune i'm glad this is considered only applies to current tenants those are are gentrified are out of luck it is a silence equal that equals jurisdiction and equals death and homelessness equals death and criminalization equals a death that message is relevant

as in the 80s having said that, i one hundred support this legislation as i meet the sponsors so they can paint wash to gentrify and general fizzing the poor and shell for the sfpd and these things are bad for people with hiv and aids and the lgbt community supervisor wiener you've only card about those who line our pockets with the dirty money now doing something nice too little too late for the did not movement we stand in solidarity and see right through you go back to new jersey. >> wow, that was incredibly mean and unprofessional. >> good afternoon. i'm charles i am with the apartment association we're asking for you to support this legislation to

not mississippi make mementos and with a positive recommendation we firmly believe that make sense and appreciate your support with the outreach to supervisor wiener's office. >> any public comment on number number one seeing none, public comment is closed. at this time and thank you colleagues, any discussion if not and guess entertain and motion. >> thank you, madam chair and thank you, colleagues for hearing this i move we forward to the full board with a positive recommendation motion made that motion carries unanimously madam clerk item 2. >> the property open a parcel two known and a as admission park. >> we have from the supervisor kim's office and presenting on this item.

>> thank you chair cohen and land use committee i'm april i will have very, very brief comments today as to what is before you but that is formal acceptance to accept mission bay park as many of you may know a new and emerging neighborhood a former redevelopment area with many, many new families and children and many of the families have been anxious to have this park opened this is an important step in that process to have the city accept the park on behalf of ocii and mission street mission bay park it is also be a unique park for totes to school-aged children i just want to thank supervisor president london breed who is waved the regular thirty days and knowingly for switzerland this is a committee report so we

could have the ordinance passed and so that the park can open i also, we do have one amendment to the legislation that i believe supervisor peskin will move and that is to make the operative date july 1st when this park will open i believe that dpw is here if any other questions from the committee thank you. >> supervisor peskin. >> oh, supervisor wiener. >> yes. just a question to i guess the supervisor kim's officer who is going to be operating 24 as a park but my understanding not a rec and park who is going to be managing and running this. >> yes. barbara from dpw in the mission bay redevelopment

area from the redevelopment area that will be maintained and managed by the mission bay park because i believe that it is go m j m will be managing the park. >> good afternoon barbara from public works at the m j m under contract to ocii and the management parks through a funding mechanism that will help those parks stay alive and vigorous. >> why is not rec and park involved here. >> this is been the way they've been managed for at last 15 years it was a redevelopment ear and to be managed by the agency it is up for discussion ocii vufrn will be dissolved.

>> okay i know there is concern has been expressed to me and this is i've never received a briefing on this and needed to have every item on the agenda i know that there is some concerns i think rec and park learned about this or they starting to be briefed like last week and my understanding m j m is terrific and it is we have a rec and park department and everyone assumes all of our parks are under in their jurisdiction but parks not under their jurisdiction i think that brings some challenges along with that. >> it as solid polarizing discussion that should be continued. >> agreed? >> okay. i'll, curious to know what the authors i don't

want to put you on the spot. >> staff from ocii is here if they want to address that. >> just because there is several former redevelopment areas and current ocii areas in our district most of the park activities within those areas are managed through m j m or some similar i think actually m j m the one off the top of my head is the yerba buena gardens a similar structure as well as the coming transbay park in the transbay area and all of the parks within mission bay of which there are several also have the similar structure where ocii continues to hold the park while the management company m j

m manages and maintains it. >> supervisor mark with ocii i don't know all the legislation process but the way that ocii and mission bay has their parks they have appendixes has a lease with the city and the department of real estate and from that they hire m j m to manage all the parks and ocii is still responsible for the park area i know there is discussions at a higher level with any deputy director has been talking about with people. >> whenever he get an express of questions from rec and park how properties will be managed i think there are briefed and i

just a little bit confused with the city family is not necessarily i hate that phrase but for reference not on the same page i don't i've i'm a little bit confused by that. >> i don't expect you to answer. >> there have been discussions but discussions with rec and park and they've been talking with the director my director about the future. >> okay. >> i'm sorry i don't have more. >> this is a committee report. >> yes. >> is there something magic will tomorrow as opposed to to the efficiently or. >> we can open up for public comment i think corin wants to speak. >> i do have an amendment it

is a very similar amendment on page 5 that speaks to the length of time it is actually taken to open that facility i'm proposing on behalf of the chief sponsor supervisor kim to add a section 5 that with read the action so forth in the ordinance and section 3 with the acceptance of p-6 and ocii maintenance should be open active as july 1st but that speaks to the fact this has taken quite a bit and the subject of many details i actually asked a similar question that supervisor wiener is asking of dpw staff that's why this is not entitled up to rec and park and i maybe coming at 2 from a slightly different reason he actually think that going forward as we create those new

parks in expanding the areas the city they should be parks under the jurisdiction of rec and park which is subject to the voter approved mandate proposition k with shadow impacts i'm interested in over the long term having a policy discussions about transferring this to the rec and park department but given the evolution of mission bay given the fact that there are many people that have been parkinson's waiting for this dpw is still in the process of accepting streets around that park that have to not think pubically accepted the scheme proposed by the staff ocii and dpw is one that i'm prepared to move forward that didn't in any way preinclude us from working with rec and park and ocii and dpw to add a transfer to rec and

park although i have to say i know there many residents that are worried about rec and park ability to properly manage the facility and given their funding and other constraints with that section i'd like to move the amendment and respectfully accepted this forward as a committee report to get this park open for people moving into many part of town. >> did you read into - and i read it was that simple. >> thank you for those comments which seem very reasonable and appropriated to make i appreciate that clarification. >> all right. thank you supervisor wiener and supervisor peskin let's go forward and open up for public comment at this time if

you like to come up i have one card from corinne woods join us for 2 minutes at the podium. >> good afternoon chair cohen and supervisor wiener and supervisor peskin my name is corinne woods i chair the corinne woods chair of the san francisco redevelopment agency's mission bay citizens advisory committee and have been working very hard for a 4r07b9 with the community to get this park open and want to thank supervisor kim's office and the ocii staff and barbara mirrors infrastructure task force for pulling this altogether nothing in mission bay is simple there are 17 agencies that have to sign off on everything it is extremely frustrating as is every acceptance in anybody to watch hundreds of children

looking at park from the outdoor i really appreciate your waving the waiting period on this and i don't quite understand supervisor peskin amendment does that mean 2 will wave the thirty day after enaction time and open by i up by the end of july i'm having a party you're invited we've planted it waiting to get the park open on a larger issue of park management the community has some definite opinion about the future and very much like to speak to you all or any that are interested in hearing how we feel about this transition thank you. >> if i could ask thank you

for your advocacy and incredible work in mission bay is there any supervisor peskin reverend brown a concern about whether rec and park has the resources to care for the parks has that been a discussion about who is ultimately managing. >> there's been a significant discussion where we've been working with ocii for a couple of years the communities facilities district that funds the mission bay park is the money actively is controlled by office of citizen complaints has to defervesced itself by the order of state department of finance we're hoping that we can workout something like the yerba buena gardens is not going to go to reply workplace r rec and park we don't want the money entering

34igd and putting together a nonprofit that has community stakeholder involvement in the management of the parks we're happy with the m j m management they do an excellent job with the janitorial security and park maintenance in general and we want to be sure this doesn't get - become an ugly sanborn map child mission bay has a very vetted interest to insure that works well, after ocii goes away the community is very engaged and would be happy to speak you to about that. >> thank you, ms. woods. >> any other members that want to speak on this item seeing none, public comment is closed. at this time thank you >> all right.

