|
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
|
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING FOR TODAY,
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2007. MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, ABSENT.
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, PRESENT.
SUPERVISOR DALY, PRESENT. SUPERVISOR DUFTY, PRESENT.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, PRESENT.
SUPERVISOR JEW, PRESENT.
SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, PRESENT.
SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, PRESENT.
SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, PRESENT. SUPERVISOR PESKIN, PRESENT.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, ABSENT.
SUPERVISOR, THERE IS A QUORUM.
President Peskin: PLEASE
JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(RECITING PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE.) President Peskin: COLLEAGUES, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR COLLEAGUE,
SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, ON THE
OCCASION OF HIS 60th BIRTHDAY.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SUPERVISOR JAKE MCGOLDRICK. [APPLAUSE.]
President Peskin: AND WITH
THAT, MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU
PLEASE READ THE CONSENT AGENDA.
The Clerk: ITEMS 1 THROUGH
10 ARE CONSENT AGENDA. ALL MATTERS LISTED HEREUNDER ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND WILL BE
ACADEMY UPON BY A ACTED UPON
BY A SINGLE ROLL CALL OF THE BOARD.
President Peskin: WOULD ANY
MEMBER LIKE AN ITEM OR ITEMS SEVERED SEEING NONE, A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, AYE. SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE.
SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE.
SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AYE.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, ABSENT.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, ABSENT.
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DUFTY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AYE.
SUPERVISOR JEW, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, AYE.
The Clerk: 10 AYES.
President Peskin: THOSE
ORDINANCES ARE FINALLY PASSED, AND RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED.
The Clerk: ITEM 11 11. ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 18 OF THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC WORKS CODE BY ADDING SECTION 944 TO DECLARE A PUBLIC NUISANCE ANY PROPERTY LOCATED IN A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO INSTALL CONDUITS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO OBTAIN UTILITY SERVICE AT A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY AMENDING SECTION 926
OF THE PUBLIC WORKS CODE TO ALLOW THE CITY TO RECOVER ALL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY IN CONNECTION WITH ABATING THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 900, 915, AND 919 THROUGH 930 OF THE PUBLIC WORKS CODE CONSISTENT WITH THIS LEGISLATION AND FURTHER AMENDING SECTIONS 900, 901, 906, 908 THROUGH 911, AND 938 OF THE PUBLIC WORKS CODE TO MAKE CERTAIN TECHNICAL CHANGES THAT ARE NECESSARY TO BRING THOSE SECTIONS UPTODATE. President Peskin: COLLEAGUES, CAN WE DO THAT SAME HOUSE, SAME CALL
THE ORDINANCE IS FINALLY PASSED.
The Clerk: ITEM 12 12. URGENCY ORDINANCE APPROVING AN INTERIM ZONING MORATORIUM ON
INSTALLATION OF MICROCELL EQUIPMENT FOR 45 DAYS AND MAKINGREQUIRED FINDINGS, INCLUDING FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE PRIORITY POLICIES OF PLANNING CODE SECTION 101.1 AND
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS. President Peskin: COLLEAGUES, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION
TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO JULY 31 MADE BY SUPERVISOR MAXWELL. THERE IS A SECOND SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE ITEM IS
CONTINUED TO JULY 31.
The Clerk: ITEM 13 13. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 20306 (ANNUAL SALARY ORDINANCE FY 20062007) TO REFLECT THE PROPOSED CHANGES
CON: , FINE
FAM: , AND MUNICIPAL
MTADPT: STAFFING BY DECREASING TOTAL STAFFING BY 4.00 POSITIONS (0.16
FTE). President Peskin: COLLEAGUES, CAN WE DO THAT SAME HOUSE, SAME CALL THE ORDINANCE SORRY.
WE HAVE A DIFFERENT HOUSE. ROLL CALL PLEASE.
The Clerk: ON ITEM 13,
SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, AYE. SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE. SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AYE.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, AYE.
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE. SUPERVISOR DALY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DUFTY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AYE.
SUPERVISOR JEW, AYE.
The Clerk: 11 AYES.
President Peskin: THE ORDINANCE IS PASSED ON FIRST READING.
The Clerk: ITEMD WAIVING CERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE WITH
RESPECT TO THE CONTRACT.
President Peskin: ANY COMMENTS
SEEING NONE, SAME HOUSE, SAME CALL, THE ORDINANCE IS PASSED ON FIRST READING.
The Clerk: ITEM 15 15. ORDINANCE ADOPTING A COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, ESTABLISHING KEY ASPECTS OF THE COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING FURTHER
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES.
President Peskin: WOULD YOU READ ITEM 16.
The Clerk: ITEM 16 16. ORDINANCE ADOPTING A COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE. President Peskin: SUPERVISOR AMMIANO.
Supervisor Ammiano: THANK
YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
COLLEAGUES, I WANT TO THANK A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE
BROUGHT US TO THIS POINT.
THE COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS OF
COURSE, SIERRA CLUB, SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMISDE,
CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE, FOR
WORKING SOME MAGIC HERE, SO THAT
WE CAN NOW PRESENT THIS ITEM TO YOU.
ITEM 15 IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD
ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD. I WOULD ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THE
COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION PROGRAM, ITS GOVERNANCE AND OVERSIGHT STRUCTURE. ITEM 16, SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI WILL SPEAK TO. YOUR SUPPORT OF THESE TWO DOCUMENTS WILL CREATE A FRAMEWORK TO ANSWER THE 2001 VOTER MANDATE TO FINANCE
CONSTRUCTION OF LARGE SCALE
SOLAR AND OTHER RENEWABLE FACILITIES FOR SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES.
WITH THE ADOPTION OF THIS PLAN THE BOARD THROUGH LAFCO WILL HAVE AN THE
PROGRAM FIRST BY ISSUING AN RFI,
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, TO GATHER INFORMATION, ASKING WHAT
THE INDUSTRY CAN BUILD, SECOND, THE INFORMATION COLLECTED WILL BE USED TO WRITE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NEEDED TO SEEK A
SUPPLIER WHO CAN BUILD 360
MEGAWATTS OF GREEN ENERGY FACILITIES AND PROVIDE A NEW SAS
THAT WILL BE 51 RENEWABLE BY 2017.
THE PLAN WOULD SEEK A SUPPLIER
THAT CAN MEET PGES RATES.
