>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
President Chiu: colleagues, we
all have copies of the October 25, 2011 board meeting minutes. can I have a motion to approve those minutes?
Motion by. And a second.
Are there any communications?
>> yesterday, December 5, the office of the matter submitted the notice of the appointment,
and pointing susan christian and richard to the human rights position.
The appointments are effective upon it transmittal of the notice of appointment and remain
in effect unless rejected by a two-thirds vote of the board
within 30 days following the transmittal to the clerk.
This becomes a time-sensitive
matter, as last week -- next week is the last regularly scheduled board meeting until January 10, which would fall outside of the 30-day window.
Therefore, if any member of the board would be interested in scheduling a hearing, please
alert me by noon tomorrow, wednesday. That would be appreciated.
President Chiu: thank you. Please read the consent agenda.
>> items one through 18 comprise the consent agenda.
These items will be acted upon by a single roll call vote, unless a member requests discussion, it shall be removed in considered separately.
President Chiu: would any colleagues like to sever any of these items?
Ok, roll call vote on the consent agenda?
>> supervisor cohen?
Aye.
Supervisor mar. aye.
Supervisor mirkarimi? Aye.
Supervisor wiener? Aye.
Resner of los? Aye.
A supervisor chu ye.
President Chiu? Aye.
supervisor elsberndaye.
There are 11ayes.
>> it is an unmarked -- an ordinance amending the environment could extending the resistant -- restrictions on to got back to a glut of retail and food establishments in san
francisco, requiring the blunt and -- implementation of a check
out back charge, July 81, 2012.
Supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, Mr. President, colleagues.
Appreciate all the input that we
have received on this legislation that is before you today. This is an extension of a law
that has been in existence now
for over five years and the city and county of san francisco. We were the first city in the
united states and the first city in the hemisphere to pass a
plastic bag ban lot for one tier retailers, and that is towards
the tier of the largest grocery stores in those stores that also acted as a pharmacies.
proudly, many cities have blown
by san francisco, throughout the state of california and across the country.
Cities in red and blue states who have seen why they should
also pursue a bag man or a fee for bags.
They believe that, with regards
to the very slow pace of the federal government is moving or
even state government is moving,
to insert larger calls about environmental degradation,
especially those affected by the
adverse effects due to the
plastic bag, whether it is just
the common plight that the bank provides or the fact that it takes 500 years for the common
plastic bag to decompose in landfills, and I can be hard for the less harmful to our environment an atmosphere.
Whatever the motivations are, and number of cities are banding
together to see the constructive
need a pursuing legislation. this is what this legislation does.
This legislation expands what is
currently already law to all retailers.
The very people who were not
welcoming of this law five, six years ago have been very instrumental in as developing this law to this point,
especially the business sector could not wanting the chamber of commerce.
I want to thank those
representatives from small
business networks and the small business commission, who
unanimously passed their support for this law.
And of course, the main fleet of unburned adult organizations who have helped make this a reality,
the california academy of sciences. the bay council of biological
diversity, food and water watch, a clean water action, the sierra club, the civic federation of fishermen. Of course the department of environment has been on point for a number of years on this.
It the planning department, city attorney' s office, and a stellar
work conducted by my aid, and so many others that have been involved in this process.
I do not think that there is anything that we should be shy
about in the passage of this law.
I think it is time that we send
a message, and a vigorous one,
because I think it is from mainstream thinking in conventional wisdom that instead
of relying on the 350 million
plastic bags that go through,
really, our scavenger waste- hauling system into landfill
every year, that san francisco should make a meaningful statement to say no more. The second is that we should not
deflect the lack of reliance on
the plastic bag used to the paper bag. This is why we decided to move forward with the idea that we
assign a fee so that we ban
plastic bags altogether, would
exempt it uses that we identify in the legislation, and a side
fee on the rest.
We put 10 cents between the a plantation date in 2014.
we based at 10 cents on a number
of other cities in nations that have also used that same the metric.
We thought that 25 cents would
be an uproar. Disincentive for people continuing to use bags after the two-year time span.
We have gotten good feedback from a number of circles.
as I indicated earlier on, I would be more than happy to
completely nix the 25 cents and leave it so there would be
helpful revision later on, to see if an upgrade at 10 cents would be likely.
There are amendments that I am proposing. They have all but passed out to you. I will read them quickly into the file.
the four amendments are , on
section 1702c1, page three, 24,
language exempting raw and loose
items to the work inside stores
is removed, and award loose and cookies, I think to satisfy
supervisor wiener, because we do not want the cooking bag to be
caught up on this, to assure
all lose, raw, items would be part of this. We like that.
The second, page 7, lines 6 and 9.
Always -- allows three more
months for implementation. instead of the date that we subscribe to any current
legislation of July, we would extend it to October.
So it would be nine months. Some supervisor' s expressed a need for this but they are
concerned about questions of
that ready start date, and we hear you. So we think nine months, especially on par with what a number of other cities are
doing it on page seven, line 12.
Removed an increase in back charges to 25 cents. That would be eliminated.
This addresses the concern that that might seem unfounded at
this point, and we agree, so we are certainly hoping there will be a review after two years to
see how the 10 cents works. Page eight, line 18. expands the number of days stores May give away reusable
bags free of charge to 12 days, or once a month.
Supervisors like kim and wiener
also expressed that interest. These are all reasonable amendments. They have my support.
And I motion for those minutes.
president chiu: and motion to amend. Is there a second? Second by supervisor wiener.
Supervisor wiener: I want to thank supervisor mirkarimi for the amendment. I had been prepared and had the city attorney dropped a number of amendments, including the cookies, but also several
others, eliminating the 25
cents, eliminating the inside store language, and a few others. I really want to thank
supervisor mirkarimi for moving out my amendment by including them in his own.
I think it improves the legislation significantly because of thank you.
Supervisor kim: thank you. I also want to thank supervisor mirkarimi' s office for all of their work.
Historically setting the
legislation in 2007 that bans
plastic bags in our supermarkets in pharmacies and its follow-up to a real supportive of this. Appreciative of the amendments
that have come in today. However, I am not ready to
support this legislation. for me, it is not about the intent or the outcome, but
rather, the process that this legislation to before it came to us.
Prior, I assume that a lot of outrage had happened in our
neighborhood and amount small businesses, particularly in our communities of color, where we
have a lot of business owners that speak cantonese and spanish.
i have learned that many businesses did not get out
region did not even know that we were voting on this legislation. Out of respect, I would like to make a motion to continue.
I think at least a month or two
is needed to get actual real
dialogue prior to implementation. I think we might get some very good feedback in terms of how we could best implement the outcomes we would like to see, which is a reduction in the
usage of plastic bags, and of course all bags overall in the city. But I do not think we have garnered that feedback yet. One thing I have heard, for
example, is -- is their capacity
in the city to do language out
reach on education, the waiver
process, and the enforcement as well?
Also, why small businesses to not go through a similar
process, as did our supermarkets
and retail pharmacies, where they first got rid of the
plastic bags before they had a fee added on? They' re kind of getting hit all
at once in this legislation. I think more time is needed for the feedback. I support this overall.
But for me, it is respecting the communities that will be impacted by this legislation.
President Chiu: because the motion to continue will take precedence, let me ask if we
could consider the motion to amend, because I think that would be unanimous. The motion was made by supervisor mirkarimi.
A second by supervisor wiener. Colleagues, can we take in
motion to amend without objection? That will be the case.
Now on the motion to continue. Is there a second?
Second by supervisor chu.
Let'
s go to supervisor mirkarimi on the motion to continue.
Supervisor mirkarimi: I appreciate the spirit of wide
supervisor kim is saying but would argue against any motion to continue.
There has been extensive outreach. In fact, I was surprised to see
some of the criticisms that
emerged by one organization, especially in the chinese-
american, asian-american community that suggested that
this law somehow would ban the
right of using a bag for live
animals that are bought at markets, which was completely untrue. They did not read the legislation, because the exemption is already built in.
and I ask the department of environment if there had ever been in that level of redress by
those that were concerned.
I want to be able to separate very carefully this notion that this seems to be all of a sudden. It has not been. This has been burgeoning for five years.
this is been a mainstay the is
a valid -- law to the degree that we have now. I believe the department of environment is represented here.
We have an extensive memo in discussing what outreach efforts there are.
This is the other reason why we
had pursued the same recognition to the small business commission, who passed this unanimously. Because we wanted to be sure that there had been proper steps
made and made it to all communities as best as can possibly be.
This is the other reason why I
extended the implementation date by three months. So to what end that there would
be any continuance to try to
nurture greater outreach is simply build into the law itself.
So if you support the law, as I just heard, but you want a perfect outreach, than what we have just done is added three months to the tool itself so that that could happen. I would be more than happy to bring out the department of the
environment, Mr. President, that can speak to this.
president chiu: it is up to you.
Supervisor mirkarimi: all right,
doe director, melanie nutter.
>> good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors. Thank you, supervisor
mirkarimi:, for inviting me to speak very briefly about the department of the environment' s
efforts over the past few weeks
and months, and years, in fact, on out reach regarding plastic bags and getting rid of plastic bags in our community.
I did it, first, want to thank supervisor mirkarimi and his aide for their leadership on this issue and doing a lot of work to get us to where we are today.
as supervisor mirkarimi did reference, there are a number of organizations that are supporting this legislation,
ranging from the chamber, the
golden gate restaurant association, the california grocers association, the small business commission, chinese newcomers association, and a
whole host of environmental organizations that have been urging san francisco to take action on this legislation for many years.
In terms of the out reached that
we have done, the technical
advisers to supervise the mirkarimi on this legislation, as soon as it was proposed, we hit the ground running in doing
individual ought reached to organizations throughout san francisco. the richmond, chinatown, the bayview, and a lot of different communities, to ensure that we
started out reached on this new propone it in this extension of the law. Some of the organizations we have reached out to include the asian-as the american ocean
harmony alliance, at the san francisco chinatown merchants association, saw help for the
elderly, sunset merchants
association, the small business network, small-business advocates. The list goes on and on. What we have been doing is distributing the information about the legislation, as well as the fact sheet that was created by the department of the environment in english, spanish, and chinese.
Before the legislation is passed, the role of the the parties to clarify information in the community.
As supervisor mirkarimi mentioned, there has been
someone and an organization actively working to put out some
of the information in the community about what this is, so that has caused confusion. That is what we have been
working to clarify what our fact sheet and outrage. From our perspective, as soon as
this legislation is passed, that is when the department of the environment hits the ground running with putting additional
resources towards implementing
the law in doing out reach that,
as the law is now written, would be nine months. What I also wanted to mention is the department of the environment has many years experience implementing these
types of legislation, whether was the first plastic bag and, what there was mandatory
recycling, the food-service ordinance. These are all people with legislation that have similar
constituencies that we do, as a
department, have expertise to reaching out to.
Merchants one-by-one, in
committee the organization' s overall. Last, we did put together an
outline of a plan that shows -- that, should this legislation be adopted, and these are the types of things the we would undertake
to ensure sufficient out region to the community and adoption of the law.
accretion of education outreach, materials, and a number of different languages. Chinese, spanish, and english.
Extensive community
presentations, bag fairs, which we did in 2007.
We invited vendors to make the bags that are allowable under the law, to talk with small
businesses about how
the mailings to merchants, they will send out a mailers to any of the affected merchants.
Canvas bag distribution.
burned and paid a media as well as leveraging social media.
We worked with the chinese newcomer association and his
food giveaway .
That is what we have planned to do. we were the first U.S. City to
pass a bag of land and that has helped us to be nominated and named as the green a city in north america.
This is our opportunity to catch up with some cities that have leapfrogged what we have done to continue our role as lead
greenest cities in north america.
>> we are not alone .
there have been more forceful laws than this particular law.
Of course, they have a very diverse population.
The city of washington, D.C. ,
the same exact those thoughts that have the exact same thing we' re working on.
-- they have the exact same thing we' re working on.
And it made sense to extend the implementation time.
Otherwise, this becomes a red herring.
>> we were hearing a concern
about the 25 cents.
A number of small businesses said that once that is taken out, they will feel comfortable with the 10 cent fee.
i want to offer up myself with any other questions.
>> thank you, President.
Thank you to it supervisor
mirkarimi and -- .
It would be really affected here in paying these fees.
i' m understand the implicit
reasons behind it.
I know there has been out reach but a lot of businesses I have
talked to had no idea this is coming and are pretty furious.
I am open to new businesses
coming into the fold but we need to take time and do it right.
i am in favor of passing this as
amended but I would not be for new businesses.
With that, I will support the motion to continue.
>> I did have concerns about the
impact on small businesses .
The staff has worked really hard to make difficult
amendments .
there have been here spent cleaning up the bags and the waterways. That is the key issue for me.
i used to think that the different communities, there is a different fear going on and some of our immigrant community is.
If you read very carefully the
language of the ordinance, supervisor mirkarimi and others
have exempted a number of types
of uses from loose bolt items to
produce like druids, vegetables,
nuts, grants, cookies, and small items.
-- like fruits, vegetables, nuts, grapes.
I think a lot of care and concern has been put into the
amendments that have been made already.
i still have concerns about the small business sector and will
be working with a number of
chinese americans .
i appreciate that we will have multilingual materials and a
very aggressive and practice out reach strategy.
there are reasons to continue it. The supervisor has put his time into this and I hope this passes today as well.
>> I just wanted to clarify, I don'
t oppose the outcome .
We can take out 25,000 plastic
bags a day.
This is going away to address consumption and paper bags are a part of that.
For me, this is not about catering to fear.
i think it is problematic when I
hear that outreach is happening
over the past week.
It is actually the press conferences to explain what this ordinance does not do. That is not enough.
We need to get feedback to implement this. I don'
t think that this -- should the outreach happen, how
can we best move forward to that goal?
Everyone has differ uses for plastic bags.
I will think about one community
that I spent time in.
In chinatown, they get reused as blindness.
a lot of those will go out and buy plastic garbage bags.
There is not necessarily a reduction. I think the discussion needs to
do -- needs to happen.
I know that some outreach has happened I just don' t think enough has happened.
This is always a really big
issue, how to do best out reached. What I want are some larger town
hall style dialogue for to get feedback on how we can push this forward.
>> >> thank you very much, Mr. President.
I think that a lot of good points have been raised in terms
of the importance of out reach and this is something that I have been thinking about and
looking at this legislation.
It is important for these communities to reach out to these businesses.
It is important to understand or
my colleagues are coming from and ask for a continuance. The question is not whether or
not we should do this but the best way to do it.
I think the legislation already
does that which I not be voting for a continuance.
i think it is important for us
as we move forward with the implementation of this legislation to make sure that we
do it right.
I do worry about the ability to reach out to some ethnic
communities. I don' t think that what happens
at the small business commission
is representative of small businesses throughout san francisco. There is a real disconnect between that mission and what is happening on the ground.
I look forward to working with all of you to make sure the outreach takes place.
>>
i think the current version
of this is really solid and I
want to say thanks for the amendments.
I too share the concern about our reach.
This is not a criticism of anyone.
this is hard to penetrate and to
get beyond the active businesses
to the many others who are not as a engaged in a lot of these issues.
Just last week, I attended the
meeting of the merchants and
professionals association and they really did not have any
idea this was happening.
Some of them this knew what they read in the paper.
I explained the legislation to
them and they were really
shocked, a number of them.
I described the amendments that
I wanted to make which have now
been included in the amendment version and that reduces the
opposition and some folks were less opposed to it.
It said whatever the efforts
have been, for some reason, at
least in some communities, it is not getting through.
If there are areas of the city where they need more outreach, I
think that we should continue it to do that out reach. One thing we need to keep in
mind is that this goes into effect October 1st.
whether we pass it today or in January or at the end of
February, it goes into effect on October 1st.
It will not change when we will
actually start this.
this will start October 1st parent to we will not have any
more bags in the bay become of this.
We have done our due diligence before we vote on it.
>> thank you.
I would like to support this legislation today.
I would like to thank the author
for his work today. We saw when this measure was
originally passed.
There was a lot of concern and resistance.
we have seen the implementation
that those concerns, while valid, especially going into the unknown, they have been able
to establish a program that does eliminate a lot of waste.
We have to be able to build into how our city works and our businesses work, the environmental measures that
protect us in the future.
Often, environmental legislation is just that.
I would like to thank supervisor
mirkarimi for his work on that.
This is step two of his effort
that he began back in 2007.
I know it is a big change, one
that got worldwide attention because it seems to be a major change that was happening.
I think what we are doing today
or potentially later will impact what happens elsewhere. I would like to say thank you
too supervisor mirkarimi.
>> I want to join in thanking
our colleague and the advocate
here for allowing us to continue
to lead on the environment.
This issue about reach has been one that many of us have been
grappling with I understand and will support the motion to continue so that we can continue to do that.
I do plan to vote in support of
this there. I like to thank supervisor mirkarimi for the efforts he has made. I would like to thank the
department of the environment.
I know that we will likely have
more of these conversations in the coming weeks.
I hope that for the next time,
assuming this does get continued, that we can finally vote on it and move it forward.
>> I wanted to clarify what I
said that the outreach to happen fryer.
If we get good feedback on how
to roll back this legislation, we will not be able to change this.
This is an opportunity to get feedback. Maybe this is not the best way to do it.
I want to feel confident that what we are putting into our ordinance is the correct way to
get to the goal and we seem to agree upon it today.
>> I know that a lot has been said about the importance of outreach.
These large organizations have
had time to adjust . I think this is a big deal to make sure that you do the out reached.
We should understand in terms of implementation, what are the
challenges that they would face. Very different from the large
supermarket that might be able to charge.
I support the continuance at
this time.
>> I appreciate the chorus of
support for this law but again as I said, I am concerned about
this question about reached becoming a red herring.
I have not heard anything but
very broad kind of reference at the knees to be better out reached. What is the protocol?
this was the strategy used by
the petrochemical industry in
2006 and 2007 when they invoked the same sensitivities that any
of us would be sympathetic to and using the question about reached. They weren' t wrong and neither
were we but we still did due diligence.
Because of the law that we had
tried and lessons learned, we
already know what the level of outreach is.
What level of out reached as the number of supervisors have to have for this to happen?
If in fact with this amendment,
but law passes, say, when this
returns, when with the law passed.
This is what the amendment would stipulate.
There is a return in January,
February to March, April, May.
Without some protocol which
explains what average means so that there is a level of
continuity that for a law with
regard to planning or public health or environment or public
safety.
There must be the same level of about rich which would be
required and compelled in this exact same version.
i think continue in this on the
notion of greater up each -- out
reach poses a question for those opposing it.
>> I actually went ahead and called some people that were on
the list, that the department had provided to us and they said that they were not out reached too.
They said nothing has occurred between them and the department.
This out reaches very very challenging to do.
you cannot put a huge list of
folks, you have not had a dialogue with.
I have not seen a list where
groups were invited to come and engage in a conversation in how this could move forward.
Those are the things I would like to see.
my suggestion would be a motion
to continue until February seventh. Given the additional three
months that were given from July
to October 40 implementation we would not be impacting that too
much.
i believe it would be a month and a half. >> supervisor kim has made the
motion that we continue this to February seventh. Any further discussion to continue?
>> I just want to be clear about my answer.
when we are talking about these businesses, and many of which
are really concerned about what this will mean in terms of changes that they will have to
make in their day to day business.