supervisor wiener >> i spoke from before. >> thank you to supervisor kim's office for bringing this before us to the corin thank you for being an advocate on this item colleagues a motion agenda ed. >> ultimately move the amendment. >> without objection the amendments are accepted thank you. >> and ms. woods it does exactly what you asked. >> and so this item moved as a committee report forward to the full board as amended. >> can i comment first of all, thank you supervisor peskin for answering some of the questions and ms. woods for answering some questions as well obviously this a terrific project and i think i'll support moving forward with a with a positive recommendation i'm glad there are conversations going on long

term health manage those parks relative to what supervisor peskin said about questions whether rec and park has the resources to manage those parks for the other 200 and 20 park properties it manages that is really a statement about how we as a - how this building has starved our park system and really, really frankly even with the copies it passes our rec and park is valve under resources and a sad state of affairs how they'll have the resources to take care of additional parks it is just that shouldn't be are factor we need to make sure our parks have the support they need and that includes expanded parks i know that conversation will

continue and obviously is a broader policy discussion around the whole set of parks thanks. >> all right. thank you very much so madam clerk the motion is made and with a positive recommendation a committee report. >> as recommended by supervisor wiener. >> that's correct without objection thank you. >> any other items before us. >> >> there's no further business. >> thank you this meeting is adjourn

issue. >> homeless in san francisco is a challenging issue that effects owner in the city in many different was as of the 2014

homeless census over 64 homeless in individual in the city to try to address the issue we've got a program for chronic homeless welcome to the navigation center. >> this pilot project is for people living on the street what makes it different the navigation center is able to accommodate homeless encampments lowell u allowing people to keep their pets and bring their personal bloonlz. >> the full realization that people don't want to be homeless not refuse services but from the services don't meet them and not relevant they're not going to be successful if you look at the

budget losses we've got a community sacrifice important people to get food and laundry we're standing next to the bathrooms it is designed to be a dynamic and brief residential experience where right of on this site city staff to connect you to homeless places to return to family dine is up for medi-cal and all those things that are complicated for people. >> the other exciting thing city agencies come on site and provided the services for folks this is existed to see when the goal of streamlining a a whole processes of getting people on go gentle assistance into housing as much as possible. >> way totally different you can come and agree as please and get laundry services and showers

any time of the day and night it's twenty-four hours a day whatever and twhefr it's not like any other she recalls. >> they come and help people for what it is they're required the issues they need and reach out and do what we can to say okay how can we accommodate you to get you set up and straight never in my mind imagined a program like this this place it different and a a lot a lot that better it works. >> the navigation is center is a collaboration of partnerships too city departments one is the homeless outreach team managed by the san francisco distributing i look forward to the navigation center we'll have our agents go out and help and say don't go anymore over and over send our

dayshift out they've meet the population and hang out and hang in the encampment and transport people and be with them and make immediate impacts with me and my staff. >> bringing our wloongz whatever you go presents a problem this place their help with the storage i don't have to worry about it staying here you know you're getting things done they need to get things down done to get off the street avenue of the hope alsoness is gone. >> they help you if you're hungry go eat if e you need to go places go. >> they're 4th district it awe

auto. >> it was funded through a unanimous donation and of may 2015 an additional $3 million to help to continue the program beyond 18 months. >> you see people coming out they're ready to being so the future homes you know how variable the navigation center is my message for the constituents yes something can be done do break chronic homelessness it is being done. >> this is a community that sets an example but i how to pick an area that was funky they've seen we're trying to do is help their neighbors they've seen getting sicker and more frail and broken down on the streets and welcomed us that's a powerful statement people are exist and president in they're becoming to see the

movement for folks and people on the streets are only survival modes where is there next meal and their itch more carefree. >> the staff here is interpretation the first day i have a appointment and everything was made all you do is go through them this makes a huge difference. >> to get settled in a helping hand, to get on my feet, take care of the issues i have and get out of bed and help. >> even though the navigation center has been up in march 2014 the program is creating successful outreach for it's clients. >> a month ago they came to me

and asked me to go into a new program i moved into here and now 3 months later i have my own place it is mine i lock my door don't worry about my stuff it feels human again >> [gavel] >> good afternoon and welcome to a special meeting of the government audit and oversight committee of the board of supervisors i am chair and i

am joined by supervisor yee to my left. >>thank you mme. clerk could you please read the 1st and only item.[reading item] >>i want to thank mr. yoder and mr. antweiowe had a

meeting last month on the role of the legislative branches together and directing your role in sacramento and there was a bunch of process improvements leading up to that hearing and i'm very pleased that you are here in person thank you for making the trip on short notice from sacramento in the middle of a very active legislative session in our state capital--and i want to thank mrs nicole wheaton-elliott. and her staff for the work that with a have done and were now getting minutes from the legislation committee that we have been in endeavoring here at the board regarding

pieces of state legislation to get them in your hand in our clerk has been giving them to use so that's been a resolution on our part and i want to give an opportunity for the public is watching as well as my colleagues to get to know you're in person it was a pleasure to get to meet know you over a bowl of soup i confess i am sick and have a fever so thank you for humoring me and i just want to start by giving the 3 of you josh, paul, and karen an opportunity to introduce yourselves to the committee and tell us a little bit about what you do and then we've got a few questions relative to pending pieces of legislation. so can i start with you josh. >>thank you supervisor peskin and supervisor yee. my name is joshua schall and i want to

thank you for scheduling this on a friday. we know your hearings are usually on a thursday and they are tough they for us. mondays through thursdays last night we had a meeting that went until 10 pm it would've been tough to get here on the normally scheduled time. we have 4 other registered lobbyists that could be involved in the city of san francisco we have a pretty big and robust team who have been working for the city and county since i think the fall of 2012 so we're going into our 4th year representing you and we have been nothing but proud and pleased to work with the local electives in

the city and county on behalf of your government and more importantly, those who live here and visit the city and county of san francisco. it is a point of specific pride for our firm to be working for this great municipality in california. if you would like the others can introduce themselves individually. >>sure mr. yoder. >>thank you thank you supervisor peskin , supervisor yee i am happy to be lobbying for this great city and county. we are on the job for you every single day in the california state capital. not just with your three-member legislative delegation but with every member of the california legislature. every key

player in the brown administration and throughout the bureaucracy in sacramento. again, it's an honor to be here today and we look forward to answering any questions for you today. >>mrs. lang. >>good afternoon mr. chair and supervisor yee. my name is karen lange i have been working with the firm over 10 years and i'm very pleased to be representing the city and county of san francisco and it's a point of professional pride to work for you. >>thank you on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. miss wheaton- elliott anything that you would like to go to add? okay no. thank you.so a lot in the state revolves around the affordable housing and the board has takena few specific pieces of legislation and we passed a a resolution that we forwarded to you and i'd like to ask where it that bill is

at an as well pending before the board on 24 may i introduced a similar resolution which we will hear this coming tuesday with regard to the governors by right proposal which we obviously are quite concerned with since san francisco leads the state relative to affordable housing production we do not want to be penalized with a one-size-fits-all solution so we would like to talk a little bit more about that in public if we made but to start with i'd like to bring some backgrounds what you guys did relative to advocating the board. let me take a step back and this is

the policy body of san francisco once we take a policy that becomes the policy body of the entire city and county including the entire branch and with that in we did take a position on this resolutionand i'd like to know where we stand on that. >>as of receipt of your board we expect apple to be heardjune 24 and i would characterize it as making the rounds as far as the key members of the legislature and the brown administration making sure that they understand that that resolution was adopted by resolution in this board and