I EYE SURE YOU, ECONOMIC THEORIES WILL COME INTO PLAY
WHEN THE BOARD CONTEMPLATES
SELECTION OF A CONTRACTOR TO BUILD THIS ENVISIONED BY THE
PROGRAM. THE ORDINANCE TODAY, SPONSORED BY MYSELF AND SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI AND DUFTY, DOES NOT
LOCK THE CITY INTO ANYTHING NOW
BUT CREATES A FRAMEWORK FOR
DEVELOPING THIS PROGRAM WITH OVERSIGHT ENTITIES TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS
SERVED WITH THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF CONSUMER PROTECTION. WE KNOW THIS PLAN CANNOT HAPPEN WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THIS
BOARD, THE MAYOR, THE SF PUC AND OTHERS. I WANT TO THANK THE GENERAL
MANAGER OF PUC, AND LARA
SPANJIAN AND BARBARA HALE FOR
THE MANY HOURS. THIS WILL ENCOURAGE THEIR PARTICIPATION. I HOPE OUR COLLECTIVE GOOD WILL
LEADS US TOWARD A GOOD PATH FOR
THE TALENT NEEDED TO ENGAGE THE
INDUSTRY TO UNDERTAKE A MAJOR HIGH PRIORITY PROGRAM FOR THE
BENEFIT OF ALL SAN FRANCISCANS. WE HAVE A IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
AND STATEMENT OF INTENT FOR
COMMUNITY CHOICE IN SAN FRANCISCO. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE A RESULT OF
DOZENS OF HEARINGS AT LAFCO WITH
CITY DEPARTMENTS IN WHAT SOME
HAVE CALLED THE MOST EXHAUSTIVET CITY HISTORY.
IF ONLY THE HE HAD DOLLAR
EDITORIAL WRITERS WILL ENGAGE IN
SUCH DUE DILIGENCE. SUSTAINABILITY IS SO IMPORTANT
FOR SAN FRANCISCO AND TIMELY. I HAVE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO
ITEM 15 TO HELP CLARIFY THE
PROCESS OF CCA IMPLEMENTATION, AS THIS IS A NEW PROCESS UNDER
STATE LAW I BELIEVE WE MUST GIVE PROCEDURAL CLARITY TO THE PROCESS AS POSSIBLE.
THESE AMENDMENTS, AS THE CITY
INFORMS ME, ARE NOT SUBSTANTIVE BUT TECHNICAL IN THEIR NATURE.
IS THAT CORRECT, MADAM DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY MUELLER.
TERESA MUELLER, THAT IS CORRECT.
Supervisor Ammiano: THANK YOU. COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS PLEASE. SURE. THERE 070501.
THE FIRST ONE IS TO THE TITLE.
AFTER THE WORDS COMMUNITY CHOICE
AGGREGATION, YOU WOULD INSERT
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND REVENUE
BOND ACTION PLAN AND.
AND THE TITLE WOULD CONTINUE ON.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS TO PAGE 3, LINE 4.
A: ,
PARAGRAPH 5.
AFTER THE WORDS APRIL 17, 2007,
PERIOD, YOU WOULD ADD THIS DOCUMENT WAS UPDATED WITH TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS AND IS NOW
DATED JUNE 6, 2007. THE DOCUMENT ADOPTED BY THIS
ORDINANCE IS A TWOPART DOCUMENT WHICH, ONE, DESCRIBES THE
PROCESS THE CITY WILL PURSUE IN
BECOMING A CCA, AND TWO,
INCLUDES A DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN AS APPENDIX A AND ADOPTED PURSUANT TO PUBLIC UTILITIES
CODE SECTION 66.2. THIS IS ADOPTED BY THIS
ORDINANCE AS A COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
AND REVENUE BOND ACTION PLAN AND DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
THE THIRD AMENDMENT IS ON PAGE
3, AT LINE 13.
THIS IS SECTION 1 A, PARAGRAPH 6.
AFTER THE WORDS THIS DOCUMENT,
THE SAN FRANCISCO CCA, YOU WOULD INSERT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND
REVENUE BOND ACTION PLAN AND.
THE SENTENCE WOULD CONTINUE ON,
AND YOU WOULD CROSS OUT APRIL 17
AND REPLACE THAT WITH JUNE 6, 2007.
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS ON PAGE 6, LINE 24.
THIS IS SECTION 2.
AFTER THE WORDS BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ADOPTS THE ATTACHED
IP DATED, WE WOULD REPLACE APRIL
17 WITH JUNE 6.
IT WOULD GO ON TO READ, AS A CCA, AND THEN YOU WOULD INSERT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND REVENUE
BOND ACTION PLAN AND DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. THOSE ARE ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS.
Supervisor Ammiano: THANK YOU SO MUCH. I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE
ORDINANCE WE PASS TODAY, WITH THESE AMENDMENTS, WILL ADOPT A
COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND REVENUE BOND ACTION PLAN.
AS THE POLICY THAT THE BOARD
ESTABLISHES FOR THE SF PUC TO
FOLLOW IN COMPLETING APPENDIX A
DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND
AUTHORIZES SAN FRANCISCO PUC TO
GONE THE RFI AND RFP ORDINANCE
PURSUANT TO 8604. THATS CORRECT.
Supervisor Ammiano: THANK
YOU. WITH THAT, COLLEAGUES, ID LIKE TO MOVE THE AMENDMENTS AS STATED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
President Peskin: MOTION MADE TO MOVE THE AMENDMENTS BY SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR ELSBERND. COLLEAGUES, CAN WE DO THE AMENDMENTS WITHOUT OBJECTION WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
AMENDMENTS ARE HEREBY ADOPTED.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER. Supervisor AliotoPier: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WANT TO START BY SAYING THANK
YOU TO SUPERVISOR AMMIANO FOR
ALL OF HIS HARD WORK ON THIS ONE ISSUE.
AS A PERSON RAISED IN A FAMILY
OF ANTITRUST ATTORNEYS, THE ONE CONVERSATION THAT I LITERALLY
WAS RAISED ON WAS THE NEED FOR
COMPETITION AND HOW MORE COMPETITION IN THE MARKET PLACE IS BETTER FOR THE CONSUMER. WHEN I LOOK AT PROJECTS JUST
LIKE THIS ONE, I TRULY HAVE TO APPLAUD SUPERVISOR AMMIANO AND THE WORK THAT HE HAS DONE.