I think that before I vote on
that, they deserve to know and
make sure that they understand
the legislation means and does
it mean.
They have misconceptions about
it or they are concerned, I don' t think that does a service
to my district.
i would love to have a permanent in a garment come to the merchants association in my
district and hold up that trader joe' s campos double that.
Right now, they would use any form of plastic matter what.
there is a lot of confusion.
There is voting on this after the outreach has occurred.
The merchants in my district understand what this legislation
does, what it doesn' t do.
>> no question if it is not reasonable.
test in the same way that we
engage in a styrofoam ban, these
were familiar refrains with a
different generation of the board of supervisors. There is the argument that this
was the sweeping habitual
changes proposed by legislation.
the sky did not fallen.
There was not this lovell of concern that had been realized
because for the many restaurants who were affected, non english-
speaking as well, I think there
was this time of adaptation that has been well understood. I think it would be the same for
this implementation.
I understand, the need for us to
do effective outreach, meaning
the department that will have to shoulder this.
On what we risk and what I hear
say -- said without being said
is that there can be a trojan horse for dilution.
I think that is the aim of diluting the intent of this
legislation using a very reasonable prerequisite for
outreach .
>> on the motion to continue.
>> there are seven ayes, four nos.
>> item 20, wardens amending the comp pain code to required at this commission to televise its meeting on the san francisco
government television channel. >> roll call vote.
on item 20, supervisor c
kim.
Supervisor kim: aye.
Supervisor wiener: aye.
supervisor chui: aye.
President Chiu:
--
>> there are 11 ayes.
>> item 21.
Ordinance approving at second amendment to contract between the city and county of san francisco the department of energy for delivery of low-cost power. >> same house, sam call?
This ordinance is approved.
>> 22.
Ordinance amending various
sections of the san francisco business and tax regulations
code, administration of code, fire code and the health code, and police code.
>> this is exactly the direction want to move to in terms of
making city government work for small businesses. >> any discussion on this?
I would like to thank supervisor
kim and supervisor chu for working on this.
can we do this same house, same call. Without objection.
Item 23.
>> ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code establishing a payroll expense tax exclusion for compensation paid to individuals who have a felony conviction.
>> here is another thought- provoking piece of law.
The question is what to do with
a large population .
This is label 65% for san francisco and 4 x offenders.
there is a crisis.
The unemployment rate of 50% or higher among ex offenders.
district 6, 10, 11 become with
district 9, 5 following them, are the highest districts that
have the largest population of parolees and probationers that
also have to really manage this population. I don' t think it is any mistakes or accident that this is the same district that has some of the highest public safety
challenges in the city and county of san francisco.
behalf
the fact is that we spend about
$47,500 per year for those 8 cars ridden county jail.
Those legislation provides
$10,000 tax credit.
we would like businesses to hire
ex offenders on a mandatory basis. We' re talking about a $10,000 tax credit.
Hopefully, that would stymie the
likelihood of them repeating the crimes. Not factoring in the cost of them having to respond to someone.
there is great resistance and no one would like to be seen to
favor or would be seen favoring a constituency ahead of other more deserving populations.
the criticisms calls out why not do legislation for veterans? I agree, we should.
Why not do legislation for those with special needs that are disabled?
I agree, we should.
If anybody is provided concrete alternatives to that, that remains to be seen.
for an
ax offender population where law is built on two years
as a pilot and is voluntary,
this law has not been tried in the state of california.
It has been tried in
philadelphia, md., illinois and iowa have adopted similar law.
it is time we deal with what I
think is going to be a growing problem with regard to
realignment and our ability to manage a population once they have done their time.
And based on the arithmetic, all
the money we' re front loading to
police budget so the police --
the day prosecutors over three or repeat offenders within three years.
And it is counterintuitive we' re
not doing more to try to stem
that tide of the likelihood of recidivism.
not doing this means that it is status quo.
That does not change the
changing reality that we have a growing population.
650 will be added to the
probation and sheriff' s department responsibility this year.
another 650 to 700 year after that. If these people will not work
and we expect the nonprofit
networks like good will --
goodwill or walden house to
shoulder the burden and not incentivize the private sector to step up, how is it we'
re not
doing our part so that we alleviate what I think will
become a growing problem to
police and the back end for us having to manage a population that is inclined to recidivism.
That is what is before us.
i am more than happy to hear any
feedback this legislation. If people would want to amend
this to include veterans, go at it. What 41 to start with?
Vietnam, grenada? Which word you want to go with?
how would that accommodate the
population without hitting our general fund in a significant way.
If there is institutional support, I would like to see that. If you want to add to other populations I would like to see that, too.
Right now, we micro- folk is this legislation so that it would do with the populations we can count. We'
re nexus does not exist and one should. I think the question of public
safety and criminal justice is changing in california and we
have to deal with not just a
front end response.
since recidivism is outpacing
.
I look forward to responding to any concerns. Thank you.
President Chiu: supervisor avalos.
supervisor avalos: this
legislation comes replace and
wanting to support a population
that is hard to serve that is -- has great employment needs,
that has a great deal at stake for them to find work.
I have worked with this population before. i worked with them at the conservation corps.
They have come out of the justice system and I know how hard is to hire them.
I have looked at tax exemptions
for businesses to hire people in the past. We had an example of that under
the clinton era enterprise zone
that had tax exemption on new hires and there were not effective.
There were not saw after by businesses because sometimes the paperwork is cumbersome to do.
I feel that -- I
have a real aversion to tax exemption.
there are always going to be worthy populations and
businesses and were the economic systems to provide exemption to.
-- worthy economic systems to provide exemption to. Right now this is a small example but they add up after a while. I am concerned that these
measures to stimulate our
economy or to hire populations
do not end up serving as the way they need to.
They opened the door for more of that to happen.
I understand how worthy this is and the new sheriff will have great challenges that he faces
in order to make sure that
people in his system of care
will be able to get out of that system into a real system that is about opportunity.
I cannot necessarily support this now.
I feel it is important to state the reasons I will be voting against this ordinance.
president chiu: supervisor cohen.
Supervisor cohen: thank you.
This is definitely a thought- provoking legislation you have put forward and I want to thank you for it. It is the kind of conversation
we need to begin to have if we' re going to be serious about
public safety and about addressing recidivism. You' re right. This is a new climate we' re living in with the state' s realignment of the public safety network as well as the system.
I like the spirit and the direction you are going in with
this piece of legislation. I do have a question for you,
sir, if you do not mind. I am curious to know what has the success rate been on the
laws that have -- other cities that have passed this as a law? >> philadelphia has had 20 businesses that have opted for this.
In 2011.
I would say the success has
been minimal or a modicum. that is the fact.
There is not enough data there
that I think we could be able
to determine the success or not success. It is 20 less people in philadelphia who are now repeating their crimes.
What they save potentially on
the deal costs, so they are not incarcerated as people, not
having to dispatch police or prosecution or courts to have to process those people. The savings are considerably more.
The arithmetic speaks for
itself, which is why there is a complete savings in this notion.
If we are giving a $10,000 a year tax credit but the potential is we' re making room
in the jails for someone less
likely to return, that is where
we should be zeroing in on it on
how to incentivize businesses who are not forced, not compelled, nor can we impose
them to hire this population.
This is the least likely
population in some ways that would get hired and that is the experience of other cities and states.
Supervisor cohen: I have another question for you.
Forgive me, I do not know of my other colleagues have questions
on this legislation -- when it came on the scene. also, can you talk to me a
little bit about
-- that is ok. Thank you very much. That is it for a President Chiu:.
Me.
President Chiu: supervisor elsbernd.
supervisor elsbernd: thank you. Here is my concern.
I do not have a problem with tax
exemptions when targeted for
inappropriate purposes -- an appropriate purpose. I
what is unique about this
proposal is it is for a particular business industry or neighborhood. When we voted on those, I
genuinely have operated and I believe everyone who voted on those, the city operated and the
process of determining biotech,
film, those are industries more than any other industry want to support.
Mid-market. We have been working to redevelop the market for decades. We felt this was something that was necessary.
We decided to place amid market
-- placed mid-market above other neighborhoods.
This -- we are identifying a
class of citizens as more important than all the others.
Supervisor mirkarimi eluded that -- alluded to that when he
talked about veterans, those with special needs. We can play on the movement
happening in justin herman plaza at about san franciscans who have been foreclosed upon. What about san franciscans who have student loan debt? These are people who could use an incentive.
To have an employer hire them.
And what really concerns me here
is we have not appropriately entered into an analysis to say,
this class of san franciscans is
more worthy of this kind of exemption than any other and i do not think we should.
I do not think it is appropriate for us to enter into that kind
of discussion to say, this group of san franciscans is more important. That is inappropriate.
It really leads to a slippery slope.
Supervisor mirkarimi says, offer some amendments.
We do not want to get into that. Into the game.
that was -- would eviscerate the payroll tax. Maybe I do want to get into that game but I will lead that -- leave that for another day.
It is genuinely show that payroll tax is a problem for the city.
-- it does genuinely show that payroll tax is a problem for the city. Tax exemption should go for a
class of san franciscans as opposed to an industry or never heard which I think are more appropriate.
President Chiu: supervisor cohen -- supervisor mirkarimi was planning to respond.
Supervisor cohen.
supervisor cohen: I wanted to comment on supervisor elsbernd' s
comments. It is about framing the issue.
In the spirit of what supervisor
mirkarimi is trying to do, not framing one class of persons more important than acknowledging we are talking about a general segment that is
more fragile than -- in overcoming some challenges I with
a single mom or vietnam or any kind of veteran. I really like this legislation.
I do not necessarily feel confident I am prepared to vote today.
I think there needs to be more communication. You might be able to send it back to committee said there might be more discussion.
We have not been involved in --
he acknowledges that districts
10, 6, at 11 -- and 11 will be
historically affected by this population. Thank you.
President Chiu: are you making a motion to send this to committee?
Supervisor cohen: I would like to make a formal motion to send
it back to committee for
discussion so we can vet out the
piece of legislation.
I myself have spent a considerable amount of time in
the county but I have not had a chance to talk to my ex offender community to get their
weigh in on this legislation. I would be grateful to have this opportunity.
President Chiu: is their second?
Seconded by supervisor elsbernd.
-- is there a second?
Supervisor mirkarimi: do not send it back. Let it meets its fate here. there is no one who will be able
to go back to the drawing board and do much with this legislation. It is simple. This is going to take that if we want meaningful change, it will be a bold move and I do not think that is ready here. Not ready yet.
I appreciate what supervisor elsbernd said but it does not speak to the reality that we are confronted by now.
We have thousands of people in san francisco who cannot get work because their ex-offenders.
We do not want to see what hrc
was suggesting, creating the
protected class that would
require a mandatory lever that opens up access. I do not think that was being received as well.
But then the next best step is creating an incentive so that
people in the private sector
are encouraged to hire ex offenders. What does that sit as?
-- save us?
many of the population are ex- offenders. It would be nice if we could
alleviate the drain on general assistance if they were able to get a meaningful job.
It has shown that as I said earlier within the first six
months, when one gets out of the system, if they get a job in the first six months, they are 50% less likely to repeat their offense. What we' re doing is without
trying to activate the private
sector relationship to this
larger need to build solutions
here, to legislate solutions, all the pressure grows on the
not-for-profit industry, not the for-profit industry in order to
facilitate, hire, and hopefully find gainful employment for those people coming out of the system and it is not happening already. With an escalating population
that is returning back into the district' s many of us are host
to which also doubles as the
same districts where a growing
safety challenge and will so if we are not able to rehabilitate
effectively, we should be more perspective about what tools we' re going to deploy.
This is about crime prevention. This is about saving the city money.
That might mean testing this
for a two-year period to see how effective this law makes -- works. It is not going to take away. What does it take away? It is voluntary.
To take away from this, from the general fund, if we were to say
we got 10 candidates who made
it, that qualified, I am hoping those were the same 10 candidates who did not make it back into the jail system and the savings speak for themselves. I would like to think the numbers are higher. I would say go for the vote today.
The comments that have been made are telling.
It requires a level of due
diligence to answer this larger question which I do not think will be answered by tweaking this legislation. This legislation should meet its fate right here and those who
care and those who want to take
this issue on in a way that will produce results that will have
some hopeful impact on putting
ex-offenders to work and finding a partnership with private
sector and with the non-profit government sector, that is what
I hope comes as a result of this exercise. Thank you.
President Chiu: supervisor farrell.
Supervisor farrell: thank you.
I appreciate the fiscal arguments, very much so. In consideration of this
legislation, financially
incentivizing businesses, it is the way the real world works outside their walls of city
hall and it is something that supervisor elsbernd had articulated.
I do not mind voting for it.
Supervisor avalos'
s comments, why did you this. This type of business, this
neighborhood needs we value, we
think mid-market needs our help. That is when we needed when we
make those very judgments.
I have similar problems.
supervisor mirkarimi mentioned extended to other folks. The fact of the matter is you cannot have it both ways.
Either it is effective and cost the general fund money or it will not affect the general fund, it will not be effective.
Why are we doing this at the end of the day?
to me I think we are -- this
piece of legislation, while well-intentioned and I appreciate the theory behind
it, it is not seeing the forest for the trees. What we' re doing for the city. It is a slap in the face to the thousands and tens of thousands
of san francisco' s, law-abiding san franciscans that are waking up every day looking for work and cannot find work. What message are we sending to them? There is no way I wouldn' t support this and I would support going back to committee.
-- there is no way I would support this.
President Chiu: supervisor cohen.
supervisor cohen: let me be clear.
I requested it go back to
committee so it would become a piece of legislation. What we stand up and say, this
is a priority, this is an
important group of people, and they deserve an opportunity.
that is the way I read this legislation is supposed to do, the intent. This is a matter of clarification for the folks that
are watching this broadcast and
that are not familiar with the legislation. Correct me if I am wrong but
this is a pilot program you are proposing.
Supervisor mirkarimi: two years.
supervisor cohen: are there build and benchmarks?
What kind of an analytical tool we have to analyze whether or
not this program, this legislation has been successful?
>> that helps us establish in the mayor' s office of workforce development. Maybe those should be reminded.
we legislated the creation of a
bonding program so that sense we' re concerned about this
population, because hiring an ex-offender, many employers are risk averse.
Understandably so in some direction.
We legislate it.
i happen to sponsor that role four or five years ago.
To incentivize businesses to hire ex offenders, we would buy bonds on pennies on the dollar
to offset any liability.
Not one bond has been moved -- use. We went back to the business community to say what would it take?
It is the feedback from many in the community.
incentives.
When this question comes up,
this seems to prioritize.
I understand where the resistance is coming from.
It is unpopular to advocate for this population but it is this population that continues to
have -- add to the general funds dress. On police budgets, district
attorney budgets, on sherra, probation costs.
-- sheriff, on probation costs. We have the sheep'
s of --
chiefs of probation on this.
For those who work in this industry. Unless there is something that comes in lieu of this, this problem does not go away.
It continues to exponentially grow.
I do not agree this puts about anyone else.
with regard to the impact, that
is not what is being attached to this conversation. It is a huge population.
Half a billion dollars is going to the police department. Roughly half a billion every year. Look at who they are resting.
Look at who the D.A. Is prosecuting.
If we are not be touring them in
a positive direction, this adds
to the general fund costs.
As I said it makes total system -- total sense where resistance is coming from.
I am dubious that we will
broaden this as it was
suggested to other populations more deserving but that is a slippery slope.
not to remind you what is wrong with our payroll tax system. This underscores what is wrong with the payroll tax.
It is a slippery slope but it is one we' re going to have to
confront on the ex-offender
population in reducing recidivism.
President
Chiu: I want to thank
supervisor mirkarimi for
proposing a creative and courageous idea for how we
ensure that in the wake of what happened at the state level, we'
re helping our population work their way back into the work force.
I have shared the concerns that have been raised today about the slippery slope.
We wondered if we should extend this to veterans or those who have been foreclosed upon or those who are in dire need during this time.
I am sympathetic to the either-
or is that supervisor farrell have laid out. The fact that this either will
not be successful in a way that
philadelphia did not see success
or will be successful and we will wonder if the amount of money that is being spent here could have been spent in different ways.
I certainly respect -- support supervisor cohen'
s desire to send this back to committee.
We want -- could see if there
are other ways to incent their hiring.
I would prefer to go in that direction to see if there is
some way for us to jigger creative thinking.
We know this reentry population is hitting us now.
we have to move forward as quickly as possible.
Sending this back to committee puts pressure on us to keep on thinking.
That is why I will be supporting that motion.
I hope that we will be able to
work with you, supervisor mirkarimi, and others to continue to fine tune or replace
it with other ideas that can always to be innovative in how we make sure the powere 00
-- our
ex-felons are high red.
Supervisor chu:
in terms of what wse
e would be saving, if we
were able to reduce or to change the recidivism rate, we
would see a different situation.
If we see one, two, three, four individuals, the expense reduction is not as clear-cut. We would not necessarily be
laying off police officer at --
police officers if we had one or two individuals back into the prison system. We have a fixed cost on the jail system.
Because we have one less inmate does not mean we will be able to save a significant amount of money because we have to turn on the lights and have the existing staff we do have. the other thing to keep in mind
is the pilot program is not free.
Even if not a single person or
employer ended up hiring an excellent in this situation we would incur $150,000 set up
costs to make it possible.
the pilot is not a free pilot.
It does cost us something if even not a single person took up the offer.
I wanted to point out some of those real financial issues.
President Chiu: supervisor kim.
Supervisor kim: I did vote to
support this ad budget committee. The one argument I will make. i understand the slippery slope argument.
This is a barrier to employment.
When that is on your record, it is an actual barrier.
Not to say that we want to favor one population over others.
Such as veterans and folks and those whose homes have been foreclosed on but those are not barriers to employment.
There is a rationale behind
singling out this population more than other populations in
terms of encouraging and incentivizing companies to hire them because they are not being hired. I understand the rationale for
why this group [Unintelligible]
This legislation begs the question on what we can do better to hire this population. Some of the questions I had were about the long-term benefits.
Of the folks in philadelphia, how long were they hired for? What kind of impact did they
have -- that have on the lives of individuals? Because it was a two-year pilot program, there was not much of an uptick in philadelphia.
It was not clear on what the
uptick was -- would be here. We'
re trying to do so much given the realignment that is coming. I am sure will have a large impact in the district I
represent as well as the district' s supervisor mirkarimi alluded to.
some of our colleagues have had
not had as much time to reflect. I do respect the author'
s
desire to not have the vote take place today.
I would support this but I would like to respect the author given
that he has a couple of weeks remaining left and is not clear
who would take this out after supervisor mirkarimi leaves in
his new role as sheriff.
The plastic bag ordinances different for me.
I do not think there is clear ownership over who would take over.
once supervisor mirkarimi leaves.
Supervisor mar: our colleague is
ending his term and he has asked
us to blow this up or down.
i think this -- to vote this up or down.
I intend to support to vote against the continuance and abide by my colleague' s request.
Supervisor elsbernd: there is
nothing that prevents the sheriff from introducing legislation.
He can continue to passionately
defend what he is proposing.
Supervisor mirkarimi: the
sheraton -- sheriff' s department
is a brick and mortar budget.