that they understand what that encompasses. >>are we have any success with gov. beal with the performance-based language? >>i don't want to quantify right now. but am comfortable with saying that the chairman of the committee is very aware and the staff that work for them in that committee are very aware of the board's position and i think obviously that we have one state sen. and i think they are in part very aware of the board's position and the credit belongs to sen. len oh in that respect as well. and so i think that is moving along. i would add that last night in the conference committee you did ask for the governor's proposal as well when that

proposal came up before the conference committee which sen. leno does cochair and he did take an issue procedurally with the measure being proposed so late in the budgets cycle but also to the language being proposed to the brown administration. he did suggest that jurisdiction such as san francisco that are working so hard to assure affordability if that's taken into account if the measurement is going to have legs as we say in sacramento. >>does your firm have contacts with the governor's staff in regard to this matter? >>we do. not only with the governor's staff but part of the brown administration on this issue which would be the ledgeslegislation which is

held by ben metcalfe. >>are there any legislations going on right now? >>will be important to note now is that we are picking up through a variety of sources which the governor and staff have made a claim through their legislative leadership that they do expect a buy write proposal to be in the mix of part of the state legislation in response to the senate legislation in the no

place like home initiative and on the democratic side a proposal to augment state housing programs by hundreds of millions of dollars in their way or of birth of those proposals and their open to those proposals and their indicating to legislative leaderships that they are only open to those proposals of some form of by right how about this? how about if we phrase it as housing reform or policy reform because we certainly don't want to mischaracterize the governor's position. but i think it is safe to say that they would like to see policy changes to housing law in california along with potentially the money that the senate is proposing and the legislation proposing. >>is the governor aware of the

legislation that is pending that we will take up on tuesday? >>to the pending resolution i would honestly answer no. it would certainly be our plan when in it that is approved the make sure that the right folks are aware of its approval. >>mr. elliott, is there any other contacts with either the legislative branch of our government in sacramento or the executive branch that is not going through our city lobbyists? are there any direct negotiations coming from mayor, staff, or executive branch through the legislature or the government?

>> supervisor yee. >>thanks for coming down on friday and hopefully you won't rush back. hopefully you will spend some time in the city and spend some money so we can increase our tax base, right? it's good to have an opportunity to actually meet you because when i was on the school board we had our lobbyists and . come pretty regularly and meet with the board. and we actually got a lot of information from the sessions. one of the resolutions that we passed in the past that we support just recently and hopefully you got a copy of that too, it was related to the budget in terms of the women's caucus wanting 8 million for early education and childcare and its

recommended to the assembly and the assembly is recommending 600 billion and 90 million from the senate and 0 from the governor. can you tell me what process you would take to advocate for a position? >>1st again, i would want to state that when we get the resolution, carcass being very good at making sure- i just don't want to leave her out of this starting with heard delegation everyone is in receipt of this resolution. in terms of how to advocate for that this really is a very astounding year in the sense

that you have 3 members of the legislator representing you in 2 members sitting on the dais cochairing the conference committee. i think 1st and foremost for your board to take a position in for it to be known by the 2 members of legislature who is cochairing as they would have it at the budget conference committee this year is probably the best path to success on that and we can assure you that weand that they are aware of that on that issue.

>> as it rates to the trailing legislation that is moving so quickly the city of san francisco that has not taken a position nor have many of the leading housing advocacy groups in san francisco that and you can't say it paul but i can say it that this deal to basically trade money for a statewide by right policy proposal that is not been a position of this board. we obviously would like to see more affordable housing throughout the state but as of san francisco the by right concept is hypothetical to the kinds of tools that we've used for affordable housing in fact they use processes allowed us and we say this all the time in these chambers to extend

affordable housing for beyond our affordable solutions. i think this edible solution could be the solution to affordable housing to the extent this could be indicated to the government and to the state staff and in front of the conference committee which would be extremely helpful. i would like a what you guys are doing with regard to the california quality act with its local use of a negotiating tool which allowed local legislators to bump up what is required in the state and

locally? >>i think on that aspect of the housing discussion that is underway in sacramento right now i want to make sure that the board members and the public are aware that statewide labor organizations are joined with statewide environmental organizations not once but twice to jointly correspond with the members of legislature and with the brown administration and there have been a very, very, nimble. there was an a in original version of the governments proposal and they reacted to that and there was a 2nd governor's proposal and they reacted to that and they are really calling out not just i will say in a myriad of ways how their current proposal will impact ceqa. and i don't think that we indicated that

in either of the letters the 1st or the 2nd and we would like to indicate that in any way that we can. >>i know there are members that would like to testify and we can incorporate any other questions into these proceeding. so come on up. >>good afternoon supervisor peskin were sorry you're feeling under the weather today. we would hope that the city of sacramento's lobbyists are supporting the governments efforts on our behalf. the plain truth is that are housing affordability and displacement crisis are getting worse years and years because we lack the tools to make a difference. as gov. brown and the legislative analyst office correctly

noted we do not have the resources to get our way out of this predicament were in. and less we have dramatic ways to improve housing production it doesn't seem likely that low income and increasingly middle income families can be lowered much less stopped. asking our state representative to oppose the governor's proposals would in this cause other legislations throughout the state to oppose the request. what exempting ourselves from the imperative to build more housing be more likely or less likely that the governor will give us the subsidies that we all want for affordable housing. the

governor's proposal moves us to [inaudible] we believe will guarantee a continuation of this crisis. thank you for your consideration. >>thank you. next speaker please. >>my name is brian hamlin i'm a housing advocate. i cofounded a nonprofit housing affordable works throughout the state. i think you for being here as well. i do hope that as supervisor peskin mentioned that you inform sacramento the unique position that san francisco faces. with a very convoluted entitlement process that renders our land use policies dead letter and subject everything to negotiation which makes it more difficult to build affordable housing.

and 100% affordable housing can be called up for years in legislation before it's able to be built. i want to discuss the unique position of san francisco's political coalitions. they are opposing ab 2501. the california legal assistance foundation and others there is a strange split between state-level and corporate housing advocates and more politically engaged housing advocates in the city. i do hope you convey to sacramento that what happens and what is happening in san francisco is a large measure and does not represent the

voice of all those who care about making san francisco a more affordable and inclusive place. i would also like to address this idea that the governor's proposal is a one-size-fits-all policy. that is nonsense. the governor propose all suggest that each of the cities follow their own housing requirements and subsidies. whatever local requirements exist that have confirmed that and i think this is all a red herring and if we want to make san francisco a more affordable, inclusive city we should support the governor's agenda ab 2501 and other housing bills. >>thank you next speaker please. >>hi my name is sonja trouts i represent the renters foundation and we think this

is the type of bill that will ease the shortage. a week ago on tuesday 15 of us took off work to the san sacramento housing committee some calls to the senator len office yesterday 800 san franciscans

sent postcards to leno. we will have at the polls on the 7th because tang and leno are going to look and say are there boots on the ground there? this is a one-size-fits-all housing on does is direct you to follow your own rules. this is something that is radical for californian totally normal for the rest of the united states. almost every other city has as a rights development because it's redundant for the planning department to make a plan and have the development

have to come back to the planning department asked for permission for something that is already put there. >>thank you next speaker please. good afternoon members of the board and guess locally my name is mr. cohen we are a coalition of local san francisco affordable housing organizations that build affordable housing manage properties and provide advocacy. for the most part the position if you will comes from our coalition and the governor and assembly member bloom and the governor endor blooms bill but they put some serious policy on the board this year and it is

some radical stuff and it is one-size-fits-all and is moving too quickly and it hasn't been designed well enough. there's 482 cities and 52 counties and it is a huge state and there's no one set of policies that play out the same in any city. if you lobby on behalf of the city which is only one of 482 we acid that be made clear. i think it's interesting to hear the supervisors that are here to say that the board of supervisors is the policy body for the city for both executive and legislative and that you folks are representing the policy body. it's nice to hear the opinion of other folks here are but