THAT ALSO BEING SAID, THE ONE THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WERE GETTING OUT OF THIS IS THE
BEST PRICE AND THE LOWEST PRICE
FOR THE HIGHEST QUALITY PRODUCT. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS WITH THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT IM A LITTLE CONCERNED WITH.
ONE OF THEM IS ACHIEVING THE 51
LPS AND MEETING OR BEATING PGES RATES.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT, I WANT TO
SEE US MEETING THEM AND BEATING
THEM PAST YEAR TWO, NOT JUST ONE AND TWO.
ID LIKE TO SEE MORE OF AN
EMPHASIS OR WHAT I VIEW AS BEING ONE, ON ENSURING COMPETITION
THROUGH THE SYSTEM, THROUGH ITS DURATION.
WHILE ALSO BALANCING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THAT IM
NOT SURE IF WE GET THERE WITH 51 51.
I REALIZE THIS IS AN URGING, BUT
THERES A PART OF MEABLE WITH TE URGINGS. THE OTHER ISSUE THAT IM A
LITTLE CONCERNED WITH IS THE OPT
OUT PART OF IT.
REPRESENTING A DISTRICT THAT I
REPRESENT, I REPRESENT A LOT OF
VERY WELLEDUCATED PEOPLE AND I
AM NOT AS CONCERNED WITH THEM OPTING OUT OF A PROGRAM THAT
THEY DONT LIKE BUT AM CONCERNED WITH LESS EDUCATED AND LOWER INCOME RESIDENTS WHO MIGHT NOT
BE AS LIKELY TO OPT OUT OF A
HIGHER COST CCA PLAN, AND PROPORTIONATELY MORE OF THEIR INCOME WOULD BE AT RISK FROM THESE HIGHER PRICES.
SO THOSE ARE SOME BASIC CONCERNS THAT I DO HAVE WITH THIS.
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE A THAT
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO IS 100 CORRECT THAT PUC SHOULD BEGIN THIS RFI PROCESS.
WHAT ID LIKE TO DO TODAY IS DIVIDE THE QUESTION. I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE
URGING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE
RFI PROCESS THROUGH THE PUC, BUT I AM NOT IN A POSITION RIGHT NOW
WHERE I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH A
NUMBER OF THE OTHER SUGGESTIONS
WERE MAKING TO THE PUC. President Peskin:
SUPERVISOR, FILE AS
Supervisor AliotoPier: I
BELIEVE, AND CITY ATTORNEY ADAMS, WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS
EARLIER, BUT I BELIEVE SECTION
3, SUBPARAGRAPH A, WOULD BE
DIVIDED OUT.
President Peskin: SECTION
3, PARAGRAPH A, PAGE 2, IS THAT
WHAT YOURE REFERRING TO
Supervisor AliotoPier: IM SORRY.
President Peskin: THERES
A3, B3 Supervisor AliotoPier: PERHAPS THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN
MR. PRESIDENT, ITS PAGE 7.
President Peskin: PAGE 7, THERE WE GO.
SO YOU WANT TO DO THE ENTIRE
RESOLUTION, UP TO 3 ARCHLTS, AND
B: , 3(D), AND YOU
KNOW WHAT MADAM DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, I
THINK I JUST CAUGHT A NUMBERING MISTAKE.
THERES NO SECTION 4. GOES DIRECTLY TO SECTION 5 ON PAGE 8.
Supervisor Ammiano: PAGE 8
President Peskin: I THINK
YOUD WANT TO RENUMBER THAT AS SECTION 4. THANK YOU. WELL DO
THERE USED TO BE A SECTION 4. President Peskin:
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, YOU WANT TO
MAKE THAT, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE
WILL CHANGE IT ON PAGE 8. GOING BACK, SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, IT IS YOUR DESIRE, I ASSUME, TO HAVE ALL OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE RESOLUTION, UP
TO PAGE 7, LINE 13 Supervisor AliotoPier:
THERE ARE DIFFERENT PARTS OF IT. ESSENTIALLY WE WOULD BE PULLING
OUT SECTION 3, SUBSECTION A.
President Peskin: SO JUST
THAT, THIS IS A STANDALONE RESOLUTION THAT SAYS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ESTABLISHES THE
FOLLOWING NEXT STEPS TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION OF CCA PROGRAM AND THEN CCA IS,
OR ANY OF THE RECITALS IN THE BEGINNING 26R7B89SZ IM GOING TO LEAVE THIS UP TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. MY OBJECTIVE HERE IS TO DIVIDE IT SO THAT WE CAN VOTE SEPARATELY ON URGING THE SAN FRANCISCO PUC OR NOT URGING I THINK WE SHOULD BE
TELLING THEM TO START THE RFI PROCESS AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE.
President Peskin: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
SO WHY DONT WE GO TO SUPERVISOR
ELSBERND.
Supervisor Elsbernd: JUST TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, JUST TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT
I ASKED YOU IN COMMITTEE, JUST TO REEMPHASIZE THEM SO SUPPORTIS MEASURE, REALLY IN ITS ENTIRETY. WE CHANGED LANGUAGE IN THE TITLE, TALKING ABOUT A REVENUE BOND PLAN. AGAIN, BEFORE ANY REVENUE BONDS WERE TO BE ISSUED, THIS DOESNT AUTHORIZE IT. SUCH AUTHORIZATION WOULD NEED TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR APPROVAL. IS THAT RIGHT THATS RIGHT.
Supervisor Elsbernd: AND
THEN, SECOND, THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, NOT THE
DRAFT, BUT THE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN, AGAIN, BEFORE THAT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IS FORWARDED
ON TO THE PUC, SUCH PLAN WILL HAVE TO BE ADOPTED BY US AND
THIS ACTION TODAY IS NOT THAT ADOPTION THATS CORRECT.
Supervisor Elsbernd: THANK YOU.
YOU. President Peskin: SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER. Supervisor AliotoPier: JUST TO SAY I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT SUPERVISOR ELSBERND HAS STATED,
MY CONCERN HERE IS IN URGING A
DEPARTMENT TO FOLLOW GUIDES THAT I BELIEVE ARE I HAVE QUESTIONS WITH.
President Peskin: SO,
SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI. Supervisor Mirkarimi:
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, I CAN DEFER,
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO
Supervisor Ammiano: THATS FINE.
Supervisor Mirkarimi: TO THE MOTION, BOARD PRESIDENT, OR TO THE DISCUSSION IN GENERAL.