If you -- san francisco is one of the few counties that has
undercrowding. That does cost.
It is not like there is always room at the end kind of mentality because that is not the case.
This law happened to be an entry to the more effective
strategies -- that would
hopefully reduce recidivism. Let' s go in the other direction and think about ways to generate revenue.
to think that this does not
have a meaningful result, I would disagree.
The budget itself presents
opportunity if we can reduce recidivism.
Not to do anything means that we don' t have that opportunity to do that.
>> unless there is for the discussion, there is a motion to continue. I' m sorry, there is a motion to refer to committee.
>> I had an opportunity to talk
with some districts tend constituents and I would like to commit myself on the record to
take up the charge.
If it passes, it goes back to committee. I will take the charge to work on this.
I believe that it has a
significant impact not just on the african-american community
but most communities of color .
The conversation on this piece of legislation goes hand in hand.
i would have liked to see more.
I would like to go ahead to
publicly extend an olive branch
to you .
We are making a commitment to
work on making this happen .
>> why don' t we take a roll call vote on the motion.
>> no. >> no. >> no.
>> aye.
>> no.
>> no. >> aye.
>> aye.
>> aye.
>> no.
>> no.
>> there are
four ayes and seven no' s.
>> I appreciate the supervisor cohen had to say.
I think it will take it legislature and hopefully more
than just one that will be the charge and I look forward to working with you in my capacity as sheriff.
I hope that this issue does not die here but something
meaningful results from this conversation.
This is not coming out of left
field, this has been cycling through the reentry consul for
several years and through a
number of departments and also access to employment.
This is not something new.
This has been happening for a while. A number of people on behalf of the district'
s have been involved. I look forward to hearing the
next iteration of this approach.
>> thank you.
I was going to send it back to committee.
i do agree that we owe it to supervisor mirkarimi to vote up or down. I' m happy to vote on this position.
>> any further discussion . >> on item 23 -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.
>> no.
>> no.
>> aye. >> no.
>> no.
>> aye.
>> no.
>> no.
>> there are five
ayes and 6 no' s,.
This ordinance fails.
>> ordnance approving a contract between the city and
the west and renewable energy
generation system for environmental attributes.
On item 24 -- >> aye. >> aye.
>> aye.
>> aye.
>> aye.
>> aye.
>> aye. >> aye.
>> aye.
>> aye.
>> aye.
>> there are 11 ayes.
>> item 25.
>> resolution placing funds
intended forward defense of special circumstances cases on control reserve and adopting
guidelines for release of such funds.
Same house, same call? This resolution is adopted.
Item 26.
>> resolution authorizing the lease with a six street baldwin
house for the police department.
>> this item did come to committee.
One piece of like to share with colleagues.
The redevelopment agency, there is still some work to be done.
This leased depends on five $1,000 worth of free development funding in order to renovate the
space for the new police substation.
One of the concerns is what happens to the redevelopment agency component?
It turns out that they would not be able to enter into a new
contract.
However, the lease that we would
be entering into in this situation would not obligate the
city to pay rent until the renovations are completed.
There is not a financial cost to last until there is a rental.
>> I wanted to reiterate how
important this substation is in the area.
I would like to think many of
the partners that have been involved.
Many of our community
organizations and merchants on sixth street. I think people are excited because a lot of work has been happening in the mid market area to increase safety.
We have specialized resources and foot patrols to help monitor and many as our community organizations have
really come together to organize
how we can do better
organization and discussion.
the neighborhood is very excited.
This is like a promise that is being fulfilled by the city.
We are excited to see community policing happening on sixth street.
>> same house, same call.
Without resolution, this is adopted.
>> item 27, resolution authorizing the sheriff' s department to retroactively
apply, except to expand $249,000
in funds of the office of justice program to reduce recidivism. >> in house, call?
This item is adopted.
>> item 28, or intercepting an error vocable offer for
improvements on real estate .
>> same house, call?
This is passed on the first reading.
>> items 29 through 31 pertain to the san francisco museum of
modern art expansion.
Fire station number one housing and relocation project.
Item 29 is amending the zoning map.
Item 30 is the ordinance of
ordering the summer vacation of hunt street. Item 31 is the ordinance
amending the map of the community facilities element.
>> on these three items, if I
can ask supervisor kim, we need
to continue this until January? >> yes, my apologies.
I would like a motion to
continue item 29, 30, 31.
>> I would like to continue until January 10th. >> is there a second any motion to continue.
Colleagues, without objection, these will be continued.
Item 32. >> resolution approving the lease the property near the
intersection of
phelan and ocean
avenues.
>> same house, call? This ordinance is approved.
Item 33.
>> ordinance amending this act
as the minister of code to establish a sentencing commission, set forth the
purpose, powers, and duties.
>> our sheriff elect and the current share of have some concerns about the legislation.
there are ideas about how to address these concerns.
I would like the opportunity to move this.
I move that we continue this until January 10th.
>> ok, this item has been moved
to the 10th unless there is any
objection, this will be moved. Why don'
t we go to our 3:30 special accommodations?
>> I think you know that myself
and supervisor avalos sit on the air quality management district.
Every
year, we have a special
competition among employers.
this is called the great race for clean air. This is where they compete to
produce the amount of carbon and
our era and to help clean air and could practices among
employees and workplaces too encourage car pooling, public
transit.
and we have stephanie anderson
has worked with our boards here and a number of great businesses and leaders that have really helped us to clean up the
air in san francisco.
We saved over 156 tons of co2 in
the air this season and this has
been a great obscenity to challenge employers to find
alternatives to commute by car
loan.
All of these savings based on the employee community. The vehicle gas mileage and the
number of miles traveled I think Miss Anderson might explain this more.
The highest savings per
participant and the highest of employee participation.
The winners are chosen by county.
All three of these companies, once both that the county and bay area level and they will each receive two trophies for
this achievement.
I just wanted to say if the winners can come forward and
announce for the savings per
participant was her rare
contractors -- was hererrz
a by contractors.
Excepting the trophy for the creative video agency is the office manager.
we have this senior benefits
analyst and the senior staff and
firm until health specialist.
At the regulations to our great race for clean air winners.
Thank you for cleaning up the air and our area. Miss Anderson. [Laughter]
-- [Applause]
>> we want to thank everyone who participated.
There are a lot of companies to
route san francisco.
many departments participated
and saved a tremendous amount of
co2 by encouraging their
employees to find people to ride
share with.
We are excited to presented trophies to these folks.
we did work on getting clean air. Thank you for your work.
on
>> our next accommodation will be to someone that all of us know and love.
I would like to invite -- , if
you could come up to the podium. [Applause]
for those of you that have not had the opportunity to meet her, she has been working for the
city and county of san francisco since 1982.
Most of us were in grade school,
some of us were in kindergarten.
This is remarkable given that you don'
t look old enough.
You were the first person we
met when we joined the board of supervisors.
You not only served the city and county of san francisco, you
served this branch for 21 years.
I have a proclamation from the board of supervisors.
The performance of your duties and responsibilities have been exemplary and I will not read all of the many responsibilities
you have but whereas you' ll recognize the importance of working as a team and offering
us assistance, where as your knowledge and healthfulness will
be genuinely missed upon your
retirement, let it be resolved
that the board of supervisors and the office of the prone and board, weeks blessed are very
severe -- sincere appreciation
for your talents, skills, for
the manner in which to carry at responsibilities.
We extend our very best wishes
upon your retirement. Congratulations. [Applause]
>> before you speak, I would like to ask the clerk of our
board if she would like to say a few words.
>> like all of us, it is very important.
I know that her husband is here . The board of supervisors and the office of the clerk of the board
has been a family for you and I
started working with you in 1995 and never really enjoyed the true pleasure of being your
colleague .
We thank you for error all of
your involvement .
We will Miss You.
is not often that we find someone that we can share a
personal moment with. You demand to see the photograph.
Now, it is your turn too enjoyed the vacation time and the leisure.
When you come back to visit us tomorrow we insist that you can show us the photos.
We Miss You and we wish you well. Much health in your retirement. [Applause]
>> I am glad to be here in front
of my family . I' m happy to be in front of my
family, colleagues, friends, and being commended by the hon. Supervisors.
My mother and father must be very proud of me. They would be very honored.
More than four years ago, I left
where I was born and educated to
start a new life and america had a very nice to me.
I think you for allowing me to fulfill my dreams.
I am grateful to work with the
city and county of san francisco
for almost 30 years.
it has been an honor and a rewarding part of my life.
I make a lot of --
all of you enrich my life and been so much to me.
I would like to thank all the
supervisors for your support and appreciative my service.
I want to thank you, angela, for
being a good boss and also a good friend.
I would like to thank the deputy directors, managers, colleagues, and friends who are always there
for be . All of you make my job so
wonderful, rewarding, and enjoyable.
I also want to thank the
supervisors and aids who I had the honor to work with.
it was hard to make the
decision . Retirement has been fantastic.
I'
m enjoying time with my dog,
my best friend.
I am so lucky.
i am also spending good quality
time with my only sister and my
two brothers who retired ahead of me.
We just got back from a trip to china together.
Thank you all, you will always be in my heart.
[Applause]
>> ok.
That concludes our special accommodations for the day. Why don' t we continue with the rest of our agenda?
Why don'
t we continue to our
committee report item, item 42.
>> at of 42 was considered by
the special services committee and was forward it to the board with that recommendation. This is an ordinance amending
the park code to require the recreation and park department
to have a long-term agreement
for the national park service.
>> thank you, President Chiu .
>> I am a father raising two
kids in an area of great environmental challenge.
I have a son who is very inquisitive. They would ask me about some
kind of creature, whether it is extinct. He has asked me about dinosaurs.
He has asked me about saber toothed tigers.
Last night, he asked me about by sen.
i do know they exist but they don' t exist how they used to exist.
-- she asked me about bison.
We have endangered species in the bay area. We have them on the bay. We have to ask how we will be
able to a protect endangered species and make sure that we
can offer the type of recreation that all this can enjoy in this city.
We have great challenges about that.
In fact, we have a budget
deficit that is about $10
million, $11 million a year and at great risk to our ability to
carry out programming.
We have lowered a lot of
programming in san francisco. We have cut staff and raised fees paid to we have made it difficult for people to get
involved in our rec and park' s department. One area that we have a great
challenge is at sharp park which is in pacifica.
the golf course happens to be
the habitat for the california
red legged frog as well as the san francisco order snake. These are two creatures that we don' t know how well they were so but over the next many years.
-- they will survive over the next many years.
I believe that the city has been
looking at options and the rec and parts department has done some due diligence on how to
protect these species.
They have not ruled out looking
at the potential closure of the park.
I have not been one who has been
very shy about what my opinion
is about what should happen. I think it should be close to protect the species.
I am just one person.
There are other people who have different points of view.
I think that we should offer a
range of possibilities on how we
could program the space of shark
park whether it is golfing,
partial golfing, May be a nine
hole course, or maybe no golfing whatsoever.
That a full range is something that' s the intent is behind this legislation.
That is what we will be discussing today.
i do believe that as the board of supervisors, we have the
responsibility to protect our environment, how we interact with the in farming, and to
protect the creatures.
We also need to make sure it
that our rec and park department can carry out all of its functions.
Over the past five years in
pacifica, the course has cost
the city $1.2 billion -- $1.2
million over budget.
Over the last year, it was $90,000.
we are not fulfilling our response ability to all of the other services.
-- our responsibility to all of our other services.
We want to up programs that will meet our financial responsibilities.
to give an overview on this legislation is and how we got
here, the golf course is owned by san francisco but it is located in pacifica.
It has provided us with numerous
challenges over the years. The board has played a role in investigating a lot of these
issues including leadership
that will be provided by ross mirkarimi. The golf course was built on
wetlands and they have played
significant restraints on golf management.
We are responsible for
maintaining a sea wall and
protecting endangered species, and for paying the bills.
Old and new studies by the city
and outside experts regarding
equity, financial investment, and permit the production have
questioned the sustainability of
the current actions at sharp park.
this will inform the best decisions of land use in san
francisco as related to sharp part.
-- sharp park.
It allows policy makers to
review a partnership to compare against other options.
as the city continues future
land use at sharp park, it is
imperative that we know what we
are investing in for both the short term and the long term. It is also imperative that we have options to review, including a popular and
potentially problem-solving option of a real purpose sharp
park in partnership with the national parks service.
This remedy is the flaw in the decisionmaking process for land
use at the park for ensuring
that the board has the complete
picture to review the option.
Note the option, not the mandate, to pursue a partnership with the national park service.
The ordinance ensures that before we commit to a long-term plan to invest hundreds of thousands or tens of millions of
dollars into we know what
options exist to best address the concerns of the residents,
such as recreation supply and
public access, and strategic financial investments. This ordinance does not mandate
a particular land use outcome.
In fact, rather than having a
day -- than
having a -- say we
are going to end golfing, it offers us an opportunity to create a long-term agreement with the city for sharp park.
It also determines it is not
just going to be a single option that says we are going to close the park.
There are a number of options
that this ordinance does provide. Whether it is partial closing of the park or no closing whatsoever.
This ordinance allows san francisco to continue having conversations with potential
partners other than the gtnra other than san francisco county.
it makes sure we can compare options side-by-side, including
the partnership option.
The amendment is based on public
input from the san francisco public research association. It proposes that any agreement between the city of san francisco and the national parks
service is subject to review and
approval throughout all -- for
applicable public processes, including a review by the board of supervisors. It is now a collaborative and
more deliberate process than the one I embarked on a few months back.
The national parks service has indicated their interest in working towards a new public park.
In order for the city to engage
the -- in order for the city to engage, this ordinance is needed.
I want to talk about the amendment as a whole that I passed out before you.
It changes some significant language.
I do not think it is
significant -- is significant enough to carry forward to continuation.
What this does is it deletes the
language that says "shall offer
to close at sharp park golf course."
we are deleting that and adding
"which should include the option
of closure for the sharp park golf course."
this should be included in negotiations but does not
foreclose the other option is to be explored with the national parks service.
on section c, a few minor changes we have done at the request of the national parks service. There are other clarifications that are part of this amendment as a whole.
I want to make some other clarifications about this legislation. The original legislation that I
have introduced was done on September 6, three months ago.
Would provide a substitute legislation on November 22, just a couple of weeks ago.
That did not require a 30-day continuance.
We had originally intended this
legislation to go into city
operations and neighborhoods committee.
It was moved to the budget and finance committee, believing there would be a financial impact to the city. There is no financial impact.
We have this these... -- this piece of legislation come to the neighborhoods and services committee because it does not have the budget impact. Before we go onto public
discussion, I want to thank the organizations that have helped
to sponsor this legislation and
provided us with a lot of the framework for moving forward.
It is not going to include all of the organizations that
support us, but archanchology, the center for biological
diversity,
the national sierra
club resilient have a tax
program, nature in the city, what was formerly the
neighborhood parks council, the
democratic club, the league of conservation voters.
, san francisco tomorrow, the san francisco women' s political
committee, saved the frogs, the
ottoman society, the surf riders
foundation, both the san francisco and san mateo county chapters.
I am sure we will have a robust conversation about this.
my colleagues have expressed some concerns about possible amendments and I would love to hear them all. Thank you.
Supervisor mar: I want to first say that I appreciate the
dialogue and the debate in the committees between supervisor
elsbernd and supervisor elsbernd
-- and supervisor avalos in yesterday' s long hearing.
I want to explain that the land
use and economic development committee chair has been watching the issue of chartres
park and the alternative is used for years now.
My dad was a golfer and was
proud of being part of a golf club in the san francisco.
It is similar to lincoln park in
my district, but also a sharp
part as well -- also sharp pk
ark.
I am supportive of supervisor avalos'
legislation. It is not easy for me to be supportive because of my background.
Many of us who is headed in golfing after world war two. San francisco should have a
well-thought out option.
I think the previous reports
should have included a no golf alternative.
The ordinance before us will allow us to determine future
land use at sharp park.
I think we need a conversation with the national park service on a deeper level.
We have received communications from the park service and from
superintendent dean and others. We shall look at deepening that discussion. Should negotiations lead to a proposed agreement, I think the board would have a role in
reviewing it side by side with the other options that we have identified.
This includes the partnership with san mateo county.
It was helpful to have many of
their residents with us in the committee meeting yesterday it.
Another factor, one that should be emphasized in these difficult economic times, is that sharp
park has been losing money year after year.
He mentioned it was about $1.2 million over five years.
It has than an average of about $126,000 per year since 2004.
That is from the data from our city comptroller' s office.
There has also been considerations from our open space committee.
Lincoln park' s
golf course is --
we have a small nine-hole golf course in my district as well.
My hope is that we can look at ways to improve access for low
income use and others that was
brought up -- and other issues the were brought up yesterday.
when we look at sharp aprk,
there are great opportunities to
improve other facilities as well and provide greater access for young people to take up sports and recreational activities.
Also, the national golf foundation notes that regarding
staff from sharp park
two other golf courses and result in more revenue.
Lastly, studies that were cited in the hearing yesterday show that many people like
recreational activities but golf
has a certain universe of people
that are -- that take it up as a hobby or sport. there are many other types of
recreation and different options that supervisor avalos has put forward.
Hopefully, we will look at how
golf would be one option, but also many other options like
hiking and biking and other activities that many more people can access as well.
I will be supportive of this legislation.
I hope it is done in a way that we help improve our other golf
courses, not just the ones in my
district but the ones throughout the city.
Thank you hit President Chiu: supervisor avalos, you wanted to
make a motion to amend the entire document.
I want to take that as a motion to amend.
Seconded by supervisor campos. Any discussion on that? Supervisor elsbernd.
Supervisor elsbernd: I did not
support this amendment in committee for the following
reasons -- the language that is
being added for supervisor avalos'
comments yesterday it
are designed to be made in our mental review. The legislation is in front of
you without the amendment and
necessitates environmental review. Supervisor avalos made clear that we need to adopt these amendments in order for the
legislation to not be deemed a project.
That is why this language is being added. Look at the language.
It is supposed to said -- it
does say, "an option of closing the golf course."
implicit is it -- implicit in
this is that the national parks association might enter into agreement with us, keeping the golf course open.
News to me and anyone who has followed this issue.
I would love to ask any
supporters who are here if they have never once heard of the
golden gate national recreation
area who will continue this --
who will take this property and continue the golf course. If you have any evidence that it will take this and keep the golf course, show us.
We had six hours of public testimony yesterday.
Did any of that testimony come out? None.
Did any supporters get up and
say, please vote for this.
please allow golden gate
recreational area to take the land and keep the golf course? Nope.
All of the legislative background and -- the legislative background here makes crystal clear the intent
of handling -- of handing this over is to close the golf course. I oppose the amendment because the amendment is fiction. There is no option of leaving
the golf course open if we hand it over. That is never going to happen.
You said today, including the
nine-hole option, please show me
some evidence anywhere that the golden gate national recreation area would consider that.
it would be nice if we could' ve talked to the golden gate national recreation area.
For six hours, no one was here.
We are about to approve an
ordinance to hand over hundreds
of acres of land and they do not even bother to show up?
That was somewhat telling to me.
to the amendment, I would say, do not vote for fiction.
All you are doing is voting for supervisor avalos'
comments when
he introduced them yesterday in committee to evade ceqa.
That is the sole intent to this ordinance.