they are not lobbying you. they can lobby the board of supervisors or anything else but if you were advocating the position of the policy body of the city and county of san francisco and as such you are in an animus resolution on 2501 to seek an amendment to exempt san francisco based on their standards and that the reasonable thing to do. there is a bill with some very serious amendments potentially for san francisco. the rest of us civilians can argue this all they want regardless of it goes to the board are not. this is a completely chaotic place and what hearing it goes to a what time of day it is and what gets called up. it's not like what we have here

today members of the board. so, we can jump in the car and drive all the way to sacramento but we need you guys to be supporting that. the message on the ground in the city is key. thank you. [timer dings] >> vis-à-vis the statewide organizations can you regale us with that information? >> well whether or not in public chambers, the difference between state level organizations and where people work in between as i can to be so smooth. on the governor's trailer bill nor the amendments have been incorporated on the revised bill that came out

last saturday. they came to a very politically pragmatic position that at least they would be able to negotiate some improvements to the bill but having a really robust conversation about what the global implications are on the ground whether it be san francisco or oakland or los angeles or a lot of jurisdictions in long beach and elsewhere over the last week we've been talking to a lot of folks and those local to state conversations did not shape that position. whether the amendments that they asked for are good ones are not is one question but the idea of a trade off or money or implications there's going to have to be a lot more before we sign on to it and we certainly have not. >>can you articulate what the county organizations would like to see relative to the amendments of the by right?

>>well supervisor, think in our circumstances and i think other people in the room would agree can speak to that for san francisco. maybe there is a righteousness a were a purpose for having a pretension policy from san francisco. i think a buy right preemption is a bad policy as you said we produce more affordable housing than anyone besides la we havedo

not sit around and wait for this legislation. it means there is a by right approval from what you have been required to do. there should be an additional premium above local inclusionary to realize there is a real value for developers in exchange for something whatever that assumption is and secondly, as of the amendment that came in last friday that's taken right out of the bonus law for the most part. we have in many jurisdictions and taken from the folks in santa monica

today have local demolition controls and the point being if you're allowing the by right approval of a project that simply replaces units and preempts local demolition control and policy discussion that is a big game changer and then the 3rd thing is that we really think that this is aboutbuilding housing and that is the presumption from the governor's speech and we want to build more housing now not take so much time so a buy right approval does not build units. a buy rate approval get you paper. so, we are setting up a faster way to entitle more development and we are not assuring that it's going to get constructed. even if i would suspend my analytical disc belief in market rehousing filtering we would go from re-title meant to construction as soon as possible and we would have the maximum period of time from

when title meant to construction and we want to see units built not entitlement. i would not claim it is a treat offer by right but it would certainly make a better policy. thank you mr. cohen. we very much appreciate that since you may have figured out that the board of supervisors has for many, many, years look to the council of community housing organizations what has been around for decades and it really has been at the forefront of affordable housing policy at san francisco so that is why ask those questions for you all to see where a lot of the housing thinking in san francisco emanates from. >>we would just note that both sides agree on one thing and that is that they don't like sacramento.

>>that is why you make the big bucks.sorry. >>that is okay. we did not talk about assembly bill 2522 as opposed to 2521 that we took a young anonymous position to push for some amendments and that is my understanding that assembly bill 2522 did not move out a committee that bill is dead. >>yes. >>thank you for your work. >>so feel free to call us. we will be in touch with you. i will continue this hearing to the call the chair so we can check in publicly with mrs. elliott from time to time and we very much appreciate you coming down on a friday and wish you godspeed in your work over the next 2 weeks. >>thank you. we hope you feel better soon mr. chairman have a great weekend. >>thank you.

>> >>that will conclude this hearing we are adjourned things again. >>[gavel]

>> this is the historic society commission for wednesday, june 1. please, sounds your mobile devices. when speaking before the commission if you care to state your name for the record and i will take will call at this time. >>[call of the roll] >> clerk: thank you

commissioners. first on your agenda is general public comments. at this time members of the public address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up for up to 3 min. i've no speak of cards. >> president wolfram: does any member of the public wish to make general public, and if so please come forward? >> testifier: i like to see the commission's advice on historic preservation issue. i'm doing some research on >> clerk: can you these speak into the microphone? >> testifier: i'm doing historic preservation research on this building in north beach. try put it on the overhead?'s >> president wolfram: yes >> clerk

>> testifier: the time i have left, [inaudible] the factory which was built in 1946-1947 by san francisco architect actually a native of commerce oh higher. got his degree in washington state and started practicing in 1929 was martin j rest. the present st. cecilia church are building [inaudible]. i think it's the building has very high potential for being on the registry of landmarks in san francisco and the present owner, marlene-daughter of fred, who founded the company built the building is still alive. it's going to a bone of contention for almost its

entire life into it went up in operation of manufacturing a see-two zone but it was declared all the legal sausage factory from the time it started running in 1940. it goes down finally in 1981. so there's been some public effort in the 80s, 81, 83 to great a special use zone within the area which is this building is actually it's directly behind the st. francis trying. so come the layout. it's right in that property from vallejo and greenstreet at 535. they bought the property from archbishop mitty as the sole corporation for the archdiocese of san francisco. the archdiocese down in palo alto and actually menlo park is doing some research for me from the die size. i look i guess and seek the commission said by someone, [inaudible] and let her know what i'm doing

, but also your advice i think in bringing to the attention of the supervisors and also this commission should be for further going through research. that's all accurate >> president wolfram: thanks. we don't give advice at this hyatt hearing but you can contact the planning presentations up on the website. any other member of the public wish to make public on? seeing none, and hewitt will close general public, good >> clerk: item 1 directors announcements. >> i have nothing commissioners >> clerk: items to the mission matters >> staff: normal formal learning commission report that i to items to share with you. one is, as you are aware, the government oversight, government audit site and met

after last hearing to discuss the legacy business registry program. at that hearing, the you commissioner timothy was present and she may have some comments regarding the outcome of that meeting. what we heard is that the committee has asked for an update on the program at its hearing tomorrow as well. we been in contact with regina, from the office of small business. she has no stated to me that she has seven complete applications that she will forward to us on monday. which is june 6. if she were to transmit those applications we would have to hear them at your july 6 hearing or, which because it's close to the july 4 all day, maybe cancels.. it

would give her a little more time to transmit those applications if we postpone that a little bit, and schedules that hearing for the july 20 hearing. but that is at your discretion. maybe something you want to take up today. the second item is just a quick report about the departments pending budget. as you recall, the commission-this commission added one additional fte to support the legacy business registry and all of the departments ask for the preservation programming including the additional fte have remained in the mayor's budget. so, we will keep you posted as that moves through the board of supervisors and discussions there. but it looks like everything is in place for the next fiscal year. that

concludes my comments. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you. any comments or questions? moving on speaker commissioners that a place is on item 3. when the commission matters is in support and announcements >> president wolfram: no report or announcements >> clerk: item 4, consideration of adoption 4 min. for may 18 aoc meeting >> president wolfram: is any member of the public to comment on the draft meeting minutes of may 18 the architectural review committee and the regular hpc hearing? seeing none, and hearing none, we will close public comment. why have a motion to approve the minutes? >> moved and seconded. speaker than to adopt the minutes, with a may 18 architectural review committee hearing and the regular hearing, so moved commissioners that matt motion

passes unanimously 7-0. that places us on item 5 commission comments and questions. >> president wolfram: commissioner matsuda >> commissioner matsuda: i comments will be brief. i just want report to the commission that i did attend last week's hearing and all the supervisors who were present were very appreciative of the commission and are just as anxious to see this program move forward as we are. >> president fong: thank you. commissioner pearlman >> commissioner pearlman: last night i got to go through the-building and if you have not seen it they did a beautiful job in the restoration and just really spectacular so it's on judah near ninth avenue so take a look. i am happy to announce that the first big event at hibernia bank with the rally for hillary clinton last week. i was there and was very amazing to be in that room with hundreds and hundreds of people