President Peskin: THERES NO MOTION.
ITS THE RIGHT TO DIVIDE IS A UNILATERAL RIGHT. Supervisor Mirkarimi: ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.
SO AS THAT IS BEING CARVED OUT, I JUST WANT TO SHORE UP A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
THIS IS, I BELIEVE, THE TURNING
POINT, EVEN THOUGH IF IT IS A SMALL STEP BECAUSE ITS BEING
COWCHD AS A PREMUR IN THE TERMS
OF DRAFT IN THAT WHEN THE
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION SEG WAYS INTO A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL IT HAS TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. THATS SOMETHING I BELIEVE WILL
BE A THINK, CORROBORATION THAT ITS HIGH TIME FOR SAN FRANCISCO TO BEGIN
TO CHART ITS OWN ENERGY FUTURE.
THIS DOES NOT AT ALL DISLOCATE OR IMPAIR PGES STANDING.
BUT WHEN I HEAR ABOUT THE
QUESTION OF WHAT EXACTLY IS CCA
AND WHAT WILL WE BE ABLE TO
COMMIT, I THINK BOTH TO OUR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL RATEPAYERS, NOT IN SAN FRANCISCO, BUT IT HAS IN
MANY OTHER CITIES THROUGHOUT THE
UNITED STATES, OR PUBLIC POWER
CITIES, WHICH ARE A MORE STRINGENT VERSION OR STRONGER VERSION OF PUBLIC POWER BY A THOUSAND CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
BUT WHAT IT DOES IS GIVE OUR
RATEPAYERS AN OPTION THAT THEYVE NEVER HAD BEFORE. THERE IS NO OPTING OUT OF PGE
UNLESS YOU LEAVE SAN FRANCISCO. AND IT IS HIGH TIME THAT WE
BEGIN TO ASK OURSELVES, WHILE
THERE IS SO MUCH TURMOIL WITH REGARD TO WHERE OUR ENERGY COMES
FROM, ESPECIALLY FROM FOFT FUEL SOURCES FOSSIL FUEL SOURCES DOES THAT GAVE US SATISFACTION IN KNOWING THAT WERE NOT DOING WELL ENOUGH TO BE GETTING OUR
ENERGY FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES.
IF PGE IS NOT GOING TO DO IT
FOR US DESPITE THEIR WELL FUNDED GREEN PROMOTION CAMPAIGN THE
DELIVERABLES ARE FAR FROM SATIFACTORY. I DONT THINK WE CAN WAIT FOR A
COMPANY WHO HAS COMPLETE
MONOPOLY UNTIL THIS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OR CITY ATTORNEY DECIDES OTHERWISE.
SHORT OF GOING TO THE BALLOT IS COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION.
I CAN SEE NO OTHER PRAGMATIC
STEPS BEING TAKEN OTHER THAN WITH SUPERVISOR AMMIANOS
LEADERSHIP, THE PUC, THE MAYORS
OFFICE, THE WHOLE ECLEP TICK
CREW OF CITIZENRY FROM EVERY
ASPECT OF LIFE WHO HAVE HAD SOME WEIGHT IN THIS DISCUSSION.
AND YET IM STILL SOMEWHAT PERPLEXED ABOUT HOW SHY WE ARE
BECAUSE WERE SO SCARED OF ANGERING PGE BECAUSE THATS
WHAT A LOT OF THIS IS ABOUT.
EVEN BEFORE WE CAME INTO THE CHAMBERS HERE, WE ALREADY SAW
THEM WORKING THE CORRIDORS, DOOR
BY DOOR, IN HOPING TO SHORE UP VOTES, EVEN TO DERAIL THIS SIMPLE PROCESS.
SO IT CONCERNS ME THAT SAN FRANCISCOS BEEN IN THE JUNCTURE FOR QUITE SOME TIME IN
MAKING A MOVE TOWARDS PUBLIC POWER. SHORT OF THAT MOVE, COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION COULDNT BE
MORE OF A PRAGMATIC STEP FOR
EVERYBODY TO GET A PIECE OF THE POSITIVE WINWIN. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER.
Supervisor AliotoPier: ID LIKE TO THANK SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI FOR HIS COMMENTS. I HAVE NOT HAD ONE CONVERSATION WITH PGE REGARDING THIS
LEGISLATION, AND I FULL HEARTEDLY SUPPORT ANY TYPE OF COMPETITION THAT WE CAN ADD INTO THIS SYSTEM 100.
I THINK THAT WHAT SUPERVISOR
AMMIANO HAS DONE, ON THE TENURE
OF THE BOARD IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH COMPETITION WITH A VERY
LARGE COMPANY HAS BEEN TRULY REMARKABLE. THAT BEING SAID IM LOOKING AT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND SAY TO MYSELF WHY DONT WE ASK THE PUC
TO DO THIS FOR US, WHY ISNT PUC LEADING THE CHARGE ON THIS
STUFF, WHY ARE WE TELLING PUC
HOW THEY SHOULD BE GOING ABOUT DOING THIS.
WE SHOULD GET IDEAS FROM THEM ON HOW THIS SHOULD BE DONE. THE R EUF THAT THEYVE BEEN
SITTING ON, WE SHOULD SAY TO
THEM GET OUT THERE AND DO THIS. BY DIEDING THE QUESTION THATS WHAT I WANT TO SAY TO THEM. I WANT TO SAY PUC GO OUT THERE
AND LOOK AT A MORE COMPETITIVE WAY TO PROVIDE OUR CUSTOMERS WITH A BETTER SERVICE AT A LOWER PRICE AND I WANT YOU TO TELL ME HOW TO DO IT. I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR HERE THAT THIS SUBJECT POLITICS. THIS IS POLICY.
AND WHAT IM LOOKING AT THIS PAPER IN FRONT OF ME DOES NOT
PARTICIPATE THE BEST, MOST OPTIMAL PICTURE OF WHAT I THINK IS BEST HOLD THE FIRST OF THREE VOTES.
ILL TAKE 15 AND 16 SEPARATELY.