Then bill will say, this is no longer a project.
If we vote it down, the ordinance is real.
It achieves what supervisor avalos and his supervisors wanted it to achieve.
A real discussion about golf.
You cannot do that until there is ceqa analysis. Let' s be honest about what we are trying to do.
to the amendment, I have other
comments on the issue, but to the amendment, I would vote no.
President Chiu: is there any more discussion on the amendment? There are a number of people on
the roster, by assuming they' re not going to speak on the amendment that itself -- on the amendment itself.
supervisor avalos: I was told it
did not require an environmental review it. I was subsequently told that it did. I wanted to make sure we had a process that would help us go forward with negotiations talking about options.
I have every intent of making
sure that we do whenever environmental review that we
need to do in terms of moving four.
If we go to the point of
approving changes at sharp park
that include closure, that is something I expect to happen.
It is a question about whether we can open a door or a
discussion with the national
parks service, which heretofore has not thought it worthy of having a discussion.
We have to look at this
legislation before us within the four corners of the legislation
of itself.
there is an option which is in
legislation that is one that
allows us to look at several different alternatives for how
sharp park can be programmed and to have a discussion with the national parks service.
We do not know how they will go on. Perhaps the national parks service might have other things
that want to address in those discussions and when they do happen.
President Chiu: any other
discussion on the amendment? Roll-call vote.
Supervisor kim: aye.
Supervisor mar: aye.
Supervisor mirkarimi: aye.
Supervisor wiener: aye.
Supervisor avalos: aye.
supervisor campos: aye.
President Chiu: aye.
Supervisor chu: no.
Supervisor cohen: no.
Supervisor elsbernd: no.
Supervisor farrell: no.
Clerk calvillo: there are seven aye'
s and four no' s.
President Chiu: motion passes.
Supervisor wiener: thank you.
I supported this because I believe it should rise or fall
not based on ceqa and based on the merits.
On the merits, I will be voting against this legislation.
Despite a lot of the things the
we are hearing and despite the amendments and other proposed amendments that we May hear
today, the purpose of this
legislation is clear -- to put
us firmly on a path towards
eventually having an agreement where -- an agreement with the ggnra.
I have a lot of respect for
them, but we tend to have a
serious policy disagreement with
them right now relating to
recreational access,
particularly relating to dogs.
That dispute is not anywhere near resolved.
Ggnra is still going through their process and we have a
serious dispute right here and right now as the city of county and san francisco with the ggnra.
I do not feel comfortable
putting us on a path, even if it
is a non-binding half, to give
even more land to the control of the ggnra.
I do not want to consider doing that until we have resolve our dispute with them carry it as a result, I will be voting no today.
president chiu: I want to thank all of the advocates who have been working on this issue a
writ for a number of years, I
think supervisor avalos for his advocacy and supervisor mirkarimi for his advocacy before that. This has been a long and complicated conversation.
Sharp park has been a beloved
space and golf course three we need to be careful with how we
manage a scarce open space.
That being said, I do share the
vision presented by the
legislation that would allow us
to protect the open space needs,
to protect endangered species, and recreational needs we all share. We all recognize there are numerous obstacles, not the least of which is funding.
That being said, I do plan to
support this ordinance in part because I think it allows us to
review the many options that
would otherwise not be reviewed in. That being said, I would like to
offer an amendment to allow for the continuation of a
conversation that the rec and
park department has been having with san mateo county. I think we should allow for that to continue.
It has been continuing in good faith.
So that we can 10 -- we can consider all options at the time. There is nothing in this order
and I would preclude the general manager from entering into negotiations without the third parties from the least.
Subject to the restriction on
new leases and so forth, in this agreement. My memo also states that any
such agreement should be subject to the approval of the board of supervisors so it is clear that
we could consider this if it
turns out that that conversation is fruitful.
With that, I would like to offer that amendment.
Supervisor campos: is there a second? Seconded by supervisor avalos. Is there any comment on that amendment?
Supervisor elsbernd.
supervisor elsbernd: I thank supervisor chu for trying to
thread the needle here, but not quite. Just missed.
Rec and park can continue to have the discussion with san mateo county.
After listening to the comments
of supervisor avalos yesterday, your amendment does not change the thrust of the legislation.
San mateo county and san francisco could still have those discussions with or without your language. That is not the problem.
The problem is, san francisco and san mateo county would be prohibited from entering into a
contract, not into negotiations, actually fulfilling the contract
until the nps and the city of san francisco have completely
finished all of the vetting that
needs to happen under this legislation. That is my concern.
What this does -- I have spoken to some advocates on the other
side of this who are really due respect and trust.
Where this is coming from, I truly believe it is the feeling
that the no golf option is like a seesaw.
The intent, I suppose, is to even things out.
As I read the legislation, we are just shifting the seesaw.
Now the no golf often takes party. If it is the only thing that can be considered until all of it
has been fully vetted out and it works or it doesn' t, then we
could consider the golf option.
I think your tilting the seesaw to the extreme where some of the
advocates believe it is on the other side right now.
Supervisor campos: any other comments on the motion to amend? President Chiu.
President Chiu: I would
reiterate the plain language which says there is nothing in this ordinance that prevents the general manager from entering into negotiations. If there is an agreement that is agreed upon, it is subject to the approval of this board.
We can take up an agreement at a future time. I want to make it clear that we can parallel track all these things. What has been frustrating for
many folks who have cared about division laid out in this legislation is lack of progress in that direction. That is what I' m trying to tend to with this amendment.
Supervisor campos: supervisor
elsbernd area -- supervisor elsbernd.
Supervisor elsbernd: refer back
to section b and that is my problem. It is very clear that
discussions with the nps must be complete the finalized.
We must complete wrap of all discussions before we can enter into contracts with anybody else. That is the hang up.
President Chiu: 147 concerned about is that there has been a lot of focus on discussions
between san mateo county and the department, which i appreciate. There are many close to believe that those discussions have been
happening in part to -- and have been prioritized over discussions that have other options. There is a difference of opinion on this. We will leave it at that.
Supervisor campos: can we have a roll call on the amendment?
Supervisor kim: aye.
supervisor mar: aye.
Supervisor mirkarimi: aye.
Supervisor wiener: aye.
Supervisor avalos: aye.
Supervisor campos: aye.
President Chiu: aye.
Supervisor chu: no.
Supervisor cohen: no.
Supervisor elsbernd: no.
supervisor farrell: no.
Clerk calvillo: here are seven aye'
s and four no' s.
Supervisor campos: the amendment passes.
Supervisor avalos: I want to
reiterate that was mentioned that we were giving land to the ggnra.
that is not the case with this ordinance.
We are operating sharp park under a joint management
agreement with the national parks service. It is possible to have a disagreement or dispute with the national parks service on one
area and be ok with another.
the national parks service is a huge organization. It manages parts even outside of
the boundaries of alaska and elsewhere.
It is a huge department within our federal government.
Lots of things you can agree and disagree with.
Going into negotiations, if they
ever happened, about how dolls
will be allowed access on the
sharp park land, if we ever get to that. There are lost to ways that we can go into decision making with the national parks service.
We should not preclude what we
have with the national parks service against all others.
president chiu: supervisor campos.
Supervisor campos: it has been a very good discussion. One thing that I would say is that I do believe the fact that
we disagree with the ggnra with
respect to one item does not
mean we cannot do business with them on a different item. i want to make it clear that by
supporting this measure that we
are in no way saying that we are
ok with the ggnra should there
be such an agreement.
That we support their approach
with respect to the access to recreational space by dogs.
that is something that, if we get to that point, we will have an opportunity to address that issue. Many of us here have a
disagreement on how the ggnra
has approached that subject matter.
For me, the main concern that I have and why will be supporting
this item is the financial
constraints that the department has.
The fact is, we have limited resources.
We are not want to have all of the money we want to fund all
of the recreation activities that we want to see funded.
It is important to explore
different options, different possibilities.
That is all the milly how I read the language of this resolution, that it does not necessarily mean that there will be one
specific outcome but it allows
us to pursue and export a possibility. I think that it is appropriate for us. Which is why I will be supporting this.
president chiu:
supervisor wiener.
Supervisor wiener: I want to respond to supervisor avalos.
I understand the national park service is a large organization.
As I understand it, the ggnra' s
views about dog access is not a novelist.
It reflects a broader attitude within the national parks service organization.
I know someone more senior in the parks service.
At one point, recently, they
referred to jobs as -- to dogs
as "predators."
that reflects a certain attitude.
When I say I respect the ggnra, that is true in.
They are consistent in their views about our management. But I definitely disagree.
if this legislation instructed
rec and park to evaluate as many
different or various management
options with different entities and organizations and was neutral about it, that would be one thing. But it does not do that.
It directs rec and park in one specific direction to negotiate with one particular entity.
it says, if you want to, you can also consider others.
It very much focuses on one entity. To me, that sets us on a specific road that I cannot support. Thank you.
President Chiu: any further discussion? Roll call vote.
Supervisor kim: aye.
Supervisor mar: aye.
supervisor mirkarimi: aye.
Supervisor wiener: no.
Supervisor avalos: aye.
Supervisor campos: aye.
President Chiu: aye.
Supervisor chu: no.
Supervisor cohen: no.
Supervisor elsbernd: no.
Supervisor farrell: no.
clerk calvillo: there are six aye'
s and five no' s.
President Chiu: this ordinance is passed at the first reading. Why don'
t we go to our for clot special order?
clerk calvillo: items 34-37 are
the special order items for
those for the planning
commission on September 27 to install a wireless
telecommunications --
telecommunications facility on
2041 larkin street.
Item 36 is the disapproval. Item 37 is the preparation of findings.
President Chiu: we will be considering whether or not to
approve the decision of the planning commission' s September 22 conditional youths authorization to install a
wireless telecommunications service facility consisting of
up to six panel antennas and related equipment in an existing
church as part of as -- as part of the at&t communications
network within the district at
the property located at 2041 larkin streets .
We will proceed as follows.
For up to 10 minutes, with a
presentation by the appellant, to be distributed as you see fit. Then the appellate will be
followed by up to two minutes by
the public in support of the appeal and up to 10 minutes for the planning commission.
10 minutes for the planning sponsor.
Two minutes for speakers who wish to oppose the appeal.
Three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellant. Any questions or objections to proceeding in this way?
Hearing none, why don' t we start the hearing and open it up.
I would like to invite of the appellant. If you could please approached the microphone. You will have of 210 minutes as you see fit.
>> thank you very much.
My name is kathleen courtney.
i am chair of the zoning for the
russian hill association.
We are asking you to deny the
request of at&t to put 2,000 pounds of commercial grade telecommunications equipment in
the steeple and second story of
a 100-year-old wooden church at two dozen 41 larkin street.
-- 2041 larkin st.
This appeal is not about property issues or aesthetic.
This appeal is due to the fact
that at&t has not demonstrated,
which it has to do according to
federal and court regulations, it has not demonstrated that
there is a significant gap in
coverage in this site nor has it
demonstrated that this proposed
site is the least interesting
alternative.
taking a cue from supervisor
wiener from a couple of years
ago, the russian hill community
association engaged two outside experts, independent experts. We just got bulk of their opinions in hand yesterday.
Their opinions are being circulated.
we defined independent as an
expert who does not derive
significant revenue from the telecommunications industry.
You have in front of you and
opinion by a core
communications who has provided
cell phone reviews for clark county among others.
They say there is " a dearth of
technical information needed to reach a conclusion.
Mr. Spencer offers his opinion but does not support it with technical data.
i do not find
any mention of or data supporting technical review of any potential alternative
sites to the proposed sites. The second peer review that we
engage was with consultants from san bernadine know. The performer views from
municipalities from the united states. Several in the greater bay area.
They reported that
"the packet contains insufficient and permission for a peer review.
Either there is an existence of
a meaningful gap or whether or not there could be a less intrusive means."
at&t has not submitted information that would allow any
of us to take supervisor wiener up on his suggestion to get an independent peer review.
I turn this over to my colleague. >> good afternoon.
My name is phoenix -- my name
is felix lipman.
I live in a condo behind the church.
I have been a residence as 1995 in that location.
We ask that you reject this
application by at&t for the conditional use.
At&t has not met the burden of
proof to demonstrate that there is a significant coverage gap in the area.
That is not the least alternative means available to meet better coverage. In fact, the application in
front of you contains insufficient data to demonstrate
that at&t is asking you to take
the opinions of their paid experts. Our own experts concluded there is not enough data on the record. Let me show you some specific examples.
can we switch --
President Chiu: it is coming up right now. It is upside down.
>> you cannot read upside down?
President Chiu: we can, it just takes a little longer.
>> this is the map of the area.
the circle is the proposed site.
The rectangle is the area of improved coverage.
That area has magically ground
to a much larger area with each subsequent at&t filing.
You have got to wonder about that.
Notice the yellow areas are the
least desirable residential areas.
The blue areas are the most desirable commercial areas.
Has at&t offered to find an alternative location?
According to their filings, they contacted two sites out of god
knows how many blocks and commercial properties.
Even that contact was half-
hearted with a phone call and not a formal letter.
But there is more.
Notice these three crosses.
These are existing micra sites that at&t has in the area.
downhill, and downhill, flat.
There is no technical discussion as to why these sites cannot be reconfigured to serve as a nearby area.
There is a report that says they cannot be serviced as they are.
There is no data to say why they cannot be technically reconfigured. There is more. Notice this big square.
This is a proposed macro site.
250 feet away from this location.
No mention of this in the at&t filing.
no date as to --
no data as to
why this cannot service the area in question. You have to wonder whether or
not at&t met the burden of proof
of finding the proposed location. I would say no. Let'
s talk about the proposed coverage gap. Upside-down, again.
This is the paper that at&t submitted illustrating there is a coverage gap in the area.
This little triangle is the site and this is the center of russian help.
-- hill.
you are looking at the coverage area of the wilderness.
There is so much white space, it is incredible.
People can use their phones in the middle of russian hill.
It defies convention.
It defies measurements done by residents walking around every block.
There are clear phone calls.
Not only does it defied that, it
defies the marketing materials of at&t, illustrating coverage on their website.
Let me show you those.
This is how they market the same exact area to their customers.
The dark blue indicates the best possible data coverage.
It does not matter if it is upside down, it is the same area.
The dark orange indicates the best possible worst coverage.
president chiu: you are doing
that on the at&t web site? >> yes.
You just enter in your zip code.
In fact, behind this wilderness
coverage map, there is no data to independently conclude how
this coverage gap was calculated or determined.
It is undisclosed data.
I ask you, which marketing materials do you believe? The marketing to the planning
commission or the marketing to the consumer?
I do not think you can make a conclusion because there is no data.
In fact, we have commissioned
two independent studies at our own expense to look at the
entire at&t filing and planning commission decision. Let me read you what these experts have concluded.
"there is no data supporting significant gap conclusion.
The before and after maps are not helpful to recheck conclusion.
There is insufficient data to reach a conclusion about the
coverage gap the day -- about the coverage gap."
there is no analysis in the
filing in upgrading existing microseisms to cover the area in question.
And there is no data for independent technical review,
one of the least interesting alternatives.
honorable supervisors, I ask that you vote to support the neighborhood. I asked the vote to raise the
bar by which these applications will be considered for the entire city.
I asked you reject this conditional planning application. Thank you. [Applause]
president chiu: I would like to
remind the audience that in the board chamber, we do have a rule
that we asked folks not to
applaud or to express or opposition to statements audibly.
I appreciate the use of hands.
i do have one follow-up question, before we go to the appellant.
I' m not sure if all of my colleagues have had a chance to visit this site and. Could you describe the church?
Its proximity to residential areas?
Where this equipment is being placed? Give us a little bit of a picture for where this is. >> yes.
I have a more detailed presentation on that. Let me describe it quickly.
This is in the middle of a 93% residential area.
The antenna caught -- the
antenna, while not visible, would be within 18 feet of the nearest persons bedroom.
Having lived in the neighborhood for 15-20 years, I cannot quite add up the numbers, this church is essentially a vacant building.
It is only attended four hours per week.
on a sunday.
That is it, for services. It is a completely vacant building. Imagine that. It is the only part of the
neighborhood where there is
unclean garbage and occasional police action.
it is not a comfort building
location to have the presence of this commercial equipment. Does that answer the question?
President Chiu: it does.
One of the issues that the neighbors rate is about the structural concerns of the building.
and the concerns about 2,000 pounds of equipment.
>> is a 100-year-old church.
Visually, a looks awful.
We would ask the church if it
would allow our own structural expert to look inside. We were not able to do that.
All I can say is that it is a
100-year-old building with a
history of lost permits and it is visually in disrepair. You can make your own conclusions.
President Chiu: there has been some discussion around the
building integrity.
Could you address that for a moment?
>> you can look at the pictures.
we know that there are last permits. We were not able to send in an
independent structural engineer.
It is visually and appalling structure. We are very concerned about that issue.
Supervisor wiener: as to
the structural integrity of the
building, I did raise this with the planning department and I
would ask them to address that
even with the conditional use,
at&t would have to pull a permit
from the department of building inspection and the structural issues would be in play and then.
we have this divided process between planning and building inspection. That is my opinion.
Could you address that?
>> at&t will do whatever is necessary to bring the church of tuesday.
The concern is that the church
is in an unattended building and has a certain record of presence in the neighborhood.
You can improve it one time.
The fact that it is unattended and there are access points and there is a pattern of
maintenance going for, I think it should be a serious consideration.
supervisor wiener: it seems like the core of the appeal has to do with the appellant'
s contention
that at&t has not satisfy its
burden of the gap in coverage. >> that is correct.
Supervisor wiener: we have all
seen this movie before.
one side is saying there is a gap in coverage and the other side is saying there is not.
If there were to be , as a
condition of use, a requirement
that there be an independent evaluation to determine whether
or not there is a significant
gap in coverage, is that -- with the appellant be able to support
the C.U. With that condition and live with the result that either there is or is not?
It should be independently verifiable.
If it is done by an independent reviewer, would that be
something that is -- that would
satisfy the appellant? Given that that is the core of your appeal?
President Chiu: if you could speak into the microphone. >> certainly.
My name is donald david. I would like to address that
there are actually two issues
that I was going to do in public comment. It is not only question of the
gap in coverage, but the least intrusive.
As a compromise, if there is a
truly independent entity that
will be given access to all of
the underlying data and given
the opportunity to make that evaluation, the answer to your question is yes.
Let me be clear -- an independent party, an independent entity is not
somebody who derives a substantial amount of income
from doing expert testimony for at&t.
I think that the community would
be prepared to suggest three
proposed independent parties to
at&t, and at&t could pick which one they want and pay for it.
Since the community does not do a lot of telecommunications business, we do not have a lot of people we have influence with.
we have to go with somebody --
for example, rcc, who represents other municipalities in the area.
We would be prepared to do that under the circumstances you described.
Supervisor wiener: you can imagine a bunch of different
ways -- the planning department could get someone who is
independent and could make that selection.
Assuming that we have an
independent evaluator, and if
that independent evaluator has access to the data and makes a
determination that there is -- is going to make that
determination, and the C.U.
Would be issued as on that, with the appellant be willing to
accept that knowing that if the independent evaluation comes back and says there is a significant gap in coverage,
that the cell tower would go up?