, nfl like it was the 1940s and harry truman was cannot come up on the stage because of all the flags and banners and everything. anyway was very excited. thank you. >> president wolfram: great, thank you. do we have the topic of the meeting on july 6 two agreement out? >> clerk: this would be the appropriate time >> president wolfram: the only item on the agenda is the possibility that we may receive this legacy business packet. though that's not been confirmed. building there any other agenda items confirm that hearing. is that true? >> clerk: the only other item i see is the heritage conservation [inaudible]. >> president wolfram: that's in an informational review and comment >> clerk: it's just the beginning of the historic preservation element of the general plan before so i'm inclined to oppose we cancel the july 6 hearing. do we need

to be that you should officially remove that from your hearing scheduled on >> president wolfram: i need a motion to remove that >> clerk: yes steve from >> clerk: then, to cancel july 6 hearing on your hearing schedule, so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> president wolfram: commissioner hyland >> commissioner hyland: i have a disclosure and agenda item 6. ingleside presbyterian church. this is the second time it's come before us and less time i became aware during a presentation that architectural resources group,, my previous employer, and company have done

a report for a gin at the time i do not understand what the extent of that was but i checked with the city attorney and that it's a pro bono evaluation, the conservation issues around the murals. the contact is done and closed, so there's no need for me to recuse myself. i just want to clarify that. >> president wolfram: thank you. >> clerk: it is nothing further we can move onto your regular counter for item 6. case number 2015 007219 third, 1345 ocean ave. the landmark designation. >> staff: good afternoon

commission. shannon ferguson department of staff on behalf of susan parks. i'm here today present departments recommendation regarding limit participation of ingleside presbyterian church in its interior collage mural an artist's environment entitled the great cloud of witnesses. located at 1345 ocean ave., in the ingleside neighborhood. the building is added to the landmark designation work in inmate 2013 #staff at the heritage pro bono architectural historic officials and pro bono architectural conservatives arg began working on the project. the building is a committee for landmark status both for its architectural and artistic association. first, the church itself is architecturally significant work of master architect jesse leonard. it embodies the distinctive characteristics of the neoclassical style and a unique example of neoclassical ecclesiastical architecture in the city. architect justin leonard was well known locally for his parts as chosen as the george's artistic today the building is one of limits you extend religious structure. secondly, the church is artistically significant parts interior mural collage. the

great cloud of witnesses. begin by robin gordon in 1980 a big contributions to the study of american folk art. african-american mural, the artist environment and san francisco african-american history. the great cloud of witnesses composition size location and technique used to make it unique. the overall arrangement across multiple rooms and floors the extensive size encompasses most of the churches interior and the distinctive choice of media and collage technique is unparalleled on this scale. they work in progress since 1980, the great cloud of witnesses is a rare tribute and the largest most imaginatively executed folk artist environment dedicated to religion, culture, african-american history and role models in the country. the interior characteristic features include rooms, volume and was, and staircases that were historically accessible to

the public such as the lobby jim & georgia the collage mural is also considered [inaudible]is that rev. gordon has determined to be complete including all components of the mural across all services in the lobby, the jim, the obama technology center, the michael jackson, the willie brown and the legacy room. for the ordinance, "and is allowed to keep working on other rooms that not been determined complete and is a manner that is been working with that entitlement. it also states any future conservation or stabilization effort should be guided by the conditions effectively thereby arg in the california are preservation act subject to the consent of the artist rev. gordon. there's no nonpublic opposition to the landmark designation and the church's support of the designation. commissioners wolfram and hyland visited the site this morning i was met with rev. gordon and without mural work. yvonne leaves the building needs: status is wanted. donna harman recommends

atc resonates designation to the board of supervisors this compose my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president wolfram: thank you. the questions, commissioners? we will now take public comment on this item. remember the public was to comment on this and not designation? please come forward. >> testifier: i'm rolling gordon pastor of the church could oh i think the commissioners for coming out to see firsthand what is unfolding at angles side, that the community is very excited about and i really felt honored today to have you present. i want to say thank you. the wolfram thank you very much for it was an honor to be there. i never any other member of the item was to public ones item? hearing none, and seeing none,

will will close public comment and bring it back to the commission. >> i move we approve this. >> second. >> president wolfram: >> clerk: thank you commissioners. there's a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval. on a motion, so moved commissioners. the motion passes unanimously. commissioners that are places on items seven for december 2015 -007181, 140 maiden ln. this is also a landmark designation. >> staff: good afternoon commissioners. shannon ferguson department staff. i'm here today to present their parts trepidation regarding a mimics to the landmark designation for 140 maiden ln. historically known as the gift shop located in the conservation district.

140 maiden was designated as landmark 72 and 1975. at the all-time leader in your features of the: with designated such as a blank wall of brick and romanesque arch. the internal circular structure is equally as significant as the exterior and as a shop it was historically public good accessible. complete level for the guggenheim museum 140 maiden ln. is the first building to be constructed oozing what frank wainwright's favorite spectral shape the spiral which dominated his work out of finally. frank wainwright is by far the most well known and influenced american art that although they produce several designs further buildings in san francisco, the bc mortgage shop is the only one realize. it is a significant and rare modern building designed by the master architect. the planning department has shared the designation report with property owners and is received

one letter of support from the community member supervisor peskin is also in support of the landmark designation. commissioners wolfram and hyland visited the site this market during the site commissioners noted original light fixtures and [inaudible]. the department believes the building meets the stylish eligibility requirements and does designation is wanted without harman recommends a mimics to the designation to the board of supervisors this concludes my presentation good i'm happy to answer questions. >> president wolfram: thank you. any questions for ms. ferguson? i have a question about the light fixtures in the pneumatic two-tiered that's not currently >> staff: that's not currently listed in the designation. we do not discuss it this morning during the site visit. distort shows that the light fixtures may indeed be historic get people from these are the ones in the ceiling that are kind of what shape would you call that,

spherical? actually the first floor. the upper-level lights are part of the [inaudible]. thank you. does any member of the public wish to comment on this item? please come forward. seeing none, anyone will close public comment and bring back to the commission. commissioners, comment? other comments? i'm sorry. okay. i apologize. we will reopen public comment. the 3 min. >> testifier: good afternoon on sharon slater in the senior vice president of asset management for downtown properties represent the owner of 140 maiden ln. we had a great site visit this morning and it was really good for me to know now that we are really on the same page as far as the preservation of the building. the concerns that you've

expressed the same ones that we have, so that is great. my concern is that we been having some trouble with the leasing of the building. our pool of prospective tenants is fairly narrow because were little picky about who we want to go into. not everybody appreciates the history of the building. we've had some problems with deals dropping out because they're concerned about the process of getting approvals for any alterations they would like to make. granted, not able to make any alterations to the elements we talked about, but just the process of getting plans approved even within that guideline is difficult. so, we talked about potentially meeting so we can talk about specifics of what the guidelines should be for the things that would be preapproved, like the color palettes for paint and that sort of thing. we what we saw when we have a pop-up was [inaudible] is my new pff-it

was my futile beautiful but the activation of the building was fantastic to see it so vibrant and full of people. we have so many request for people to visit the building. so, i would like to see it activated permanently as soon as possible. so i am hoping that you can help me smooth the way on this process so that's not a deterrent to getting the right kind of tenants we all want. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you very much. any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, and hearing none, will close public comments. commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck:. those comments, have any influence on the staff recommendation, but my basic idea here is this is another remarkable building for us to endorse landmark use. so i would move to approve staff