Supervisor Mirkarimi: VOTED ON THE ENABLING LEGISLATION AND THE SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENT OR THE PUC TO MOVE FORWARD, WHICH IS WHY THEIR
GENERAL MANAGER, SUSAN LEAL, HAS VERY MUCH BEEN A CRITICAL PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
THIS IS BEING DRIVEN BY THE PUC
AND WHAT SHORES UP ARE I THINK COMPLETE SUPPORT THAT BOTH THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND PUC, WHO
HAVE BEEN JOINTLY CONNECTED IN THESE LONG AND LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS, THAT I AND SUPERVISOR AMMIANO HAVE BEEN A
PART OF AS WELL TOO.
AND THATS EXACTLY THE BEAUTY OF THIS THING. IT IS THE PERFECT STORM BECAUSE
NEVER ANY OF THOSE BRANCHES HAVE
BEEN LINED UP IN THIS FORM LAIC
I THINK OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD.
THE PUC IS VERY MUCH IN THE
DRIVERS DISCREET WITH THE OVERSIGHT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING ON BEHALF
OF THE RATEPAYERS. President Peskin: WITH THAT, WHY DONT WE START WITH A
ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE THREE
LINES AT PAGE 7, THAT SUPERVISOR
ALIOTOPIER DIVIDED OUT, THE
SAN FRANCISCO PUC SHOULD ISSUE A RFI TO SOLICIT INPUT FROM INTERESTED PARTIES REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION PROGRAM
WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE. ON THAT, A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, AYE. SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE.
SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE.
SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AYE.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, AYE.
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DUFTY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AYE.
SUPERVISOR JEW, AYE.
The Clerk: 11 AYES.
President Peskin: THAT ORDINANCE PASSES. NOW WE WILL VOTE ON THE BALANCE
OF THE FILE WITHOUT THOSE THREE LINES. THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE.
ON THAT, A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE. SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE.
SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, NO.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DUFTY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AYE. SUPERVISOR JEW, NO.
The Clerk: NINE AYES, TWO NOS.
President Peskin: THAT PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE PASSES ON FIRST READING.
AND ON ITEM 16, A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE. SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE.
SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AYE.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, AYE.
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, AYE. SUPERVISOR DUFTY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AYE.
SUPERVISOR JEW, AYE.
The Clerk: 11 AYES.
President Peskin: THE
ORDINANCE PASSES ON FIRST READING.
The Clerk: ITEM 17 17. ORDINANCE AMENDING TRAFFIC CODE SECTION 131 ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL COLLECTIONS FEE TO RECOVER CITY COLLECTION COSTS FOR LATE CITATION PAYMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO IMPOSE THE SPECIAL COLLECTIONS FEE TO RECOVER ACTUAL CITY COLLECTION COSTS IN ADDITION TO EXISTING PENALTIES
FOR LATE CITATION PAYMENTS.
President Peskin: ROLL CALL.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE.
SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE.
SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AYE.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL.
Supervisor Sandoval: THE ITEM IS NOT SHOWING ON THE SCREEN. WHAT ITEM IS THIS
President Peskin: ITEM 17.
Supervisor Sandoval: AYE. SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, AYE.
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, AYE. SUPERVISOR DUFTY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AYE.
SUPERVISOR JEW, AYE.
The Clerk: 11 AYES.
President Peskin: THE
ORDINANCE IS PASSED ON FIRST READING.
The Clerk: ITEM 18 18. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF A 25,000 REWARD TO JOHN DOE FOR SUPPLYING
INFORMATION LEADING TO THE ARREST AND CONVICTION OF JOSEPH STEVENS IN THE SHOOTING DEATHS OF DERNAE WYSINGER AND NAEMON WYSINGER.
President Peskin: SAME HOUSE, SAME CALL.
THE ORDINANCE IS PASSED ON FIRST READING.
The Clerk: ITEM 19 19. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SERVICE AGREEMENT AND PROPERTY USE LICENSE FOR TOWING, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF ABANDONED AND ILLEGALLY PARKED VEHICLES BETWEEN THE SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY AND TEGSCO, LLC, D.B.A. SAN FRANCISCO AUTORETURN.
President Peskin: SAME HOUSE, SAME CALL, THE RESOLUTION
IS ADOPTED.
The Clerk: ITEM
15: AND TO REQUIRE THE RECREATION AND PARK DEPARTMENT TO PRODUCE A MIDYEAR REPORT ON THE EFFECT OF THE INCREASE, AND TO PREPARE A THREE
3: YEAR FISCAL VIABILITY PLAN TO SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTION TO THE
GOLF PROGRAM. President Peskin:
SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK. Supervisor McGoldrick: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I RISE TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS ITEM, COLLEAGUES. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT AMENDMENTS
TO ADDRESS ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS IN THREE YEARS THE
PROBLEM THAT AROSE AS A RESULT
OF THE INDEBTEDNESS TO
REHABILITATE THE GOLF COURSE.
THE PGE TOUR WHICH WE RECENTLY AMENDED
President Peskin: PGA. Supervisor McGoldrick: SORRY. ALPHABET SOUP TODAY.
THE PGA TOUR.
ANYWAY, AT ANY RATE, MOVING FORWARD, I BELIEVE THAT BEFORE
WE KIND OF WASH OUR HANDS AND
MOVE TOWARDS SOME SORT OF THING LIKE A LEASE THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO KEEP
WITHIN THE CITY ASSETS CONTROL OVER SOME OF THE MOST VALUABLE ASSETS THE CITY HAS IN OUR OPEN
SPACE AND RECREATION OFFERINGS.
AND IN THIS REGARD, OUR GOLF
COURSES COMPRISE A LOT OF TERRITORY AND HAVE A LOT OF USERS THAT DESERVE TO BE
SUPPORTED. THERE ARE DEBATES THAT NEED TO GO ON AND I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD GO NEAR FUTURE BUT I BELIEVE IF WE NEED TO TAKE A YEAR OR TWO, THATS WHAT SHOULD
BE DONE IN ORDER TO PROPERLY INFORM OURSELVES AND MAKE A BETTER INFORMED DECISION. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A SITUATION
IN WHICH WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH
THE CONTINUING PROBLEM OF THE
DEFICIT OR THE NEGATIVE LINE ITEM, AT HARDING. THE OTHER GOLF COURSES ARE COMING CLOSE TO BREAKING EVEN.
THEY DONT HAVE TO BREAK EVEN
NECESSARILY ANY MORE THAN POOLS HAVE TO BREAK EVEN. THESE ARE IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR CITIZENRY, OUR RESIDENTS, AND NONRESIDENTS, TO BE ABLE TO RECREATE. I THINK THAT IF WE TAKE THE TIME TO DO SOME THINGS THAT WOULD WIND UP BEING DONE AT ANY RATE
BY A LEASE, WHETHER ITS A PRIVATE NONPROFIT OR PRIVATE FOR PROFIT, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
RAISING THE FEES, THAT IS ONE
PIECE OF THE PUZZLE FOR US, ONE SLICE OF THE PIE.