>> the evaluator needs to make the second prong.
This is a purely residential
area backed up to a commercial area.
If the evaluators scope and was
both of the prongs, the answer is yes.
Supervisor wiener: you are talking about the location being
the least intrusive as well? >> that is correct.
Supervisor wiener: I do not
think that is a technical evaluation so much as a policy evaluation. Maybe I am wrong.
>> according to the ahc
decision in san diego, that is a technical evaluation if I might suggest it to you, supervisor.
Supervisor wiener: so your view is that, even if it is undisputed that there is a significant gap in coverage, let' s assume for the sake of
argument, then the C.U. Would
still be inappropriate because
it is an inappropriate location?
>> that is not true.
It May very well be -- I will
not say very well, but it May be
possible that a determination May be made by someone who is
doing an independent evaluation with access to the information
that this is the least intrusive spot.
We are not in a position to do
that, because we do not have the information. If that determination were made
by an independent entity, and it was also made that there is a
gap, the community would be prepared to except that.
Supervisor wiener: do the appellants have a position as to whether or not this is the least intrusive? >> yes, we do.
It is clearly not the least intrusive.
For example, on polk st., at&t
is about to put up a macro site.
According to our preliminary information, it appears that
that site could be configured to
cover whatever coverage gap exists.
they have not even evaluated that macro site as part of their
current in not -- their current analysis.
Nor have they evaluated updating
the three microbe sites that they have.
They say they have hay infrastructure that is not able. That is their situation. They have not evaluated the opportunity to upgrade the existing micro sites as well as the macro sites.
We do not believe this is the least intrusive.
We think the least intrusive is the proposed macro side on polk
street and upgrading the 3 micro sites. That said, we are not the expert said.
We are prepared to accept an independent expert, as you have suggested.
Supervisor wiener: to be clear,
even if we assume a significant gap in coverage, is your current
position that this is still an inappropriate location because it is not the least intrusive? >> that is correct.
That is the two-part test from
the telecommunications act of 1996.
Supervisor wiener: the document
you distributed yesterday, does that address the least interested issue as well?
>> I do not know which documents you are referring to. If you are referring to what we
submitted, the answer is yes, it does.
If I could, it references it in
the context of the obligation of
at&t, not specifically saying -- I will take that back.
actually, it does in the
analysis which Mr. Lightner had started to go into.
You will see charts dealing with other alternative sites. The answer is yes, I think it covers that issue as well.
Quite clearly, we would prefer
to cover it in a technological fashion with an appropriate
expert, an independent party who had access to all the information.
Supervisor wiener: thank you.
President Chiu: unless there are any other questions from colleagues, why don' t we proceed to public comment by individuals who wish to speak in support of the appellant?
If people could please line up.
if you could line up on the
right hand side of the room.
why don'
t we hear from our first speaker?
Sir, you have
already -- you have spoken, but thank you.
First speaker.
Everyone has up to two minutes.
>> thank you for allowing us to come here and talk to you.
My name is lily lee.
i live on the same block past the church.
Within the 300 radius, 97% of the structures are residential,
unlike in the other places you have seen.
65 of these 67 structures are presidential.
every single building within 100 feet is residential.
This is considered as a
category seven. I will let you think about it.
340 people have signed petitions saying that they do not want an
antenna in their area.
Not just in their area, but at this site.
These people -- of these people,
70% are presidential people.
There are playgrounds here, there are a lot of people that
are very sports-minded.
They use the streets, going up and down.
They also like to feel that they can walk comfortably in their area.
This is our neighborhood and there are a lot of neighborhoods
in your area, too.
this support is not desirable and not compatible with our neighborhood. Would you please denied the
request of at&t ?
President Chiu: next speaker.
>> I have been a resident and a
homeowner in russian hill for the last 25 years.
I lived within the -- less than 100 feet from the proposed site.
One of the burdens of proof for
at&t is, according to the
law, proving that this is desirable.
We have now 340 people, 70% of the residence in the area, saying it is not desirable.
that have signed a petition against this experiment.
I questioned the desirability of this in the neighborhood.
One of the important things to look at the desirability is the condition of this building.
This is one structure, it is 100 years old.
It has had open work permits for
the last -- almost 10 years, that have never been completed or signed by this committee.
It has had no electrical work
done that is on record with the city at all.
We are proposing to install an
enormous amount of electrical charge on it.
The building is not inhabited
most of the week, only four hours per week usually.
There have been a lot of homeless people living in the front of the building.
there has been quite a bit of problems related to that.
There is no security in the
building and the equipment that will be installed there.
I urge you to please vote no on this.
President Chiu: thank you. Next speaker.
>> I am an electrical contractor.
I have been asked to comment on
the electrical safety issues of this building.
Research of the dbi database
says there is no permit history on this building except for one in 1987 that appears to have
been taken out for an overhead to underground service conversion. In the absence of any permit
history over the long -- over a long time he raises the question of the initial wiring.
Changes in the last 24 years are
thorough enough to warrant a
safety evaluation to determine
existing loads and new conditions.
Particularly, a battery room
that will operate 24-7.
It also raises the question of maintenance and changes to the electrical system.
since 1907,
these permits May be made by a lay person.
My experience is that -- I
volunteer for the center cisco catholic archdiocese.
due to budget constraints , it is
hazardous to non-qualified in sollars.
Prudence dictates denial of this request.
>> my name is chris middlestat.
We live at 1358 broadway.
I have a little bit of a
different perspective
>> I am concern that at&t as a
business is potentially putting
undue pressure against the less powerful organization.
Especially in light of the fact that there are alternative sites on polk street as has been expressed earlier that can be
used and my concern and I would urge you to reject this application by at&t for conditional use if for no other
reason protecting the citizenry when there are other
alternatives for businesses to act responsibly and not put
aside in a residential area.
-- a site in a residential area.
president chiu: thank you, next speaker.
>> I have to say my heart is pounding.
I have lived next to the church for over 20 years. My son'
s bedroom window, he is
14 years old, it is 14 feet.
We have measured it.
It is 14 feet away from the cell phone tower.
I have been to these hearings, I have been watching. I am going to attempt to explain
why this location is different.
I am going to talk to you about
the nature of the neighborhood
which is 97% residential as everyone keeps saying.
The nature of this building, the nature of security.
The building is in code enforcement right now.
It has a seismic grade.
that is why it is in code enforcement. This building this morning, we got woken up to police.
I have the badge number of the policemen.
This -- ok, sorry.
This was this morning, the police were here, arresting a
man, the homeless are often camping out there.
[Bell]
And living there. This is not a secure building.
it is occupied, unoccupied for four hours a week. We' re terrified. All the other places are occupied. This is the only one.
We ask you please just to listen
to our independent experts as well. Thank you.
President Chiu: thank you. next speaker.
>> my name is john lamb.
I lived in the neighborhood for 30 years with my wife and daughter. I have to businesses on polk street.
This is -- the church is a mess. the security and the vagrant situation there as well as the
dilapidation, I stopped three
fires in the alcoves there that vagrants were starting. It isd a
a real concern.
My daugthter -- daughter' s had when she slips is 30 feet away from this building. It is an ugly tower. Thank you.
President Chiu: thank you, next speaker.
>> good afternoon, President Chiu.
I live on russian hill.
at&t is a giant force in the
telecommunications industry.
Their capability as far and wide.
With all the technological know-
how that at&t possesses, they
cannot explain why they cannot
meet the area supposedly needed
by reconfiguring 3 micro-sites.
And one macro-site.
No serious attempt was made to
identify less harmful side.
they need to use their abilities to investigate west' s interests of alternatives.
The church at 240 larkin street is located within a residential
area, considered a category seven area.
It is the least preferred area.
the church being public domain gives easy access to at&t.
If the church were not where it
stands now, what at&t choose this area as an installation site?
This is a less preferential area. Category seven. [Bell]
At&t' s in-house engineers state,
"the gap is caused by an
obsolete and inadequate infrastructure and increased traffic."
I respectfully ask that you deny at&t' s request and respect the will of the people. Thank you very much.
President Chiu: thank you, next speaker.
>> good afternoon. I live on the same black --
block as the church. We ask you to reject at&t' s application.
Insomuch as the current application contains insufficient supporting
information to meet their burden of proof that a significant gap exists and there is no less an
-- and obtrusive need if such a need does exist. They have suggested that you
accept the opinions of their
paid experts, opinions that the experts we have retained say have no support in the record before you. Clearly the citizens of san francisco deserve more and you deserve more.
We deserve information showing that a gap exists.
You and we deserve a meaningful analysis showing that other sites zoned for commercial use were considered and white the were rejected.
At&t with its vaunted technology cannot find an alternative for dealing with its own antiquated infrastructure.
You and we deserve the trip
before we sign on onto their plan. We urge you to vote now. Thank you.
-- we urge you to vote no.
>> if you' re in.
-- good afternoon.
The data underlying their claims
will not go away.
To be truly independent, one
must have no cause to favor one side or the other.
the possibility of a consultant
being blacklisted, an industry that is comprised of a few major
corporations is sufficient to
comprise the -- compromise the integrity of the process. Think for a moment.
If you were consulting a doctor
about a condition, would you feel comfortable seeing one who
shills for a particular company ?
Would you prefer someone with no such affiliation? O2 if there isn' t independent evaluation of the underlying
I am here to ask you to deny the installation of the cell towers
-- antennas at 41 larkin street. Given the fact the group has
presented you credible experts'
opinion why at&t should not
install it in this particular location. Thank you.
President Chiu: thank you, next speaker.
>> I wish to make a few comments
regarding the construction of the church or mentioning.
What I called an arc
in previous comments to the board.
the city invited representatives for an
accounting in front of the world health organization. In another city the birth of christ was be held. Sunshine ordinance.
I included this packet of information I am going to give
you from the san francisco public library. The last thing I would like to do is read the bar code.
Something I created with the help of others.
It is the english alphabet , a
list of english characters and 26 empty boxes.
a califon, b byrd, sea cat, the
dog, e egg, f fish, g God, h h
heaven, I insect,
l lion, m
metal, omega o, p papyrus, q
queen, r reptile.
U union, v vegetation, w word,
x, y yeast.
zed, .
Thank you for your time.
President Chiu: thank you, next speaker.
>>
electricity in my lark captioned by the national captioning institute -- www.Ncicap.Org --
captioned by the national captioning institute -- www.Ncicap
electricity there will be even when we' re gone
and is about electricity, in larkin.
Forever
forever there will be larkin street
electricity
President Chiu: thank you, next speaker.
Any other members wish to speak in support of the appellant?
Seeing none,, at this time where
do we go to the planning department. >> the evening.
-- good evening.
I am joined by the project planner.
This is a condition use
authorization for wireless telecommunication facility. At 2041 larkin street.
I will cover for topics. The project description.
The most preferred site in san francisco. The city process.
Including how these preference locations were determined and
the finding specific to this case and why they found it desirable and compatible. Let' s discuss the project.
This is required to install the wts.
We have six panel antennas that
are installed within a sepal.
These would be put in a steeple
with -- by removing the existing
screens and replacing them with radiofrequency transparent screens that would not -- with
an additional equipment that
would be installed that is not visible to the public.
That is the wtf project.
This is a preference one location.
The city has preferred location types.
this is the most highly preferred site.
Public facilities by the most favored site and occur in every neighborhood.
They give the opportunity for a cell phone reception.
Also the appearance of these sites are infrastructure related.
they are most often compatible .
This is not helpful pulled elvis
discovered -- this was discovered.
This is identified as a
preferred site for establishing self-service in the residential district.
antennas have been reviewed in this location for 15 years. Under the city' s adopted policy,
this site is where cell phone providers. Let' s review the process that determined this site should be a preferred location. The department and commission
has had guidance in the installation of wireless facilities. In 1996, the board passed a resolution which provided input
on locating wtf facilities.
Public and institutional settings in the city should be
our top preference for wts facilities as they are least likely to be visually disruptive.
This board resolution did seek further clarification on some of
the lesser preference sides and in response in August of that
year, the commission updated
their guidelines and updated them again in 2003. The guidelines contained not only location preferences but
also mandate when outrage meetings and site analysis are
required and they require these the middle of facility plans that must be either -- updated.
That is the process that led to
this site being the highest preferred site.
Other procedural review for
facilities include the aesthetic review by our department and
health review by the ph.
When it comes to guidelines,
they will be not visible.
That is what has happened here.
The antennas are screened and not discernible by the public.
the appellant stated -- [No audio]
When it comes to the
health, limits were established. I will not go into this in detail.
we have a city process which I have described before. The appellant stated they are
not appealing these antennas due to health concerns. I will not review that unless requested by the board.
Between the existing federal
laws and regulations in the guidelines put in place by the
board and commission, review is largely limited to aesthetic concerns.
In addition, the project was
satisfied sections 3 -- must
satisfy section three.
It is compatible with the neighborhood. That is the process these facilities go through. Let' s look at the fourth topic.
In this instance, why did the
commission find this project to be appropriate?
In this case they met all the commissions criteria.
Looking at desirability and compatibility, it is important to upgrade the infrastructure to keep up with changing technology.
On the location, this was the number one most preferred site in the city.
When it comes to siting, the
antenna is indoors, not visible
from the public right-of-way. The commission found it to be compatible.
In the case of necessity, there are two criteria at play. Coverage and capacity.
In this case, at&t has
reported the coverage gap in this area especially inside the building. The planning commission
considered information project -- provided by the project
sponsor and by the appellant and
found evidence, fighting there
was a gap in coverage to be compelling.
On the capacity issue, the
project sponsor of describe their capacity exceeding
expectations. The commission found it is necessary for san francisco to
have adequate capacity and the commission found this proposed facility would fill gaps in coverage in the russian hill neighborhood and would provide necessary facilities for emergency transmissions in this area.
lastly, the project was determined not to be detrimental to health, safety, or convenience. The department of public health found that would emit a radiofrequency that is well
below fcc regulations.
The exposure would be 2.9% of the allowable fcc limit.
you
have questions, the hearing
is not the appropriate venue.
This is to consider if the
existing city law guidelines were properly administered in the authorization.
in this case with the project cited in the most preferred
location, and the project that meets all the criteria outlined in the guidelines and the planning code, the project is
approved by the planning commission. Assets the department respectfully requests the board
of polled its conditional use authorization. I am available for questions.
President Chiu: I have a couple of starter questions. The appellant in their
presentation showed a map that the project sponsor laid out which suggests that there is a
lot of coverage gaps, making it
look like certain parts of brant
county as opposed to san francisco.
if you go to the website it suggests that there is excellent coverage in the neighborhood we' re talking about.
How do you resolve the discrepancy? >> in consultation with the planner, that information about at&t'
s coverage from their rooms I was not presented.
President Chiu: if you go to the corporate web site, it says
that the coverage is the best coverage possible.
Should that affect our decision?
>> I suggest to use that in evidence in your decision.
President Chiu: the neighborhood association was not able to put
together the resources to bring
the experts testimony they submitted today. How should we consider that?
>> can you restate that? >>
President Chiu: we have
testimony from two experts and analyze data and found it inconclusive whether there is a service gap. How should we consider this? is this evidence we should consider in our decision? >> yes. That is additional evidence that was not presented to the planning commission and is before this body for your consideration.
President Chiu: how should we consider the issues around structural building integrity and the bacon aspects of the building? There have been some code
enforcement issues and police
activity in a mostly vacant building. How should we consider those issues?
>> the structural issues were discussed. There is an ongoing dispute between the neighbors and the church. We'
re not aware of any active planning code violations or complaints. The complaints that have been
listed in evidence presented were complaints to the department of building inspection and complaints about
implementation of their code.
We have researched those because there was evidence it was raised.
The majority of those cases are closed.
There were some cases that were
not closed and where dbi have sent letters out to the project sponsors.
in this case, when dbi sends
these notices, they send notices
to verify allegations. The fact the notices were sent
this not necessarily indicate there were actual violations.
We have consulted with the deputy director in charge of enforcement.
he has said that there are no active enforcement cases or
problems that dbi is aware of.
President Chiu: are you confident the wait is sustainable?
>> that is outside of my
authority or the commission' s authority. It is a land use entitlement and the structural issues would be
investigated by dbi subsequent
to the board of holding the cu.
President Chiu: you' re saying that decision is for the future but not one that has been evaluated yet.
>> it is not authorized -- relevant to the authorization or the birth -- building permit.
president chiu: thank you.
Supervisor avalos:
do you think
the information that President
Chiu pointed to, if that evidence had been presented, there would have been a different outcome?
>> I could not speculate on the commission' s outcome if
additional evidence were provided.
Supervisor avalos:.
Staff make up -- did staff make a recommendation?
>> we found this compelling. We found at&t'
s evidence compelling. The commission acted by that by
authorizing with a 6-0 vote.
There was one commissioner absent. All the commissioners found evidence to be compelling.
Supervisor avalos: would staff recommendation change in the light of the evidence we have on the website?
>> I would like to hear the project sponsors but I am -- I
am not sure my import -- opinion is that important.
There is still evidence to be presented tonight.
Supervisor avalos: you could
consider that evidence relevant? >> I personally am interested in the project sponsor' s response.
Supervisor avalos: sorry. Thank you.
Supervisor
wiener: thank you. I want to raise the same issue I raised with the appellant.
That is one of the really
frustrating parts of these appeals. Supervisor cohen raised the issue a couple weeks ago.
It is a he-
said she-said thing.
There is a gap in coverage.
Our expert says this and their expert says that.
do we have it within our power
to require an independent evaluation that would basically
say
based on the deck, there is a significant gap in coverage or there is not.
we will rely on what an
independents evaluator says.
>> you as a body could with a
two-thirds vote overturned the planning commission' s decision to approve and with a subsequent
vote be able to authorize and
nail -- a new cu.
If there are outstanding
issues, it can require additional modifications to determine -- be determined by staff.
If it meets whatever they said at the outcome, then we do issue a cu.
Supervisor wiener: we could have an independent evaluation
based on the data.
President Chiu: thank you.
Why do we hear from the project sponsor -- don'
t we hear from the project sponsor?
>> that afternoon.
-- good afternoon.
I am joined today by gordon
spencer, who is our
radiofrequency engineer for at&t mobility. I am also joined by bill
hammond, a licensed professional engineer with the city california whose firm conducted
the radiofrequency testing and
prepare the reports that are part of your package.
At&t was granted a conditional
use permit to place and new six
panel wireless facility at 2041 larkin street which is known as church of the fellowship of all peoples. The panel antennas will be
placed inside the church. There are 50 pounds each. For a total of 300 pounds.
The necessary equipment will be housed in a room on the second
floor outside of the public view. Under the city' s wireless
telecommunication services, this
is a preference one location.
It is a preferred structure, it is a public structure located
within an fh 3 zoning district.
-- rh 3
sunning district.
We looked at 23 different sites in the corresponding area.
This was the only preference one location to serve the residents of this area.
The subject location is the least intrusive means by which at&t mobility can close the
existing significant servers coverage gap in the area.
A gap that is caused in part by the demand from at&t customers
for mobile data usage in the area.
President Chiu: could you
address the issue that we' re wondering about, your own marketing materials and how that does not jibe with what you have
laid out in front of planning? >> certainly.
Wet they are referring to , I have not seen it. I think they' re referring to is our consumer website. There is a big difference
between coverage and capacity. What they' re looking at and what they' re referencing is coverage in the area.