>> president wolfram: i like classic question of sector am wondering a subconscious made, whether we could administer this that would allow us to delegate to have some of the interior work, or a set of guidelines that you could meet with the property owner to discuss so they don't have to come back to the commission for doing painting or more minor work within the interior. is that something that could be included in this or how would we do with this? i do know the ministry to see a vase onset of her injury when so much. >> staff: commissioners, the-you are certainly if you're inclined to do so you could amend this ordinance to clarify what could be delegated to staff, but article 10 in article 11 already do provide a mechanism for you to delegate

to us at any time. so, if we were not to take up now, after meeting with the representatives of the building and having a better understanding of what types of scopes of work they're interested in expediting, we could then come back to you at a future date with those and then at that time you could consider delegating them to us. you don't necessarily have to do as part of the delegation agreement were part of this ordinance could you can do it anytime >> president wolfram: so this be approved by the order supervisors and mayor and so at later time when you meet with the property owner we could talk about what items could be delegated. i would like to be a supple to the owner as possible. >> staff: after the meeting we would then have a better understanding of exactly what we could delegate. >> president wolfram: okay get i think that makes sense. >> i moved to approve staff recommendations before >> moved and seconded. >> president wolfram: do it that i can do is a discussion about adding the light fixtures and the pneumatic tube. which i would recommend adding with the additional the ground floor and

light fixtures and the pneumatic tube. >> where is the pneumatic tube and what was it for? be wolfram it was for public processing orders and money. >> do some the sales desk area down? >> president wolfram: yes. maybe the pneumatic tube on those second ground floor not necessarily the basement location. does that make sense? >> commissioner johnck: absolutely. >> president wolfram: i think we have a motion and a second. >> clerk: very good good on a motion to adopt the recommendations for approval to the board of supervisors, as amended to include the oval like pictures on the ground floor and pneumatic tube at the ground and second levels, so

moved commissioners. the motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners places on item 8. december 2014-001711.. the wireless facility planning code did this is a amendment. >> staff: thank you. omar mastery on behalf of the san francisco planning department. the best before you as an item to request changes in san francisco planning code recommendations to the board of supervisors. as it relates to wireless talk mitigation services facility. otherwise known as referred to commonly as cell towers and cell antennas. within this request would be a more brought change to article 10 and 11 of the planning code. which do with certain entitlements first preservation applications peer if sfgtv could pull up the slideshow, please? so, one of

the primary changes would clarify the staff can render a decision which includes approval or denial, of certain historic preservation applications. those would include the mistreated certificate of appropriateness, reminder permit to alter. currently, for example, article 10 of the planning code indicates that staff can it go. by this historic preservation commission, that can choose approve a application but [inaudible] the reason this is important is because a new state law took effect in january 2016. over two initially is a be-57. basically said for wireless facility application comes in for any city or county in california, the city does not make a decision in so many days of application being complete then it is automatically approved or deemed granted. the city would have to go to court in order to try to stop that approval from taking effect. so, in this example, one of our concerns would be the care were to submit an application for wireless facility downtown and

committed building permit application and application for the mistreated certificate of appropriateness is an article can map them of tradition. one of the concerns would be a scenario where the applicant has an application complete. the shot clock the time limit within 90 days or 150 days, is ticking and counts against the city the carrier has not provided design that looks like it complies or appears to comply with the security of interior standards for treatment for historic properties or other local boulders were other guidelines with respect to historic preservation concerns. in that scenario, the staff were inclined to try to deny this facility before the automatic approval took effect, one of the challenges we face is that we didn't initially required notification labels for owners and occupants within 70 feet. back when the application was initially submitted. so the shortest demo, if you will, to get a project to hearing for denial if the carrier is not willing to make those changes in order to avoid an automatic approval. for the sake of

clarity and consistency across article 10 and 11, this change would apply to all scopes of work that are delegated by this story preservation commission to departments that. so, it would include things like signage, including signage on the screen that has tenants on-site. would include roof deck as it currently does. historic alterations, both wireless facilities on rooftops as well as within the public right-of-way. since the antenna attached. by polls and transit polls and utility poles we now see in san francisco. another change would not be maybe a notable interest to the commission, but it would allow screening such as fake scrabble

with the current acception from-it's from steel towers and antennas and women associate with wireless facility. were this would be of assistance as we may see as an example larger building and 6-7 stories where it exceeds the 40 foot height limit for instance down to much of the city. that building may be less intrusive in terms of the overall size of the facility being scale and context appropriate respect to the building but because of the current height limitations for screening elements, the carrier may not be able to pursue that cyprus the screen is used to stop the equipment the antennas and cabling and other appurtenances would not be an option available under the plan current planning code rules. so the ability to add screen above limits consistent with exception currently for on-screen facilities would allow staff to work with carriers and the community to find less intrusive locations especially from a scale and context perspective. however, code amendment this clip by staff would still be able to

review projects with respect to design review, shed of you and city parks and prisons historic preservation review. many limits imposed by the planning commission is so, this example at the bottom of the photo, the proposed simulation, chosen design a potentially historic resource we would not consider appropriate and still maintain the ability to request that the care modified or design more appropriate for the building of the neighborhood. ms. just to wrap up, the one which provides you in the planning commission or start commission back it was on son. you provided a signed version of that. the planning commission unanimously recommended initiation of the amendment of march 17 and the scheduled adoption hearing for june 16 or any time afterwards and supervisor avalos is also sponsored the proposed amendment. with that, i'll post my presentation and be happy to answer questions. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank

you. mr. find >> staff: just a follow-up on mr. mastery's comments, i just want to provide a little more clarity on what existing in the code. in terms of your process. and what this change really means for article 10 and 11. essentially, the code in terms of delegation is silent on whether or not we can disapprove entitlements and administrative entitlement. with this does it just clarifies that. so, in the case of any member of the public were this commission appealing or asking are we filing a request for hearing, all of those mechanisms still stay in place. so, as you recall, i think in the sims 2009, we've had to request for hearings. that would still be the process if the wireless carrier were neighbor felt that we approved or disapproved something in error. they could still petition this commission, or any of the members of this commission could do the same

and we would schedule it at the next hearing. so, really, again, all this is doing is allowing us to disapproved something as long as you've delegated it to staff. because it's related specifically-but changes were brought upon because of this new wireless amendment, we felt though it was more responsible to broaden that still wasn't that we were just disapproving or approving wireless facilities, that we are actually using the same process for all items delegated to us. but again, if you need further clarification on that we can always walk through the code sections as well. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: did you open public hearing >> president wolfram: we've not done public commented yet. >> commissioner johnck: okay can i just i'm just curious and

maybe can answer more discussion after public comment, but i'm trying to understand the context of this because i've been seeing the mbta's come through in a bit looking at them. say what are the implications for historic preservation because sin there's lots. there's a lot of these. it's a documented many years ago when al gore had wire american we were laying fiber optic cable all over the phrase is using this is phase 2 these kinds of wireless enhancements structures so to speak. i am just like your comments about -i've not seen anything that would be particularly obtrusive, knowing what the purpose of these are. and that kind of thing. although, i be interested to see if you need further scrutiny on these or if there's not too much-not that many issues with these? do you

have enough leeway to approve things as you been doing? or do you need to mark? >> staff: under the current process, yes. i would just add the czar and omar can chime in on this as well. these are very time-consuming applications. there's a lot of back-and-forth that has to occur designwise between the wireless carriers and staff. they are generally open to that conversation, but it takes a number of rounds of revisions to get to a point where we feel that it doesn't sort of overwhelmed the roofline or different since at&t was going to install something, then verizon and t-mobile don't come and try to do the same thing and then we have an antenna farm on the roof. so, because of that-because there is a diminished sort of mechanism to work with because of this new