THE OTHER IS THE FACT THAT WEVE
BEEN SCUK FOR SOME TIME NOW,
STUCK FOR THREE MORE YEARS WHAT
IS NOT A VERY GOOD CONTRACT. NONE OF US WOULD HAVE SIGNED IT
IF WE THOUGHT THERE WAS NO
STRONG MOTIVATING PERFORMANCE IN THERE. THE KEMPER CONTRACT GOES THREE MORE YEARS AND NOT BRINGING IN MUCH MONEY.
STAFF SAYS THERE IS HALF A MILLION ANTICIPATED THIS MILLIOT
WAS BRINGING IN NICKLES AND PENNIES AND SHOULD BE BRINGING IN DOLLARS THAT HAPPEN THAT
SHOULD BE TURNED AROUND. WE NEED TIME TO DO THIS PROPERLY
WITHOUT GIVING UP A 25, 30 YEAR LEASE, WE MIGHT AS WELL FORGET IT. THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS IS, IN THE LEGISLATION, I REQUEST THAT THE STAFF GO DO WHAT HAS BEEN DONE AT MANY OTHER PROPERTIES, INCLUDING CITYOWNED PROPERTIES,
LIKE MUSEUMS, WHICH SEEKS SPONSORSHIPS. THOSE CAN HELP REDUCE THE CAPITAL PROBLEM WE HAVE, THAT WE
HAVE OUT THERE, AGAIN AS A RESULT OF HARDING.
THESE ARE ONLY FOR HARDING.
NO INCREASES FOR THE OTHER GOLF COURSES THE CITY OWNS. BECAUSE I THINK THE
PRIVATIZATION OF MANY OF OUR ASSETS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD
NOT BE DONE WITHOUT A GREAT DELIBERATION.
ITS A VERY WEIGHTY ISSUE.
I THINK THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC
ASSETS ARE TERRIBLY VALUABLE IS
NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DO TOO LIGHTLY AND WE SHOULD TAKE
THE TIME HERE I THINK, AND GIVE OURSELVES THE TIME. IT MEANS ALSO CONTINUING THIS YEAR WITH SOME SUPPORT FROM THE
GENERAL FUND, BUT NOT A HUGE SUPPORT FROM THE GENERAL FUND IN
THE SAME WAY WEVE HAD IN THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, WHICH IS
ABOUT TO END, REDUCING IT DOWN OVER TIME AND COMING TO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE STILL NEED
TO CONSIDER IM NOT A GOLFER
BUT WE STILL NEED TO CONSIDER
GOLF AS AN ACTIVITY WITH GOOD HEALTH, RECREATIONAL AND SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES AND RECOGNIZE IF
WE LEASE IT OUT, ONE OF THE MAIN
PLACES WHERE A PRIVATE LESSEE
WILL TAKE THIS TO REDUCE LABOR COST. AS A STRONG UNION TOWN WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO RESPECT THE CONTRACTS THAT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
HAVE AT PUBLICLY OWNED ASSETS WEVE HAD FOR OVER A CENTURY AND
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT OUR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.
YOU WILL HEAR THE ARGUMENT THAT
THEY CAN STILL HAVE A UNIONIZED
WORKERS OUT THERE AT HARDING,
AND EVENTUALLY THESE OTHER GOLF
COURSES MAY BE ASKED TO SUCCUMB
TO THE SAME PRIVATIZATION MODEL.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE THEED TO CONTINUE THE TRADITION WE HAVE OF HAVING PUBLIC ASSETS WITH PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ON THEM IN
SITUATIONS SUCH AS THIS, WHERE I BELIEVE THAT WE STILL NEED TO GET THE TIME.
IF WE A WANT TO TALK ABOUT PROP
J WE NEED TO SEE IF WE CANT HOLD THE LINE ON THIS THING AND
NOT GIVE IT AWAY SO QUICKLY. I THINK THE ISSUE OF LOSING CONTROL OF THESE GOLF COURSES NOW IS NOT THE TIME. SO I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS LEGISLATION PLEASE. THANK YOU.
BY THE WAY, ITS ACROSS THE
BOARD, THE INCREASES, SO THE
PAIN AND PLEASURE IS SHARED EQUALLY. THANK YOU. President Peskin:
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND.
Supervisor Elsbernd: THANK YOU. I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
VOTE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL. A COUPLE OF FACTS THAT I THINK NEED TO COME OUT THAT HAVENT
YET BEEN ARTICULATED.
IN THE BUDGET ANALYST REPORT YOU
WILL SEE CONTRARY TO WHAT MIGHT ASSUME WHEN READING THIS, YOU
WILL RAISE MORE MONEY BUT HE SAYS NO.
IN FACT IF WE FOLLOW THE SAME
PRACTICE, WE WILL GENERATE LESS
MONEY, LESS THAN 100,000 MORE.
I THINK 160,000, APPROXIMATELY
IS THE NUMBER THAT WE WILL
ACTUALLY GENERATE 160,000 LESS,
EVEN WITH A 15 INCREASE.
AND THE RATIONALE IS WERE PRICING OURSELVES OUT OF THE MARKET.
LET ME PUT IT IN CONTEXT.
IF THIS PROPOSAL GOES FORWARD, A NONRESIDENT WILL BE PAYING MORE
TO PLAY HARDING PARK THAN THE
RITZ CARLTON AT HALF MOON BAY. A NONRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO PAY
MORE AT HARDING PARK THAN ANY OTHER PUBLIC AVAILABLE GOLF
COURSE IN THE BAY AREA. YOURE NOT GOING TO FIND A
BIGGER FAN OF HARDING PARK THAN ME BUT HARDING PARK IS NOT
WORTHY OF BEING THE NUMBER ONE FEE COURSE IN THE BAY AREA. ITS JUST NOT THERE. IM SORRY. SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS HERE.