On our five-year plan which i have that we submit every six months to the planning department which looks at our
projections for five years where we are placing new sites, where we will be upgrading existing
sites, this is an upgrade to an existing antenna.
They create 360 degrees. We have a lot of antennas in the area.
the coverage is showing good coverage.
The problem is, the way that we
direct the signals on the
antennas are very difficult to direct signals which is why we' re replacing them and
upgrading them for panel antennas.
on the antennas -- these are 4g
lte generation.
This is where the devices are going.
When you try to use a 4g phone
on a 2g network you run into problems. This is a capacity issue.
there are qadry adds that the appellants May have missed. Because it does depend on
different types -- times of the day and what is being run over that network. And there is a lot of varying factors that I am sure have, gets on that website.
i present a coverage vs.
Capacity issue. When we talk about capacity we
are talking about the number of people on the network, we' re talking about what is being
downloaded, everything from
checking your muni stop to win
the next bus will come or
downloading netflix or live streaming tv.
Everything a customer happens to be downloading at the time they are on the network.
>> I am still confused in part
because the at&t coverage area you' re talking about does refer
to 4g data, and you seem to have coverage. The document you submitted to planning that talks about the gaps in coverage refer to
coverage, not to capacity.
This coverage capacity section I am trying to understand.
>> ok, so. I' m looking for the question.
President Chiu: you' re
suggesting there is a capacity
vs. Coverage capacity -- difference.
That is what your marketing materials referred to. >> we have coverage.
We have six to eight omni
antennas within this circle. We had an independent third- party go out and do a study.
based on their own data, nothing
obtained from us and look at the interference that is being caused by the antennas.
When you go out you will have four or five bars.
Because of the antennas are
shooting signals.
You have eight different antennas shooting signals 360 degrees.
Panel antennas focus the energy, send it toward the horizon and
are able to place those signals where they need to go as opposed
to sporadically shooting them in the area.
You are going to have five bars in the area because there are these antennas shooting.
There is -- when you get , when you pick up a call on broadway
and get down to lombard street, the antenna is picking up your signal. When you get to the lombard street and you are out of the
signal coverage area, the neck sant' anna does not know where to
pick you up because you are supposed to be bouncing from antenna to a antenna which is what these antennas allow us to do which is where we' re upgrading.
It is a much better use,
directed use of our frequency
than having our signals emitted
by an 360 degrees directional.
President Chiu: ok.
I appreciate your trying to create a distinction. If I am the consumer going to your web site, it seems to me
that there is a lot of good coverage in this neighborhood, right? There' s nothing that indicates you do not have capacity or coverage.
either the marketing materials are different from what you' re
saying to planning or there is some discrepancy.
Do not see where we' re going?
>> the maps we submitted to the
planning department, they talk
about demand and high usage periods.
They' re looking at a signal to noise ratio. Not just coverage. >> it says coverage during high demand periods.
We are comparing apples to apples, right?
>> the map, no. There not apples to apples. the maps on the website are pure coverage.
There are disclaimers on that
map as well that is explained as coverage under optimal conditions. The maps we submitted our
showing coverage given the level of demand from the users who are trying to use it in that area.
At a particular time of day. we made a distinction between
high demand periods and low demand periods. We' re looking at apples and oranges.
The maps we submitted show you the capacity constraints as well
as the coverage issues.
President Chiu: I do not want to belabor this point.
Folks understand the point I am making. from your marketing materials it seems like he did not have
coverage materials. It seems to have many alleged coverage issues and this is what is confusing to us.
>> we have a capacity related coverage issue.
We brought bill
hammond to do analysis so we could give you
the information separate and
independent from anything in our systems and the best way to solve this is to have him come
up and explain what tests he did and what he found. Would that be helpful?
President Chiu: sure. >> ok.
>> good afternoon, supervisors.
My name is bill hammett' .
I manage a firm of 17.
Our clients include at&t and
their competitors, landlords, and engineers.
this is to look at what is the effect, what is the impact, what
is available in a network?
We do not do network design, we do not designed the
the cell sites.
We looked at the package as well like the other experts said.
At&t nor other carriers tend to
want to divulge their own performance data.
Unlike the other experts, we went out and took measurements to see what is going on out there.
We wanted to determine, is there a service problem in that area?
where we started was the same
maps that you'
re talking about in the application materials from at&t. This one is the before condition.
It is talking about service at
the peak time and it also has another one for after.
What we did is we overlaid this
to in order to define the area
where the proposed upgrade of
the micro-s
cell, the area
where that is supposed to based on at&t'
s material show an improvement in service.
We used a telephone that includes software that ericsson
developed and has put out by the company. And drove the area. We visited the area three different times.
the first time was on
wednesday, November 30 from 6:40 P.M. To 8:00 P.M..
What we did is we went to dozens
of locations in this area that
takes -- to take spot measurements and determine what is the service there.
there was adequate signal, getting four or five bars but the performance was bad because
of the signal to noise ratio.
There is too much other
activity in the band that causes
the phones to not pick up the signal and decoded. We returned at what we thought
would be a lower
r period
of activity.
Finding the same kind of thing
but there was a lot of traffic. We went back on sunday morning
at 5:30 A.M. In order to examine when we could find the least amount of activity. What we found is there were a
number of different signals in
this area. When you pulled the phone and look at it, it is picking up
sources from a lot of other
sites, not just one or two that it wants to catch but it has a
lot of them and they are equal signal levels. What this does is creates
interference in the phone. It looks like knows -- the noise to the phone and phone cannot
pick out the signal in needs to monitor.
The design, you might have to
strong signal so it could handoff.
When you have four or five, four
or more signals, it is a known
thing in the industry. you can read technical papers on it.
This causes pilot pollution. That is what we find in this area. Many locations suffer from this.
The service is not provided in this area because of that phenomenon. So many different sides.
We found 13 different sources when we went through this area. These are the sites that were mentioned.
A couple of major sites further
down fast -- a van ness -- down van ness.
supervisor avalos:
cam
pos: I understand the capacity issues you have identified. The capacity related coverage
issues you have identified and
expert talked about pilot pollution. I understand the explanation as
to why would you presented to planning was presented the way it was.
Is there -- do you provide that to consumers?
Any potential customer of at&t, do you let them know about the
capacity related coverage issues you talked about?
>> to my knowledge, I do not know exactly how that is explain to customers. I am not on the retail side of the business.
I can say that every time a site is upgraded or moved, it
changes the capacity of that site.
i do not know exactly how that is communicated to customers,
but I am happy to find out and see if there is a difference
between how capacity and coverage if that is your question is communicated to customers throughout the city.
Every time we do significant upgrades, we do have our
corporate communications who do issue some releases talking
about coverage and capacity.
I do not know when you walk into a retail store how that is presented to a customer.
>> to the extent that there is a
question about the evidence, the new evidence that was talked
about, you have an explanation as to why notwithstanding that new evidence of what is on the
website, why you nonetheless feel that the information that was provided to planning was accurate.
I think that position would be bolstered as
if you could point to additional information that you provide consumers so that they are aware of what they are
buying when they are buying something from at&t.
I think it would be relevant to
this discussion to know if you
can point to specific information that is provided to
consumers and potential
customers about the coverage related issues that you pointed
out that relate to capacity.
Is anyone of your experts here,
anyone here, can they point to specific information?
you either provide that information or you do not.
>> provide that to our customers?
Supervisor campos: yes.
>> I can find out how that information is communicated. each time that we do go through and of great, how that is communicated as well.
Supervisor campos: if I May follow up to your expert.
Thank you. In reviewing the documentation related to this case, have you ever been given any information
about -- that shows that at&t
provides the type of coverage
related information that has been discussed here to their customers?
>> I would have no way of
knowing how that is developed.
we are called in to do one assessment.
>> has any such information been
given to you by at&t?
>> no information like that has been given.
Supervisor campos: thank you.
President Chiu: any other questions?
I know there is time on the clock. if you want to continue with your presentation.
Supervisor wiener.
Supervisor wiener: thank you . I want to ask similar questions
that I asked to the appellant and the planning staff.
That is having an independent
evaluation, an evaluator selected by the planning department based on getting input from both sides and
selecting an evaluator and
having that evaluator -- do an
actual evaluation .
either there is or is not a significant gap in coverage and making that part of the cu.
I would ask at&t ' s response. >> is that the condition to approval today?
>> I think we have two things we would request.
That is a professional license registered engineer with the
state of california and they are willing to sign nondisclosure.
>> those are reasonable things.
Assuming that, .
President Chiu: would like to continue with your presentation?
I interrupted you a number of times.
>> I think
if the board is ok
with that, at&t would be ok with it. I want to point out a couple of things.
We talked about enough of the
five bars and what it means.
initiating a call and being able to hold onto it even though you have five cars.
The structural integrity I think
we have addressed.
There are pounds of equipment going into the steeple.
The equipment will be housed in
the second floor room.
and -- let' s
see what else we had in here.
I think ann marie address the engineering analysis and it was within the fcc limit. [Bell]
and that we feel the proposed
equipment complies with the standards for review and is consistent with the san francisco general plan which supports development of
technology infrastructure and
the growth of emerging telecommunications industries. It is our -- consistent with our plan.
It is least intrusive means by
which at&t can fill the gap. Thank you.
President Chiu: any additional questions to the project sponsor? Why don'
t I ask if there
are -- is public comment.
Seeing none, why don'
t we call the appellant for a bottle of up to three minutes.
>> excuse me one moment, if you would.
hello again. I would like to address first
specific issues raised by President Jury
chui and I
would like to present our perspective.
President Chiu
as the question
that planning was told the police had no problems, there were no violations. I would give you a report which is in front of you now.
Which in fact is the direction by the department of buildings that indicates that this
project as of November 29 was I and code enforcement.
Further, as of November 29, you will see that there were violations on the building.
I do not know what the
checklist -- I can tell you that our checking indicates that
information is fallacious.
Let me turn to the heart of the
problem that we have as residents of this area.
That problem is much of the information that you have been told by Mr. Hav
mmett and at&t was not subject to review. The planning commission cannot.
At&t does not revealed the information. and in fact you heard for
example Mr. Hammett tell you they did a study by November 30.
By November 30 it was out of the planning commission and was about to come to you.
That was not part of his initial analysis. If I could with all due
deference to Mr. Hammett, his
company derives a substantial amount of money by representing at&t.
You will understand that I appreciate his integrity, there is a concern that perhaps an independent party might come to a different conclusion.
In fact, in the case of lookout
mountain in colorado, his firm had exactly that problem.
The fcc received information from his firm concerning a radio antenna.
When the
fcc would not to check
it, the reported it was in
compliance they found out it was not.
At the same time as his firm
producing airport, they told the
city in look out exactly the opposite.
it is not that they are not telling the truth. It is that there needs to be
independent verification and there is not.
The burden is upon at&t and even
by what Mr. Hammett said, .
President Chiu: if I could ask
you to follow up your comments, explaining what happened even if that was true.
>> what is even if?
President Chiu: I would like you to finish your sentence.
>> my sense is simple.
The fact of the matter is, you
represent the people of san francisco. all the people of san francisco.
If at&t comes to you and asks for something, you should ask them to prove what they say.
Even their own expert says that
the material they submitted does not prove it. There is some hidden package someplace that does.
That is not the way democracy is supposed to work. Thank you.
president chiu: thank you.
Colleagues, any questions to the appellant? Any questions to any of the
parties that we heard from in today' s hearing?
Ok?
Seeing none, this hearing has
been held and closed. This matter is in the hands of the board.
ladies and
gentlemen, thank you
for engaging in this hearing. For many members of the public and thus, we have been
frustrated over the course of these issues that continue to rise in front of the board.
This is one -- why when I had any -- meeting with the
neighbors, I had specifically said that it is important to make sure we were not addressing issues of aesthetics, property values, health, etc..
and knowing what the standard is
and with the high standard for
us here, I wanted to make sure
this appeal addressed different
and more fact based scenarios. I have to say and it is no
surprise to you, colleagues, what we have heard from the appellants with regard to the fact they have brought an this is different from any appeals we
have had two experts who
challenged if there is enough
data to suggest that this ought to be appropriate for me, they' re marketing materials that seem to conflict with the testimony provided by the
project sponsor, it at the planning commission, to me, these are reasons that I would
consider in a reversal of the certification. Given the high threshold of what that would take, I am not sure that we would have consensus
with eight votes that we should do this. I do gather from supervisor
wiener that there might be some interest in imposing additional
conditions, to potentially disapprove the planning commission' s decision but
approve the project with additional conditions. I would like to ask if there is a motion you would like to make
in this arena to address what we have heard today.
Supervisor wiener: thank you.
Yes, I won'
t repeat everything I said before.
It is frustrating for a lot of
us to hear the swearing contests
about whether there is or is not enough coverage. I believe that we should
require, there should be an
independent evaluation of at&t' s
underlying did it with a confidentiality agreement. Someone selected by the planning department who is I independent.
And who would then be a condition and if there is a significant gap in coverage or
is not, either at&t' s conclusions are accurate or not.
i have distributed an additional condition to my colleagues and I have given it to the parties.
It would add the following conditions.
Uses authorized as long as an independent evaluator selected by the planning department with input from the party' s determines that the information
and conclusion submitted by
at&t in support of its request for a conditional use are accurate. At&t show corporate with the evaluator.
At&t shall provide data to allow
the value and to verify that the
map data and conclusions about service covered submitted by at&t are accurate.
at&t share -- shall bear all costs of the evaluation.
The evaluator shall keep the
submitted data confidentiality -- confidential and sign an agreement. The independent evaluator should
be a professional engineer, licensed by the state of california.
and so my motion would be
basically to amend the cu and approve as amended which would
be tabling item 35, amending item 36 to include what I just
read and moving item 36 as amended and moving item 37.
Moshin by supervisor wiener, seconded by supervisor farrell.
>> supervisor kim, aye
, aye.
Supervisor mar, no.
Supervisor mirkarimi, no.
Supervisor wiener, aye.
Supervisor avalos, no.
Supervisor campos, aye.
president chiu, aye.
Supervisor chu, aye.
Supervisor cohen, aye. Supervisor elsbernd. Aye. Supervisor of the pharaoh.
-- supervisor farrell, aye.
>> the motion passes.
President Chiu: thank you. That concludes today' s hearing.
Why don' t we
proceed to our next 4:00 P.M. Social order.
>> items 38 through 41.
Comprising a special order .
Approving a tentative personal
map.
The motion approving the
tentative personal map and item
40 is the motion disapproving.
Item 41 is the -- directing the preparation of findings.
President Chiu: we have an
appeal of the tentative parcel
map at 1138-1140 page street.
this is -- the way
we will
proceed is here from the appellant who will have 10 minutes to describe the grounds for the appeal.
And each individual shall have up to two minutes to present. We will hear from representatives of the department of public works and the planning brett will have up to tenants to describe the
decision to approve the map.
Following the presentations we will hear from the party of interest. We will have 10 minutes to
present and we will half person speaking at the appellant will
have up to three minutes for a rebuttal argument.
are there any objections to proceeding in this way?
Seeing none, why do we not hear from the appellant? You have up to 10 minutes.
>> good afternoon.
I am
r representing page group llc.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity.
My appeal is primarily based on
the fact that the 1138-1140 page
is not a single family dwelling and should not be allowed to
bypass the normal condominium commercial process.
If I can direct your attention
to document number one submitted
by me on November 30, 2011, please take a look at exhibit 1.
currently using
occupancy dated January 7, 2009.
Signed by Mr. Sweeney.
Two family dwellings.
which is indicated in the middle.
On the left column, under
department name, you can go
below to the description.
On that box, the property profile.
Under that box, the property card.
And on the right side, simcox,
under the description -- the same box, under the description.
Only of the original department
to let it is considered to be a
store and a family dwelling. One family dwelling. I would like to direct your
attention to exhibit 2 which is identical documents of the
current authorized use/occupancy
which has been devised November
19, 2009, signed by Mr. Sweeney
to be one family dwelling and one commercial.
The revision is based on the
address and description on the original water department.
Now if you go to the next three pages. Documents of the application for service installation by the
original owner of 1138-1140 page street.
this is 191 0.
This is a single family and one store.
It is 101 years old.
service agreement indicates based on the application for
service by current owner of 1140
page street, llc, permit
application 200911
430376, on this form, they confirm the
number of dwelling units on the premises to be two.
It appears that the property is
a single-family home based on
the original 100 years old owner application. I would like to bring your attention to this.
This is the application and
number 2009-1103.
it is signed by the owner of the project.
The
builders alterations on 11/3/09.
On the left side box, the number
of the dwelling is indicated at
two by Mr. Cassidy himself.
it is also very important that I
bring this to your attention
that the client authorized this
after the filing of this application.
The revision was on the 2009.
Moving forward to the next page
should, I obtained this from the
dbi on November
29, 2011.
Based on the application, the number of the dwelling is determined to be two.
Proposed as four.
It seems that they have changed
the current authorized use in
this exhibit im2 after he filed his permit in 2009.
this confirms that the document you should be two documents
relying on the city and county documents.
this is just a confirmation. Please go to exhibit four.
The multiple listing services of
san francisco dated 11/27/011.
The top right corner, and this is indicated April 3, 2009.
Below the picture on the right
side, the property is two units.
You can now go to the next page under zoning.
The number of units is two.
Moving below that, on the left
side it says 2
flats, 2 stories.
This indicates one-bedroom, one bath.
Under that is a unit two.
the property record indicates 2 flats.
Moving to the next page to the
property detailed records, the
last recorded current sale of
the property is January 25, 2011.
Under characteristics, this
property is reported to universal land use as a duplex.
Right below that, the county use
code.
Moving to exhibit 5 is an email
to me on November 28, 2011.
This is confirming my telephone conversation where he said that
after he reviewed the file, he
determined that they dpw is
determining the condo based on a single-family dwelling.
The current authorized use of
this project is two dwellings.
Therefore, this is not a
conversion where there are two
existing spots, which I have provided proof to you.
i have provided several official documents of the city and county
of san francisco which reports as two dwellings.
It is subject to condominium ordinances.
Please move to exhibits sex.
i have attached a lever --
letter of determination by scott sanchez.
This
is a property located on
the 1372-13 union street.
It is a similar case where the
project was rejected for the new
construction condominium because it was not a single family dwelling where units have been added.
I believe I have enough adages for you today.
I have established this through current authorization use of the
occupancy of 1138 to be two dwellings and not a single- family home. >> thank you.
Colleagues, any questions for the appellant?
At this time, why do we not hear from members of the public who
wish to speak in support of the appellant.
if you could please step up to the microphone.
>> you found this just in time.
You found it just in time
my bridges all were crossed
no where to go
now your map is here and I know just where I am going
no more doube
t and fear.
your map came just in time
I found my way today
>> any other members of the public who would wish to speak
on behalf of the appellant?
why do we not now hear from the city departments. You have up to 10 minutes.
>> good evening, supervisors.
The city and county surveyor.
this is an application we
received in June, 2011.
We' d been the application submitted a ball.
We receive permitting approval on October 27.
We granted tentative map
approval on October 31.
we are treating this as a new construction project.
The information that we have that has been provided for us by
the applicant and confirmed by the department of building inspection is that there is a
commercial unit, a single-family
residence, and the applicant
was adding two additional residences.