clock, we felt it was necessary just as a safeguard measure to have this option to deny something. it's purely the carriers in action on responding to us that could require us to approve it. that was when of our main concerns. >> staff: if i may clarify, the federal and state law are required it has to approve facilities necessarily could push us to make a decision faster. the process of the aco will is a definite advantage for the individual specially the sequencer project inevitable for article 10 and 11 entitlement as was the planning commission entitlement to those constrained time frames within 90 days for the location can be a real challenge. with the victory are seeing for the [inaudible] are mostly modifications. they're mostly dismisses where carrier has antennas 10 years further

swapping out and we had varying degrees of success. getting those antennas off the primary side where they should not have been approved using it when we do not knows as much. it's a constant sort of discussion with both the carriers trying to move equipment, mood facilities with the property owners. the sometime questioned why the changes occurring. this often pieces where a staff were talking to the property owner st. rashly asking for this change because it week is beneficial to the neighborhood and building as well as in terms of enhancing its own. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: to question. when we have the hansen street probably two years ago and we completely asked for redesign our calls. they look great. did that come because of the historic district or why? adjusting market st., van, right because i can to >> testifier: that was a first for a small. city-owned before

that we've only seen wireless facilities on with utility poles the city does not open. those are the most controversial often big and bulky. reddit the bedroom items. we seen a lot more support, if you will, with respect to small styles that can be 40. so verizon came forward the design four 320 small cells initially in soma northeast of the city to attach two small boxes an antenna. we got to design many neighbors about reset it looks pretty darn good it's a fairly unintrusive, and susan were now seen t-mobile, copying our design. seeing att and looking possibly going, that same path and we think it's a good sort of starting point.

>> commissioner hasz: all that stuff comes up under this 98, and? >> testifier: for brand-new site it's 150 days. however, the city owns the assets, likely on the parties actually the sole site is going on, we own the steel plate welcome those do not apply because a property owner we have more discretion we can say that, but start by because we be acting as in her capacity as a property owner of the permitting agency. we face a real challenge to be the new site is on private property. the code location is at 90 days on private property in the antennas attached to the existing wooden poles on by say pacific gas & electric. >> commissioner hasz: think the clarifying. that helps out. by second question would oh my second question my comments and would be ongoing about height limit for screening. i think it's kind of a tricky thing. and to meet you must be-i get worried saying [inaudible] to me that season on a restriction so currently on on-screen antennas is very certain height

allowed to go? is a case-by-case basis? >> testifier: there's no either mr. unscreened antennas and towers. rather approved unscreened 10 is and towers for cell phones first. they generally don't need to be that high. >> commissioner hasz: i would just love to see some kind of limiting language. on height. >> staff: minors in that provision is that was applied to situations where the building is already overnight limit? speeds >> testifier: it be broad-based. imbued reviewed by exceeding a height. for example in the bayview if the carrier came forward and want to put up fake water tower on the site would normally be-if on a rooftop permitted because it's 25 feet above the height limit but the ground for the fake water tower could automatically require planning commission

reviewed and will be subject to any limitations posed by the planning commission specified limit included within the scope of the application. >> commissioner hasz: on top mess of that, under this change would not go to any commission, right? that's what were talking about. doing it so you can take your this in-house. so, to me am happy to give that approval, but i'm really not-i'm leery of giving anything without limiting that height limit. >> testifier: is a qualified. in any zoning district that's not cdm or conduct searches in cedar six, r districts, all they recorded the planning commission and they have. so we check there if you appeared in the downtown, for instance without via any public review normally, if you can exceed more than 25 feet above the roof height you're already can be taken to require planning commission conditional use authorization and so there is sort of >> i've seen a couple of these installations downtown on

rooftops and only 15 feet tall maximum. you adjusting to me that should be a number that should be in the. >> i'm wondering if we could get this works or not you let me know, god limitations on the roof you can do certain things about the height limit and the code right now like elevator penthouses and stare penthouses and there are limitations. on how much of the roof they can cover and how high those can be. it seems like that would be a logical we could use those same limits. i don't know if that works, omar? >> testifier: that's what we are currently good reason since it is a template height exception for pipes we've applied to determination by the zone administrator. for fake elevator and house is only 16 foot height limit if you're in a sony district that's come i'm sorry, a high distance over 65

feet. so that 16 foot exception reply as well for something that makes a fake 0v penthouse. which generally gives the challenge though. it can mimic in elevator penthouses give you near the edge of the roof generally. doesn't look like it belongs there. so you put the elevator penthouses in the middle of the roof and you have 16 foot to work with, it's only 16 feet above the height limit, the building rac site limit you don't have as much to work with. so that site not mean up the bible and we have less ability to encourage the carrier to move further back onto the-further back away from the primary façade. >> commissioner hasz: because i help with these regulations the signal goes out and a certain dive pattern just can't make it over the building down onto the street. >> testifier: to restate the carriers are tied up push to as close as the roof is possible. this of the panel's not for

every type of wireless disorder that odyssey this most challenging ubiquitous facility insulation. so the comp demise has been get a one-to-one setback. for every foot of height above the parapet of the roofline, i move the antenna and screening back 1 foot away from the façade so doesn't appear to impose and dominate the roof line. >> president wolfram: commissioner bauman >> commissioner pearlman: it seems to me the staff in general is fairly conservative about anything that isn't specifically in the code so things like not having a limit. i would trust the staff were specimen comes to historic buildings to be quite certain sect about something being 30 feet up and very visible, and would either deny or would then have a process through as mr. mastery said the things that would need to go to the planning commission or come

here. so, i don't have that particular fear that something is going to sneak through that would be so obtrusive.. it seems that the staff would catch something like that quite quickly. and would work with the carrier to deal with it. speed >> president wolfram: commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: in hearing talking about once one that starts making sense that it's a limiting factor. that sounds good. if that's not in their written, maybe it should be. maybe i guide you been using but maybe that should be here starbase standard. 121. >> president wolfram: >> staff: at this time with a public comments. does any member of the public was to make comment on this item we pick if so, these come forward. you will have 3 min. >> testifier: my name is another james. it sounds like something that i am having a

problem with my community. i'm not sure why but anyway, ipg and he has a hole in my backyard in the back of our property, and always telecommunication wires are going to that. but, at the same time, since they put it in they say they have a light easement to the property. but, cars is the easement to my neighbor in that. but now cars are wider and bigger there's only 15 inches so nobody can get through that-descartes or station wagon can't get through that and i asked them, with a move the poll they said they have a right to be there, but instead of them going back to

her property, they stopped in front of my property and blocked my garage. so i'm just saying, this can be a problem and whether, like you limit it to so many years, i think it's a good idea to take a new look at that but, right now, i don't know what this is related to were not but lily is a problem because there's seven houses that are connected to that poll with electricity, as well as the wiring for their telecommunication and what have you. so, anyway, it does have an effect. the other thing i want to say, thank you for voting for rev. gordon because it is my community and we have use that and i thank you very much. thank. >> president wolfram: thank you. any other member of the public was to comment on this item? seeing none, and hearing none, will close public comment and bring it back to the commission did commissioners hamilton asked to adopt a resolution recommending approval. commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: i do

want to move to approve that last comment, designer; and, but for the decision coming out currently from our department just looking forward 10 years that we have some standards. the only reason i bring that up and kept bringing it up. but otherwise, yes, i moved to approve >> president wolfram: stirfried >> staff: to appoint accreditation based on commissioner hasz is common. with a desire to include women that resolution because remember, this is review and comment zero comments we forwarded to the planning commission and the board of supervisors. the got something in there at all lines up the hpc desires some language that talks about a limiting factor, whether a not to exceed, or some other existing policy that the department uses just demonstrating that these should not be the carriers should not have unlimited access to height.