BUT THIS IS JUST GOING WAY OVER THE TOP. AND ON HIS LAST POINT, SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK AGREED
THAT THIS DOES GO ACROSS THE BOARD. ADMITTEDLY, IVE SUPPORTED FEE INCREASES IN THE PAST. THOSE FEE INCREASES HAVE PRICED OUT A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE. WHEN I PLAYED GOLF WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL, OUR HIGH SCHOOL
TEAMS USED TO BE ABLE TO PLAY AT HARDING. THEY DONT ANYMORE BECAUSE ITS TOO EXPENSIVE. WHO ARE WE GOING TO PRICE OUT WITH THIS
THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN.
GREEN FEE INCREASES ON THE BACKS
OF EVERY KIND OF GOLFER ARE NOT THE FIX. ID URGE YOU TO VOTE NO.
President Peskin: SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK. Supervisor McGoldrick TO GO BACK TO AN IMPORTANT POINT THAT I KNOW SUPERVISOR ELSBERND AND I HAVE BEEN DEBATING THIS SO ILL TRY TO KEEP IT SHORT BUT YOU MAY HAVE CAUGHT IT IN COMMITTEE. OUR BUDGET ANALYST INDICATED
THAT IF YOU TAKE A MIDWAY POINT
BETWEEN THE 658,000, ALMOST 659,000 INCREASE THAT WOULD
OCCUR WITH THESE FEES AND THE
POSSIBLE 115,000, ALMOST 116,000 DECREASE THAT IS REFERRED TO IN THE BUDGET ANALYST REPORT, THE
MIDWAY POINT, 390,000, EVEN IF
WE SAY ITS 350,000, IT CAN BE
ANTICIPATED, I THINK VERY REALISTICALLY, THAT AN INCREASE IN THE 350,000 RANGE IN MONEY
WOULD BE THE MORE REASONABLE EXPECTATION.
I KNOW THE STAFF REPORT, AND A
LOT OF THINGS ARE STAFFDRIVEN AROUND HERE, ASSUMES THE SAME
RATE OF ATTRITION AS THE
PREVIOUS INCREASE WHICH THEY IMPOSED TWICE. THEIR IMPOSITION MAY HAVE CERTAINLY HAD A CERTAIN EFFECT.
BUT TO ASSUME THAT SAME SORT OF CHANGE IN TERMS OF THE USERSHIP
WOULD OCCUR IS AN ASSUMPTION
THAT IS HIGHLY HYPOTHETICAL, HIGHLY HYPOTHETICAL. AND TO DEAL WITH THE HYPOTHETICAL I THINK IN THAT WAY
TO ASSUME ANY DECREASE I THINK
IS TO TAKE IT TO ONE EXTREME. I WONT TAKE IT TO THE OTHER
EXTREME AND SAY WE GET 659,000 MORE.
ILL SAY WE ARE SOMEWHERE IN THE 350,000 RANGE IN TERMS OF HOW
MUCH MORE WE WILL GET AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR CORPORATE AND
PRIVATE SPONSORSHIP AND GREATER PERFORMANCE AT KEMPER AND LOOKING AT A THREE YEAR PROGRAM TO TURN IT AROUND BEFORE GIVING IT AWAY.
ILL LEAVE IT AT THAT AND SAY I WOULD ASK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. President Peskin:
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AND THEN CALL THE ROLL.
Supervisor Elsbernd: A
HYPOTHESIS BASED ON FACTS.
LAST TIME WE RAISED RATES GREEN FEES WENT DOWN.
President Peskin: ROUNDS OF PLAY WENT DOWN.
Supervisor Elsbernd: WHICH GENERATED LESS REVENUE. AT THE SAME TIME THIS IS A FEE INCREASE OF 15.
LAST TIME WE DIDNT GO NEAR THAT HEIGHT.
AS I SAID, PUT IT IN COMPARISON. YOURE GOING TO BE PAYING MORE TO PLAY AT HARDING THAN YOU
WOULD AT THE RITZ CARLTON HALF MOON BAY. NOT APPROPRIATE.
President Peskin: ON THE
ITEM, A ROLL CALL PLEASE. IF YOU GET ON THE FLOOR AND MAKE A MOTION. [NO AUDIO]
President Peskin: A MOTION TO SEVER WHAT
SUPERVISOR DALY WOULD LIKE TO
DIVIDE OUT THE FEE FOR RESIDENTS
AS COMPARED TO NONRESIDENTS.
SO ON THE QUESTION OF A 15 INCREASE FOR RESIDENTS, A ROLL
CALL PLEASE. JUST SO SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION,
WERE GOING TO HAVE TWO VOTES.
ONE, A 15 INCREASE FOR
NONRESIDENTS, AND ONE, A 15 INCREASE FOR PEOPLE WITH
RESIDENT CARDS. SUPERVISOR ELSBERND.
Supervisor Elsbernd: AND EVERYBODY ELSE. ALL IVE HEARD SUPERVISOR DALY
DO WAS DIVIDE THE RESIDENTS SO HIS MOTION WOULD FORCE US TO VOTE ON 15 FOR SENIORS, JUNIORS, AND ALL THE OTHER CATEGORIES. ALL HES DONE IS DIVIDE OUT THE QUESTION OF RESIDENT.
President Peskin: CORRECT.
SO TO THE QUESTION SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK. Supervisor McGoldrick: POINT OF CLARIFICATION. THATS NOT THE ONLY THING IN THE LEGISLATION. THE LEGISLATION CALLS FOR A PROGRAM, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE LEGISLATION I WOULD ASSUME WERE GOING TO VOTE ON ALL THE LEGISLATION WITH THE OTHER
PIECES AND PARTS THAT ARE INCLUSIVE. AND ILL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
President Peskin: YES, INDEED.
TO THE QUESTION OF A 15 INCREASE FOR RESIDENTS, A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, NO.
SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE. SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE.
SUPERVISOR PESKIN, NO.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, NO. SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, NO.
SUPERVISOR DUFTY, NO.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, NO. SUPERVISOR JEW, NO.
THERE ARE FOUR AYES, SEVEN NOS.
President Peskin: THAT PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE FAILS.
ON THE BALANCE OF THE ORDINANCE,
TO INCREASE RATES FOR NONRESIDENTS, INCLUDING
SENIORS, ET CETERA, 15, AND REMAINING PORTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, NO.
SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE. SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE.
SUPERVISOR PESKIN, NO.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, NO. SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DUFTY, NO.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, NO.
SUPERVISOR JEW, NO.
The Clerk: FIVE AYES, SIX NOS.
President Peskin: THE
ORDINANCE FAILS.