The commercial unit is not subject to the condominium legislation and single-family residence.
This fell within our purview.
>> emily rogers from the planning department.
It is important to understand the terminology is used in this appeal.
Two units,
but only one residential.
Planning departments can be
granted to single-family dwelling units.
Even if there is a commercial unit available.
The proposal to the site
included physical editions, the removal of the existing unit.
and the addition of three new dwelling units.
The result would be four-story construction with three new units.
You can see I put this on the overhead. The project site is with the x on it.
I put this map up
because it
is important to understand the context.
This has an important mix of styles.
The appellant is a four-story, 12-unit building.
This is a three-story, six-unit building. There were two planning issues.
they asked whether this property was properly analyzed for environmental impact.
In this case, they apply for
ceqa twice and had applied both times to be exempt from environmental review.
The project was exempt from
environmental review under class one and ceqa guidelines.
The did -- planning department
letter signed November 21 of this year.
The same determination was made
under the building permit
applications which included three residential units in a single-family dwelling.
this was in preparation for the
dr hearing, which was never called.
The proper terminology on the
proper unit on the existing building.
The appellant contends that the
partial map approval is based
on the four newly constructed dwelling units.
This is the approval of three units to the existing family dwelling.
The categorization of the
project as four-unit construction is correct.
it involves terminology that is unique.
Adding new dwelling units to an
existing family dwellings is -- would exempt the project from
the condo lottery.
The existing bolling new debt and the newly created dwelling
units would be considered condominiums. That concludes the planning department presentation.
Is there any question?
>> colleagues, any questions to department staff? Ok.
Why do we not go to the project sponsor?
>> supervisors, in good evening.
Speaking on behalf of the project sponsor.
based on the staff presentation, this was constructed as a single-family.
The only permit history was based in 1936. It just said one flat.
The store was never legally converted to residential. It is a single family with a store.
The bulletin issued on March 5,
2007 by the planning department.
This is consistent with that and
cannot mapped as a
4-unit building.
The case submitted is relevant.
That is clearly a two-unit building ab.
Ased on the testimony of
everybody here today, this is
clearly not a two-unit building. thank you.
>> colleagues, any questions to the project sponsor? Why do we not hear from members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the project sponsor.
>> supervisors, I am hear from the builders association.
i am here to support the approval of the building of the parcel map.
There has not spent any reason
not to approve any such parcel map.
The real reason for this appeal
is just another act of betrayal by the appellant.
The appellant and initially
filed the D.R. Against the project.
The builder and the appellant began negotiating the terms.
The appellant hired a lawyer.
The lawyer drafted a settlement agreement.
Just when we were getting ready
to sign the settlement agreement, there was a new issue.
a new issue to the tune of
$7,500 in cash.
They incorporated this cash
payment into the agreement and
executed the agreement, despite the stench.
The appellant and allow the project sponsored to make the
revisions, allowed the planning department to approve those
revisions, and then went and
filed an appeal despite what it says in the second to last paragraph that she would not appeal.
We have all heard the phrase
that everybody deserves their day in court.
i completely agree with that.
Housing is a very complicated process.
There is no room for individuals
who cannot live up to the spirit and the technical aspects of their own written agreement.
>> any other members of the public wish to speak on public comment?
why do we not hear back from the appellant? You have up to three minutes for rebuttal.
If you could
please speaking to the microphone? >> my name is maria.
I am an attorney in the city and
county of san francisco.
I am not formally representing him.
I have known him for 30 years.
She does not need $7,500. let' s just make that clear.
In regard to this situation ,
after reviewing the documents myself, I can honestly say that
I would not be able to come to it -- to the conclusion that
this is not a two-unit residential building.
the last time the building was
occupied, there were two flats
and two different families living in the flats.
The building was categorized as a residential or a flat with a
commercial unit back in 1901
when the regional owner applied
with the water company that is no longer in existence.
If this building is a residential unit with a
commercial flat, why is every document that they have
presented to the board of
supervisors indicated that it is two flats.
example one, the current authorized use occupancy.
Manager of the building inspection department, the
allstate that is to flats . You'
ll see that the permit was
filed on November 3, 2009.
and the applicant who noted
himself and the number of units , it was too.
That application was filled out
from
-- this is another copy of the current authorized use occupancy.
You concede that on November 19,
2009, after the permit was
filed, the occupancy authorize
use was changed to a family dwelling in commercial.
The building has not been one
family and commercial for more than 50 years.
It is ridiculous for anyone to stand here and say that this building is one family and commercial.
All she is saying, why is this
particular contractor -- [Chime]
>> thank you.
Any questions?
supervisor mirkarimi: first of
all, I don' t have any questions for you.
This is in our district, but there was no work done by the office. We' re coming at this in the same speed and the climate that you all are.
i am going to ask the planning department, can you sort of
recap where there is potential disagreement on this question of
there being skirting of the
condo conversion process?
>> in this case, the appellant
is claiming that there are two residential units, that there
were two at this location that
were authorized an official residential units. You' d need to go through the subdivision cut to make changes to those residential units.
there are two units in the
building, but the official document as to what type of unit
and the report, there is one
commercial unit and 1 residential units.
Hull is with one residential units are not required to go through the lottery.
>> of the assertion that we are
talking about the original or
initial intent, it suggests human it' s the somehow evolve to four units. Can you speak to that?
>> they should probably speak to that document.
>> with new units added to the
existing single-family residence and a single commercial.
>> to new units on top of the two that are identified? Four in total?
>> correct.
>> to be identified -- did the application identified for units?
>> the application was for four units.
>> of the assertion was that it
was checked off as two.
is there consistency with it being designated for four units? >> yes.
>> any other questions.
>> in this matter is in the hands of the board.
>> I will leave this up to the board.
in this case, typically what as routine is that there would be
some question okhotsk in discussion with all parties or negotiation. That did not take place.
I think it is a potential missed
opportunity, but I am not hearing the potential of their
being there for a grievance in a way that we gave to these particular appeals.
>> I agree with you, supervisor.
i will make the motion to
approve items 39 and cable items of 40 and 41.
>> seconded. Can you call the roll on the motion?
[Roll call vote]
>> there are 11 ayes.
>> the motion is approved and the tentative parcel map is approved.
Why don' t we go to roll call.
>> I just have one in the morning and today.
Colleagues, I would like to adjourn today' s meeting the in
the memory of richard kelly.
On thanksgiving night, we lost a great man and a native son of our city.
he was
son of italian immigrant parents. He attended the marina middle school.
He served in the U.S. Army as
lieutenant in the transportation corps and lived in the marina for nearly 30 years.
He was an amazing father to six children and husband to his great wife, barbara.
he was a self-made man, found that the number of companies in
town not to mention the cafe on chestnut street as well as his
family running the restaurant at the flower market.
Among many other things, he was known for his passion and commitment to the university of san francisco.
He received a full athletic baseball scholarship to go to school there.
He was elected to the board of trustees and serves as the
chair for the advisor recounts all.
He was the alumnus of the year award recipient at the
university of san francisco in 2009.
He served on the boys and girls club of san francisco, the
olympic club foundation, and the old-time athletes association.
He was involved with charity
burke -- work.
he is survived by his wife
barbara who is a wonderful woman and his six children.
I remember going to a baseball
game late this spring and with
my children, running into dick in his late 70' s.
he was behind home plate with a full the chair yelling at the umpire.
He had a passion for the game like nobody else and immediately
had my son on his lap watching the game together.
He was a true friend, a legend, and someone that we will truly Miss. i ask that we adjourn today' s meeting in his behalf.
>> thank you very much, Madame Clerk.
i have two in memoriams.
Sonya pierre, an active
rights -- a human rights activist in the dominican
republic who died of an apparent hard attack at a young age of 48.
the human rights community and around the world is devastated by her loss.
She was the executive director , a human rights organization
based on the dominican republic.
She had ties to the bay area
since 1988 -- the 1998 winner of
leadership partnered with the international human rights law clinic at uc-berkeley school of
law to initiate international litigation against the dominican
government for discriminatory practices of the nine children
of ancestry the right to dominican nationality.
the international human rights
clinic one landmark ruling from the inter-american court of human rights recognizing the right of dominican born
citizens, children of haitian
ancestry to education.
she did this despite threats and harassment.
She was born and raised among
her 11 hot siblings by her mother in a dirt floor barrack in the dominican migrant worker camps.
She was 13 when she was first arrested and threatened for deportation for leading her
fellow residents in the March
for cutters rights.
She walked several miles a day
to attend the nearest school and eventually studied social work in cuba.
She founded the group with a
group of feminists.
she is survived by her five
children and will be profoundly embarrassed by her activists around the world.
In recognition of her dedication, courage, and
commitment, she received in the
human rights award in 2006 and the international women of
courage award from the U.S. Department in 2010.
I think it is important to
recognize the passing of this very important human rights activists.
The last is more personal in
nature for many of us here in san francisco, and it is with
great sadness that I do in
memoriam for a man many of us knew, respected, and love.
Michael goldstein, that passed away this last friday.
It is hard to imagine san francisco without his presence.
Michael was a longtime lgbt rights activist.
If you look at michael' s
personal story of how he came to
san francisco, it is a story
that is very common within the community.
He was an openly gay man, by virtue of being openly gay, was
not accepted by his family had left new mexico, coming to san
francisco, a place where he can be who he was.
it is perhaps because of that that michael of the san francisco.
For some many years, he
dedicated his life for making
the city and county a better place.
Those of us that have been
involved on some of the issues
for rights, rights of women,
people of color, workers' rights, you can' t imagine an
issue of social justice where michael was not also active.
Michael of the city and county of san francisco and through the years serve the city in many different capacities.
he was a member of the campus
task force created by then a supervisor and was selected by
the rules committee to serve in that capacity.
And in that capacity, advocated for the rights of medical cannabis patients.
he always recognized that it was a human rights issue.
Michael was also very involved in the community and served as
President Of the democratic club.
He distinguished himself in
organizing not only the lgbt
community, but he understood the importance of working with women
groups, working with other groups representing the various
averse communities in san francisco.
Michael was someone who believed in good government and spent
many hours and dedicated a lot
of time working on issues involving the city college of san francisco.
I think that through his advocacy, and he saved a lot of
money to the city college of san francisco.
he was elected many times to the central committee and in that
capacity, serve the city and county for many years working
with clubs from all over the city and county of san francisco.
I think the assembly member and
his face look posting summarize how many of us feel.
Words cannot express the loss
that we feel for michael' s passing.
It is today, for me, very sad to
introduce this, but I also want
to celebrate michael' s life and his many accomplishments.
I know that I am not alone in recognizing the many
contributions he made to this city that he loved.
I want to thank the many members
of his board of supervisors who since he has been ill, took the
time to visit him, I know that
meant a great deal to him, and so I would ask him that on
behalf of the entire board that we adjourn the meeting in memory
of michael goldstein.
>> without objection.
>> thank you, supervisor campos.
Supervisor mar: I will try to be brief.
The saturday after thanksgiving, I was pleased to participate in
the number of members that was
between things giving and the black friday and December monday.
it was an effort from President Obama to local and small
business leaders and designating small business saturday on November 26.
It was a great experience to be at north beach and in my
district participating with a
green apple bookstore and a number of other businesses.
i want to thank kathleen from the small business commission
and regina from the office of
small business for their efforts, not just on the
saturday after thanksgiving, but
to make every day a shop small day.
A lot of the reusable bags were
given out, and if anybody wants
these, the office of small business has them as well to
encourage the use of independent stores throughout the
neighborhood, who helped fuel
the economy in reinvigorate
communities across the city and across the country.
he also wanted to let people
know that there is a fun party
organized by a group that we' re
calling -- it includes everything from the toy boat
cafe giving out free ice cream to a number of the bars and
cafes to green apple bucks giving out free beer.
And you get reusable code bags as well.
Other participants include the rocket room and dirty tricks room.
and another of -- in number of stores like the clothing store.
Come out thursday from 6:00 to 8:00.
The wreck and park department has the annual lighting of the
beautiful cypress tree that sits
in my district in golden gate
park, to we ask you to come out
from 5:00 to 7:30 for you can
have small rides for children, a
cookie factory, and a visit from a jolly old guy named sent us.
it is free and to hosted by the parks alliance.
Supervisor elsbernd: an im
memoriam -- in memoriam for a
19-year-old, son of two wonderful people.
Tragic loss, far too young.
Big loss to the family and the community.
In addition are a couple of pieces of legislation, two of which I will mention.
A resolution commending any brown for her service to the
city and county of san
francisco who stepped up as the interim c a l was leaving the
city and county of san francisco to our great loss and a few weeks.
I had my first experience when
she was a deputy city attorney in the property division had to work with real estate 10 years ago.
She is a wonderful public
servant, a great President Of
district 7, a neighbor that lives right around the corner for me.
I understand she is going to
leave the city to go down to her new job.
Most importantly, along with
each and everyone of you, I' ll just start by thanking all of you.
We can introduce this legislation with all of you as sponsors.
a resolution urging the park commission to renamed the speedway meadow.
To all of us, he is the epitome of a true gentleman.
Someone who is a true san
franciscan and someone for whom this city is far better off
because of him and all he has done for all of us.
obviously, we chose that because of bluegrass.
The party he throws for his 200,000 closest friends.
It is important that we pick something for those of us that remember the late ' 80s and early
90s, there is a great fear that
the academy of sciences or going to leave golden gate park.
He was a big part of all that
was needed to keep those institutions there.
Branching beyond the park, i
spoke to the supervisors about this.
Each one of you interrupted me and said, what about everything he has done for the school district?
It is untold what he has done for all of the children in the
unified school district.
where that school district was, a lot of people deserve credit for that.
I think he was an instrumental piece to that.
He is a product of the system, very proud of that.
And a lot of the work that he
has funded has really led to
some tremendous research,
particularly in the aging and memory center there.
And the fellows part of the system.
And something that I
feel party
not being aware of, of the great work that he and his daughter
and son-in-law have done with
the san francisco free clinic, a place where thousands of san franciscans without health care have benefited from tremendous
medical care offered free of
charge because of his family posing contributions.
when I called to talk about this
today, he gave me a hard time,
telling me this was appropriate for grattan.
We learned a little hope that he really epitomizes.
We were taught to aspire to be
men for others, and there is no question that he lived his life
for himself, and but for others.
He also epitomizes the phrase
that to whom much is given, much as expected.
Samantha and that did not revel
in his own fortune, but shared his fortune.
he repeated often, you give for you live.
San francisco is extremely fortunate that he lived in san francisco.
Renaming speedway matter of in
his honor is a nice thing to do as a small token of our appreciation.
to each one of you, thank you for sponsoring this resolution along with me.
>> in addition to the helm and
resolution to do the immemorial , without objection, the chubby
the case -- that shall be the case.
>> resolution in recognizing
the incredible public service of
sure of -- sher if
sheriff mike hennessy.
I think it is important that for
the record that we commemorate
and celebrate the nearly 32
years of a really well renowned
public service that caught this nation' s attention as well as
international attention because of his vision.
His bold leadership, and his
ability to advance initiatives
that no other county jail system in the state of california or the united states had done.
his accomplishments are much
longer than I can really
identify here, and but I would
like to next week when we will
invite him to be here and enjoying the recognition that we
in the resolution will held exhibit.
that is what I am submitting have the rest with it.
>> supervisor kim, you askedt
to be re-referred? / >>
>> yes, I want to give my
thanks to any brown and sheriff hennessy.
Michael goldstein is someone that I have known and worked with for the last six years.
I met him as a board member of the san francisco people' s
organization, a group trying to
build a coalition among labor and activists.
Really got to spend a lot of time with him during those
years and got to really
appreciate his tremendous
dedication to the community.
michael s. Someone that was always there. He showed up to everything.
It was strange not to see
michael at a community event or in March.
This year we have been -- experienced a lot of loss of leadership and activism.
it caused me to reflect a lot of what it means to continue
leadership and grow leadership
as we build and to celebrate the
accomplishments that have occurred in the city and how far
we have moved in terms of benefiting the communities and neighborhoods.
Michael was a large part of that.
michael and I did not see eye to
eye on everything, he was
incredibly and blunt and honest and direct, which I really appreciated.
We want to have honest dialogue
here, and seeing him last month
just as an indication, michael
gave me a a little ahead -- I had gotten lost on my way and he gave me flak for being a
supervisor and getting lost.
He said, I guess it' s not your district.
he continued to keep me
accountable as is the elected representative on the board of supervisors.
>> I also want to put in a word for michael.
I worked with him allot over the last 67 years.
I met him but I was working in the supervisor daly' s office.
There were very few events that I did not see michael at.
He was always active in so many great causes from trying to
defeat arnold schwarzenegger' s
initiatives that would undercut
union power to helping establish the san francisco people' s organization.
Tenant rights he was strong on and we have a little bit of a falling out over the last couple
years based on some of the work that did on regulations around tobacco.
michael admitted it freely that
he had an addiction to tobacco and it was the hardest thing in
his life to give it up, and he wasn' t going to.
Something that caused a little bit of friction between us, but
we were able to continue to
grow our relationship and a mutually support one another.
I was glad to be able to go to his room last week.
Just to be able to see him in
his last few days, it was really important.
It was really brought and really
big, the President And labor council.
And debra walker was there, lots of folks.
I feel is a testament to the
kind of community that michael
built around him, he deserves great recognition for his work and his mark on the city.
I am honored to share in the experience.
The other item for
introduction, my only item for
introduction, a hearing requested that I am hoping we can do before the end of the
year on the plight of homeless families in san francisco.
We have seen stories about the
rise of homelessness, families that are at risk of becoming homeless.
It is important that the city
has a strong response. we'
re not seeing it quite yet, but I think we' re getting there.
It can support families in a lot of ways that are struggling.
Especially this time of year.
It faces a lot of challenges about being together and having
time to be with one another, to be sheltered.
I hope that we can support cities that are struggling economically.
Hopefully this hearing can be scheduled for next week.
>> I just wanted to add to the chorus about the passing of
michael goldstein.
It was more than overwhelming, I
think, to se
e that we were about to lose a friend that was passing on.
it was incredibly heartwarming tutsi the communities celebrate
michael, and kind of reflect in
the room with michael, although I believe he could hear us even
though he could not respond.
just all the incredible work
that he had been part of, it was great to reminisce with him.
I think I was able to kiss him
goodbye, it' ll be a significant
loss, I think, for our base . He had a great politics.
Even if we disagreed with them,
he was a force of nature and very clear about the bottom
line, and he never retreated from that position.
>> I wanted to add that in
being there also, comforting michael that I thought deborah
walker did as a tremendous job being there with him for the long-term.
the grouping of people around
him in the final hours from
labor, housing rights, electro
reform, some of the movement' s said something about what he gave to the city.
I was glad I was able to save my goodbyes.
As people pass on, it is an
important thing to do, so I was
very happy to be there and got some great work he had got over his life.
>> if I May, I wanted to at that point about the many people that
cared for michael in his last few months.
We mentioned deborah walker, and
within the lgbt community, you have this concept of the families to choose.
Oftentimes your own family
disowns you and you lose touch and contact with them.
That is unfortunately what happened with michael.
But he found the family here in san francisco, there are some many people that are part of the family.