>> president wolfram: commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: i was also interested in this issue of screening and exceeding height limits the kind of thing. so i would be interested in that to suggest that the code be amended to include a basic standard. such as we talked about. >> president wolfram: commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: >> testifier: 121 sounds good to me. she will give a comment on this >> testifier: each of the standards runs of two different technologies. for instance if we make a broad-based exemption to include wireless than total, there's some wireless facilities that are simply antenna the size of the with of

my pinky. he may not have any interest for practical day by day standpoint of limiting the height of that within 10 in the middle-of-the-road in which i do limit based on these different metrics, there's going to be a larger exceptions will be going challenge in order to review. so if i could offer i think the 25 foot height sort of trigger for those providers leverage in terms of same to the carrier, if you go that high, you have to go back for the planning commission and eight limitations imposed by them. >> commissioner hasz: i'm sorry but 25 is so high at the age of any building. right? i mean were talking 16 foot from elevator penthouse. that's never the edge of the building like we were saying. it's just, i just will, were not doing this commonly. i just worry about it being read between the lines in the city getting sued by some carrier saying i want 25. he did i get that and

you know what i mean? be bumped heads with them this commission on the sanford street now and again on the market street now and they were not as bendable is your experiencing. at the commission level. so i can imagine sometimes it's a fight. i just look, we push backs up all the time that this commission but it's only a store building but to me every building should not have stopped jammed up to the front of it. we also don't have a with. find them okay maybe we have 16 foot height but we make the width of the whole building. it just feels a little loose. >> testifier: if i could clarify, the intent is having basic language is also cover things that ought to be on rooftops. for instance, without carrier proposes a tree at a along the freeway on the 280? get to consider the structure that's a height limitations

were part one supported by clocktower that also has cell antennas in there. so we try to create a simple baseline recognizing it preserves our ability to say no. the other item i would point out, there often are instances among site visitors were up there on the rooftops with engineers and rosina try mine were kerry is not going top of the roof try to get ui because what happens they start to interfere with own network chemistry. they want to contain the signal within a lower area. so not seen carrier summary try to get more height because that defeats the purpose of what they're trying to accomplish when it comes to the cell antennas specifically. >> president wolfram: i think what you are saying is that you don't want to codify the one-to-one because there's a lot of extenuating circumstances and unattended consequently the way to incorporate into the guidelines as opposed to the legislation? >> testifier: we can cut a fight into the guidelines. we provided >> president wolfram: if it's in the code then-

>> commissioner hasz: i get you. just something in there. probably the with like no more than 25% of the width of the building or something. you know? >> president wolfram: commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: no, i'm done but i agree with putting in the guidelines. i hear what you're saying. >> testifier: i would agree the guidelines would be the appropriate place to put that in. >> president wolfram: okay so i moved to approve the changes. the set was that san francisco san francisco you have a conversation with a woman who spoke earlier? >> clerk: if there's nothing further there's a motion seconded to adopt the recommendation for approval and the motion, so moves

commissioners. the motion passes unanimously 7-0. that concludes our hearing today. >> president wolfram: the hearing is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >>. >> shop and dine the 49 challenges residents to do they're shopping with the 49ers of san francisco by supporting the services within the feigned we help san francisco remain unique and successful and rib rant where will you shop the

shop and dine the 49 i'm e jonl i provide sweets square feet potpie and peach cobbler and i started my business this is my baby i started out of high home and he would back for friends and coworkers they'll tell you hoa you need to open up a shop at the time he move forward book to the bayview and i thinks the t line was up i need have a shop on third street i live in bayview and i wanted to have my shop here in bayview a quality dessert shot shop in my neighborhood in any business is different everybody is in small banishes there are homemade recess pesz and ingredients from

scratch we shop local because we have someone that is here in your city or your neighborhood that is provide you with is service with quality ingredients and quality products and need to be know that person the person behind the products it is not like okay. who as a society we've basically failed big portion of our population if you think about the basics of food, shelter safety a lot of people don't have any of those i'm mr. cookie can't speak for all the things but i know say, i have ideas how we can address the food issue. >> open the door and walk through that don't just stand

looking out. >> as they grew up in in a how would that had access to good food and our parent cooked this is how you feed yours this is not happening in our country this is a huge pleasure i'm david one of the co-founder so about four year ago we worked with the serviced and got to know the kid one of the things we figured out was that they didn't know how to cook. >> i heard about the cooking school through the larkin academy a. >> their noting no way to feed themselves so they're eating a lot of fast food and i usually eat whatever safeway is near my home a lot of hot food i was excited that i was eating lunch

enough instead of what and eat. >> as i was inviting them over teaching them basic ways to fix good food they were so existed. >> particle learning the skills and the food they were really go it it turned into the is charity foundation i ran into my friend we were talking about this this do you want to run this charity foundations and she said, yes. >> i'm a co-found and executive director for the cooking project our best classes participation for 10 students are monday they're really fun their chief driven classes we have a different guest around the city they're our stand alone cola's

we had a series or series still city of attorney's office style of classes our final are night life diners. >> santa barbara shall comes in and helps us show us things and this is one the owners they help us to socialize and i've been here about a year. >> we want to be sure to serve as many as we can. >> the san francisco cooking school is an amazing amazing partner. >> it is doing that in that space really elevates the space for the kids special for the chief that make it easy for them to come and it really makes the experience pretty special. >> i'm sutro sue set i'm a chief 2, 3, 4 san francisco. >> that's what those classes

afford me the opportunity it breakdown the barriers and is this is not scary this is our choice about you many times this is a feel good what it is that you give them is an opportunity you have to make it seem like it's there for them for the taking show them it is their and they can do that. >> hi, i'm antonio the chief in san francisco. >> the majority of kids at that age in order to get them into food they need to see something simple and the evidence will show and easy to produce i want to make sure that people can do it with a bowl and spoon and burner and one pan. >> i like is the receipts that are simple and not feel like

it's a burden to make foods the cohesives show something eased. >> i go for vera toilet so someone can't do it or its way out of their range we only use 6 ingredients i can afford 6 ingredient what good is showing you them something they can't use but the sovereignties what are you going to do more me you're not successful. >> we made a vegetable stir-fry indicators he'd ginger and onion that is really affordable how to balance it was easy to make the food we present i loved it if i having had access to a kitchen i'd cook more.

>> some of us have never had a kitchen not taught how to cookie wasn't taught how to cook. >> i have a great appreciation for programs that teach kids food and cooking it is one of the healthiest positive things you can communicate to people that are very young. >> the more programs like the cooking project in general that can have a positive impact how our kids eat is really, really important i believe that everybody should venting to utilize the kitchen and meet other kids their age to identify they're not alone and their ways in which to pick yours up and move forward that.

>> it is really important to me the opportunity exists and so i do everything in my power to keep it that. >> we'll have our new headquarters in the heart of the tenderloin at taylor and kushlg at the end of this summer 2014 we're really excited. >> a lot of the of the conditions in san francisco they have in the rest of the country so our goal to 257bd or expand out of the san francisco in los angeles and then after that who know. >> we'd never want to tell people want to do or eat only provide the skills and the tools in case that's something people are 2rrd in doing. >> you can't buy a box of psyche you have to put them in the right vein and direction with the right kids with a right place address time those kids

don't have this you have to instill they can do it they're good enough now to finding out figure out and find the future for >> good afternoon and welcome to the local agency formation commission of san francisco board of supervisors. today is may 20, 2016. this is john avalos, joined by cynthia crews and david campos. todays clerk is alisa samara. >> silence cell phones and electroning devices. speaker cards should be submit today the clerk. >> ke