>> seeing no other names on the
roster, that concludes roll call for introduction.
>> I want to faint the members of the public that have been waiting for general public comment.
>> of the opportunity for the
public to address the board for two minutes on items in the
subject matter jurisdiction including items without
committee reference and excluding items that have been considered by a board committee.
It will be allowed twice the amount of time to testify and if a member of the public would
like a document be displayed, please clearly states such.
>> please give me a chance to
give each one of you my lovely message.
it is year on the screen.
[Unintelligible]
Least a love you and we wish you good luck with your family.
Ladies and gentlemen, I' d go
back as usual to my language for my testimony.
[Foreign language]
ladies and gentlemen, I said
that if our President Likes
egypt and the people of which I
am one of them, he must understand that our former
dictator mubarak has 183 billion.
You can imagine how much money
he takes by his two sons and his gang.
Here, you can see mubarak has
three heart attacks in one day.
Why when he found out the people
has been killed?
it is time for you to wake up.
[Chime]
President Chiu: thank you. Thank you.
thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next speaker, please.
>> good afternoon,
supervisors.
don' t give money to friends and
a foundation, since these citizens of san francisco
approved a bond issue in 2000, the friends of the library have been telling people that they have been raising 16 million for furniture fixtures and equipment.
for those branches by the accounting of the department of public works.
The friends of the library have no agreement with the city because they would not answer questions about their finances.
However, we do have reports with
a full review of the last decade reveals that in 10
years, he assets dropped from 20.3 million to 20.7 million.
And there was an income of 35.7 million.
The executive director made $1.6 million and the executive level employees made $6.1 million.
disclosure by the sentence is the public library shows that in
the 10-year period, they spent most of it indirectly.
These documents are required under public disclosure laws.
This is a loss of the good that this money could have accomplished but did not.
The real harm is the cynicism and alienation of our citizens.
The realization that the institutions have been run for the philanthropists are are not
accountable while the 99% suffer.
[Chime]
>> next speaker.
>>
someone said to me that my
December first event was a first.
Teaching history and some other things.
Nevertheless, that' s ok.
I trained in modern jazz dance
and uc berk
berkeley.
I worked as a volunteer
assistance for wkrp in cincinnati and los angeles.
I decided to dance solo and loved it.
working as a volunteer for my
supervisor and my boss, I waited
to hear music from the rotunda. It never happened.
So I decided to take salsa there and did so last week on wednesday, December 1.
the turnout was poor, but those present had a great time.
It is hard to dance it and listen to salsa music so it is
important to me to have an open dance floor the last 15 minutes.
Over the years, they have dubbed the meese also queen.
I have been told by many that you have been going on. I agree.
I like to bring -- I would like to think I bring a breath of fresh air to mature people.
I am scheduled to dance one day before cinco de maya o.
happy holidays , and made the piece of the lord be with you.
>> in the afternoon, supervisors.
I found this great old a book
from the flea market, so its easier.
1932 school books.
I will show you one page.
Early mayors including edward
robinson taylor,
-- a lot of the early mayors.
A lot of good information in this but.
That talks about the future in 1980, too.
little do they know.
Luck be a city tonight don'
t let that budget out of sight
luck if you had a city dollar
to begin with captioned by the national captioning institute -- www.Ncicap.Org -- -
luck be a city tonight
if you ever had a city life that was great
I state and I hope you go to city heaven
and most of all I want to thank you
thank you supervisors, all 11
and she loves teh he free fresh city wind
in her hair it' s cold and it' s damp
she fixes supervisor chambers here
she has a handicapped ramp
and it seems that' s why the city lady is a champ it' s going to be great
I can hardly wait that'
s why the city lady is a champ
my kind of town
the city is my kind of town
it has the 100th anniversary symphony jazz
it has everything more each time I roam it'
s calling me home
one town that won'
t let you town it'
s my kind of town thank you.
>> next speaker.
>> I am here to address these 60
people that will be evicted illegally from their homes tomorrow.
sentences go alone has 16,000
homeowners facing foreclosure.
It undermines economic recovery
and increases crime, like, and
reduces taxes adding financial
drain on an already overburdened system. We' re asking for a holiday moratorium on evictions and
homeowners.
Our goal is to end the legal
foreclosures and evictions, put families and individuals into
vacant and illegally bank-seized properties.
It will rebuild the economy was
due process of seeking loan modifications and principal reductions.
The weather is getting
dangerously cold and 60 families are facing eviction and homelessness tomorrow.
We ask that you do whatever is in your power to stop this crime
from continuing to ruin and endanger the lives of our citizens.
The key to the seven of you that side are pledged to find the solution of a legal foreclosures. The world is watching.
>> I totally agree with what the
gentleman just said, thank you for bringing it up.
We cannot be of people with a conscience if we allow our
citizens to be homeless, especially our children.
I want to bring to you a vision, planting a seed in your mind
about what we can do their if things don' t keep happening with a police presence.
It was a surreal scene when we were barricaded into the encampment.
The police seemed as frustrated as we were by these orders and I
hope you will put pressure on the mayor and the police department to cease and desist.
our vision is to create a model that would be like a village in which we would show how to live
off the grid with wind power,
solar power, create a garden and
create that with recycled materials.
It would be a place for schoolchildren and people in the world to visit.
it would be a complement to the farmers' market and a model of community in which we would
continue to educate and
advocate for the 99% on issues
of housing,, says, human rights, and an end to war.
This is a vision.
it is a space that is virtually
unused to create a space that is
vibrant and dealing with the homelessness and dealing -- being as compassionate as we can. That we are doing the best we
possibly can and we appreciate any support you can give us.
>> the next speaker.
>>
supervisors, three items. Bear with me.
The history of san francisco,
the chinese people in this city
have many times of victimization and the brutalization.
we have the first elected to the chinese mayor.
I am hoping that he does not brutalize the occupied san franciscans.
They have many problems, it is not an inviting camp to the public.
nothing is solved by brutality, and their presence and their
marches are reminders that all was not well in our society.
The recommendation is that they get both and clean up where they are.
We' re all learning how to be civilized.
I am encouraging news supervisors to continue.
Next, I said previously that my rent last year went up just under 9%.
My new rent goes up 9.5% this next year.
another real estate industry
cannot want any regulations, but this is not healthy for our society.
It is not healthy for neighborhoods or for democracy.
Rent controls need to be addressed.
The U.N. Global private conference is happening right now.
The usa, like republicans in the senate in washington D.C. Are
becoming obstructionists and reactionary.
San francisco as I spoke before
has these garages that have
motors and fans and use the
energy of the grid and help -- [Chime]
>> thank you very much.
Happy holidays. Next speaker.
>> good evening, board of supervisors.
My prior speaker was talking about, I'
m asking all of you, san francisco is a very special city.
And of the foreclosure issue is
not an easy one, but please read
keeping your heart because it is not really about money. We' re talking about children,
families, issues by the banking industry and by wall street.
Even though we have investigated
many of the factors, the banks committed fraud.
they have given loans to people , how they were never given to them.
Just a scheme for their own benefits.
San francisco has always been the city where many movements have started.
I tell everyone of you is asking inside yourself, what to do.
All we' re asking is for a pledge for the holidays.
Within the system, this has to be an answer.
i am asking you, as family members, find that out. Please.
There is no need this time of the year. It is cold out there.
Many families have been involved.
Let' s find together how to do it. Let' s make the banks responsible.
Let' s just declare a moratorium
from now until the end of the year.
It would be really effective in a good way.
>> next speaker.
>> good evening, board of supervisors.
I stand here today for the medical cannabis patients that are not able to do so.
I am here to who represent the canada' s policy.
You folks have witnessed
several persons in the chambers with tape over the mouth.
They are representation of the
thousands of patients that feel
that the city government as well as the state and federal
government has failed them and take away the voice of the medical cannabis patience.
There is a big difference between a patient that is trying
to put forth and to move a
community and a paid lobbyist veddas allowed a turnaround and
influence other bodies.
I stand here for those that
cannot express to you and ask that you please take a close
look at the community and there are several government agencies that need your participation.
Lead to major diversity still exists in census go.
>> good evening, I live at 24 vesey street.
I am here to urge the board of
supervisors to enact, immediately, a holiday
moratorium on home foreclosures and evictions.
As you heard in previous testimony, there are 60 evictions scheduled tomorrow.
Who knows how many the next day and how many more homes are
going to be placed at auction on these various steps?
in the
families are at risk or who have been evicted. They' re undergoing immense hardship.
I find it unconscionable .
the bailout bill was given to the banks. I really think we have to do
something immediately.
For these communities are going to suffer greatly.
i can speak as a victim.
My home was auctioned two years ago. It is still vacant.
It was flipped four times, it is standing vacant. This is what we' re facing.
They deserve to be home for the holidays and we need to look
for a long-term solution. Thank you.
President Chiu:
thank you, next speaker.
>> I would like to say with the
-- what the other speakers have
said about putting a standstill on foreclosures until the end of the year would be a great step.
i wanted to say something. There was an interesting
discussion earlier with some representatives of at&t.
If this board decided to have a telecommunications task force to
revise them on matters affecting the people of san francisco and staffed it with lobbyists and representatives of at&t and the telecom companies,
we would say this is what plutocracy looks like and that is what has happened to the
medical campus task force.
It has been stocked with
lobbyists and representatives and patients are a minority voice. That is unfortunate. Some other things I wanted to bring to your attention because we have not had a chance to speak for a few weeks.
while the has been going on,
occupy has been facing a lot of police actions that would not have been going on if we had an opportunity to speak to you. I'
m hoping maybe -- they have
been trying to curtail our rights. I'
m hoping this is not missing your attention. Thank you.
>> thank you, next speaker. >> good evening.
I am a resident of district 6.
and I basically came to you
today to echo the sentiments of
several other people that have
spoken previously about the fact
that the medical campus task
force seems to have an extreme
amount of industry representation these days.
In my opinion, not enough patient representation.
As a patient and
resident, I am
directly affected by and cannot help but be aware of these problems.
when I run into instances where
the task force does things that
do not necessarily work in favor of the patients.
It does not necessarily work in
favor of those who are low- income patients, who are
disabled, or patience that although they need this medicine
are not able to travel to different parts of town or deal
with restrictions.
These are things that the patients would be much better positioned to negotiate.
then a paid lobbyist of the industry. This industry has
as you know May
contain everything from
articles that are used for the
preparation of cannabis or they
may be dealing with canada' s themselves.
As I said, we do not see enough representation of our own
interests as patients there. Thank you.
President Chiu: thank you, next speaker.
>> good afternoon.
I am on the task force, I am a patient advocate.
I want to remind people today of
some vision and consciousness.
The hiv movement, the disability
movement cannot be separated .
It was stark as it was with the neighbors to where speaking on
the at&t presentation.
I do not know if the industry is
at the point where they are 2.9
billion situations as at&t but it is probably close. I think we cannot lose the vision and the authentic
representation of patients in the city. That sends a message. We' re supposed to be the model for our nation.
Currently, where falling behind.
I hope we can come together to remedy the situation. Thank you for your time.
>> thank you. Next speaker.
i am stephen crane and my label is human. I am an advocate for medical marijuana.
I have dealt with very serrie -- several serious illnesses that will be the demise of my life probably. I' m a medical cannabis patient
and these things help me at this time. I am able to live more
comfortably .
i receive a welfare check.
I pay my handicap a
us there.
I have $29 to live on a month.
it is a trying process. And so is navigating through the city. I'
m looking at myself, if I' m going to go through this I might as well become an activist, an
advocate for people who are
going through this experiences or who are going to this
experiences there is a lot of unnecessary time wasted.
What I would like to say is I
have been -- this is pertaining to the medical cannabis thing. I'
m going to the actual meetings over the past year.
i have seen a turn about which
is not good for my safe access been.
We have people who are coming in who are not activists, who are not advocates.
They are people who are there to endeavour themselves in money.
that is a shame.
President Chiu: thank you, next speaker.
>> hello, I am the one that ran
for seat two of the medical
cannabis task force.
Whether or not I got the seat I will continue to be an advocate for the medical cameras patients of san francisco.
Regardless.
I am here to say we are not
going anywhere and we will
stand up for what we blieve
believe is right. I'
ve seen patients still dying
in the hospital and be discharged with their symptoms.
I have seen patients walking through san francisco' s streets.
they cannot get out of the
crosswalk in time and cars, up
to them and run them over. I have seen it myself.
If I stand here with other
patients, will you protect them in their city?
Will you serve, will you protect, we advocate for the
citizens of san francisco.
President Chiu: thank you, next speaker.
>> I feel the patient' s boys has
been silenced we would prefer a hired consultant over a genuine patient. Thank you.
>> I am disappointed as well.
Some of the experiences I have
seen , I am surprised you would
not find an individual. I do not want to go into detail
but I mentioned quite a few
things to the assistant.
I have seen patients harassed.
I am on thelegal
legal committee.
I spent five hours to support a disabled man.
It is shocking, especially since
I have not felt the support. I don'
t know if you know the politis.
Just because it is an
organization, it might not serve
the de made submissions.
i have been there for 20 years.
Let' s help the people here. What is this about. I am surviving. I have had all kinds of thoughts about how I could take care of
myself and I have a hospital nearby.
president chiu: thank you, next speaker.
>> I am the [Unintelligible]
I am a patient of medical campus.
[Unintelligible]
Where there were silenced. i feel like I am being silenced and I do not feel that is right.
President Chiu: thank you, next speaker.
>> I wanted
to have the support of hiv and cancer patients as well. We need support as well as everyone else.
>> good evening. It has been a long day.
I started not to come here but I changed my mind.
I am a resident of parkmerced.
Planning never released the
documents for me, or give them to me, I have had to piece my way through them.
Recently I can across a memo
that was part of your packet when you voted on parkmerced.
In the memo, $50,000 of supplemental money goes to a
project in supervisor carmen chu'
s district. You gave so much time regarding
paperbacks that I felt there residents of parkmerced should have had the opportunity to
discuss that issue regarding the $50,000 in a packet that the
donors stand to benefit from.
It is hundreds of millions of dollars.
I think that it speaks to your
integrity in regards to not
disclosing that or reducing
yourself given the fact of the
controversy from the former supervisor. I think it is scathing that something like that is allowed to happen.
Everyone is going to look at
this development to see if it was legitimate. Just because you voted does not mean it is legal and it will be upheld in court. It is scathing.
I am disappointed in those of
you who did because you deny the
citizens of san francisco their voice that day.
To give public meaningful
comment regarding their homes being demolished. For those of you who are
attorneys, it is especially
upsetting that you would deny an
american citizen the first amendment right. Those of you who voted for that,
I think you are domestic terrorists and you' re not worthy.
President Chiu: thank you, next speaker.
do you need more time to set up? Show your from the next speaker?
-- shall we hear from the next speaker? >> are you able to see what is on the screen?
president chiu: yes.
>> thank you. A few weeks ago a comment was
made that 9 of 11 of you have not been elected by majority.
That statement invokes misleading comparisons.
Nine were elected in rcb runoffs.
For comparison the 11 were elec
ted using delayed runoffs in 2000.
They elected the winner with a
majority of voites.
-- votes.
To regression to polarizing to
canada delayed runoffs in
December, it seemed like a good idea.
Rcb was being evaluated against a different kind of majority.
the denominator is being increased by including all
voters to cast a ballot votes in
any round, not just the final round.
While none of the run of winners were elected with a contest
majority, neither were any of
the delayed runoff winners.
Do not be misled by this apples to oranges comparison.
Which runoff method produced winners with the largest share of all voters?
Runoff winners have on average
one -- won with 4 3%.
The number of exhausted voters
-- is half the number under the laid runoffs.
Also I would like to ask in a
resolution today.
>> you cannot address items.
correct, you are free to talk.
>> vote counts that include the
second and third choices and not
pass the resolution that shows
votes.
[Bell] Thank you.
President Chiu: thank you, next speaker.
>> good evening.
I have been to a few meetings in the past and will be brief.
I know enough things to do and I have things to do, too. I will say this much.
I am a vietnam veteran, ok?
A lot of veterans would love to speak their piece and see what they have to say when it comes
to the medical marijuana issue.
they' re paranoid and scared because of the federal
situation and ideology on marijuana.
The thing of it is, I sit here
and I say to myself, when they
asked me to go to vietnam when I
got drafted, I went. And thank God I was able to get
marijuana over there when I was there.
That is how a basically made through over there. That is how I basically make it now. I have a permanent hip injury.
The thing of it is,
organizations like access of
love make it safe. i do not have to go through back
alleys and go through the negativity. I can deal with someone on a
medical issue who cares and was
concerned about veterans and
this woman has put her heart out
to help individuals like me and the hat -- appreciate what she does for the committee and what she does for veterans. i am speaking as a veteran.
I would like to say more power
to people like shona.
President Chiu: thank you, next speaker.
If there are
any members of the
public who have not yet spoken, please line up. Please go ahead.
>> from this chamber , I govern.
Not only to paris but to china.
Not only to china, but to the whole world.
Without anybody knowing how I do it.
how
many of you are having difficulty finding the perfect gift for that certain somebody this christmas? There is 18 more shopping days.
I recommend this book, " 50 years
in the church of rome," that
quote was from the general of
the jesuits.
It is reasonably priced for $13.50. It can obtain your own copy.
I think it fits nicely into some restocking.
there is no doubt abraham
lincoln was assassinated as a jazz would plot. All the murderers were roman catholics in their religion.
And shortly after he was assassinated during the time of
reconstruction, our military was
used against american citizens.
We wisely passed a law called
posse, titus -- commitatus.
The military cannot be used
against the population.
93 senators voted to do away with it and we can be arrested for the rest of our days,
tortured, killed, or sent to guantanamo bay.
Inforwars.Com, read your bible,
come to jesus before it is too late.
president chiu: thank you, next speaker.
General public comment is closed.
>> items 43-49 are considered
for adoption.
president
chiu: would anyone like to sever?
Madame Clerk amod roll call.
>> supervisor kim, aye.
Supervisor marc, aye.
Supervisor mirkarimi, aye.
supervisor wiener come up aye. Supervisor, aye.
Supervisor campos, aye.
President Chiu, aye.
Supervisor chu, aye.
Supervisor cohen, aye. Supervisor elsbernd, aye.
Supervisor farrell, aye.
president chiu: these resolutions are adopted.
>> recommending the national council on alcoholism and other drug addictions be licensed to
offer a russian language multiple offender driving under
the influence program in san francisco.
Supervisor mar: I am amending
this to include russian-language population for a multiple offender dealer program but including expanding it to include other languages.
The only reason that spanish is not included is spanish speakers are served by the mission
council, an existing organization. Supervisor elsbernd has asked to be a co-author of this so I urge your support. It is a non substantive amendment and I would like your support today. Thank you.
President Chiu: is there second?
-- a second.
Can we take this without objection? That shall be the case.
And the underlying resolution, can we do it same house, same call? Without objection. the resolution shall be adopted. Madam Clerk, can you read the in memoriams?
>> today' s meeting will be
adjourned in honor of the following. On behalf of supervisor campos
for sonia pierre.
and for the recommendation on behalf of the full board on behalf of samuel lipke.
And for the late Mr. Michael goldstein.
President Chiu: is there any more business? >> that concludes our business.
president chiu: we are adjourning for the evening.