The Clerk: ITEM 21
1: AMENDING CHAPTER 38 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
A: AMENDING SECTIONS 38.1 AND 38.3, AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 38.31 TO LIMIT THE EXEMPTION FROM THE CURRENT TRANSIT IMPACT DEVELOPMENT FEE
TIDF: FOR PROJECTS FOR WHICH AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION WAS SUBMITTED ON OR BEFORE APRIL 1, 2004, TO INSTANCES IN WHICH A BUILDING OR SITE PERMIT IS ISSUED ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 4, 2008 AND REQUIRING THAT SUCH EXEMPT PROJECTS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE FORMER TIDF PAY A FEE ON NEW OFFICE SPACE ONLY EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE UNDER THE FORMER TIDF ORDINANCE
B: AMENDING SECTION 38.1 TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITIONS OF GROSS FLOOR AREA AND
C: AMENDING SECTION 38.3 TO CORRECT AN UNINTENDED EXCLUSION FOR ART
D: AMENDING SECTION 38.5 TO SPECIFY THAT THE TIDF DUE FOR A PROJECT IS BASED ON THE FEE IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF
E: AMENDING
SECTION 38.6 TO CLARIFY THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A CREDIT FOR PRIOR ELIMINATED USES IS AVAILABLE AND MAKE CLEAR THAT ANY CREDIT AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF
THE TIDF BASED ON PRIOR USE
President Peskin: ROLL CALL.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, AYE. SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE.
SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE. SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AYE.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, AYE.
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DUFTY, AYE. SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AYE.
SUPERVISOR JEW, NO.
The Clerk: 10 AYES, ONE NO.
President Peskin: THE
ORDINANCE IS PASSED ON FIRST READING. The Clerk: ITEM 22 22. ORDINAN REVOCABLE PERMISSION TO THE VIETNAMESE ELDERLY MUTUAL ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION TO OCCUPY A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHTOFWAY TO CONSTRUCT
2: 24 X 31 CONCRETE AND GRANITE PILLARS AT THE NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF LARKIN AND EDDY STREETS TO MARK THE ENTRY TO THE LITTLE SAIGON NEIGHBORHOOD WAIVING PERMIT AND RIGHTOFWAY OCCUPANCY ASSESSMENT FEES AND GENERAL PLAN REFERRAL FEES DELETING TWO PARKING METER ZONES ON LARKIN STREET TO ACCOMMODATE THE ENCROACHMENT AND MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE PRIORITY POLICIES OF PLANNING CODE SECTION 101.1.
President Peskin: ROLL CALL.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, AYE. SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE. SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE.
SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AYE.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, AYE. SOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DUFTY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AYE.
SUPERVISOR JEW, AYE.
The Clerk: 11 AYES.
President Peskin: THE
ORDINANCE IS PASSED ON FIRST READING.
The Clerk: ITEM 23
23. RESOLUTION ENACTING AND RESCINDING PARKING REGULATIONS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS. President Peskin:
SUPERVISORsor Elsbernd: THANK YOU, PRESIDENT PESKIN. THERES A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE SECOND PART OF THIS PROPOSAL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE SUGGESTED AND THE
NEIGHBORHOOD HAS AGREED AND I HOPE THE REST OF THE BOARD WILL,
TO A BRIEF AMENDMENT ON LINE WOG
THE COMMA AFTER WESTERLY,
APPROVE FOR A 60 DAY TRIAL,
FURTHER APPROVAL SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC. IN OTHER WORDS THIS WILL GO INTO EFFECT AND AFTER 60 DAYS SOME SORT OF STUDY BY THE DEPARTMENT,
AND IF INDEED THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS ARE TRUE, IT WILL GO AWAY. IF THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS ARENT TRUE, IT WILL STAY IN EFFECT.
President Peskin: MOTION BY
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, SECONDED INTI SUPERVISOR MAXWELL.
CAN WE DO THAT WITHOUT OBJECTION THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
ON THE ITEM, SAME HOUSE, SAME CALL, THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED AS AMENDED.
The Clerk: ITEM 24 24. MOTION APPROVING THE MAYORS APPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL SULLIVAN TO THE RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION, FOR THE TERM
ENDING JUNE 27, 2010. SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, AYE. SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE. SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE. SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AYE.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, AYE.
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, NO. SUPERVISOR DUFTY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AYE.
SUPERVISOR JEW, AYE.
The Clerk: 10 AYES, ONE NO.
President Peskin: THE
MOTION IS APPROVED.
The Clerk: ITEM 29 29. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A GIFT OF AIRFARE, ACCOMMODATIONS AND CONFERENCE FEES VALUED IN AN AMOUNT OF 16,800 FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR FOUR CITY OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE CHAMBER ON
ITS 2007 CITYTRIP TO BOSTO President Peskin:
SUPERVISOR DALY.
Supervisor Daly: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. PRESIDENT.
COLLEAGUES, I AM A LITTLE BIT
CONCERNED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THESE FUNDS.
THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, IM NOT
YOUR SURE IF ITS KNOWING OR UNKNOWING, HAS BEEN INCLUDING
LINKS TO THE REELECTION WEBSITE OF THE MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO.
IM CONCERNED ABOUT THE POSSIBLE IMPROPRIETY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
MAKING DONATIONS FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE CITY FAMILY TO
TAKE THE TRIP WHILE PROMOTING THE REELECTION CAMPAIGN OF THE
MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO. I WILL BE VOTING NO.
President Peskin: THANK YOU.
JUST TWO COMMENTS.
WORKED AT A NUMBER OFWYER, BUT NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND CERTAINLY THERE IS A VERY CLEAR
LINE SET OUT IN SECTION 501, SUBSECTION C3 OF INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE AS RELATES TO
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING CANDIDATES FOR ANY OFFICE, LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL.
SO IF THATS AN ISSUE FOR SAID ORGANIZATION AND THE INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE AND THEIR COUNSEL. AS TO THE SECOND ISSUE THAT YOU
RAISED, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT IT HAS BEEN THE POLICY OF THIS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SINCE IVE
BECOME PRESIDENT, THAT THESE
ANNUAL TRIPS, WHICH USED TO BE
OFFERED DIRECTLY TO INDIVIDUAL
SUPERVISORS, HAVE TO BE OFFERED TO THE CITY AS A WHOLE, AND
MAY APPLY, SHOULD THEY DESIRE. INDEED THAT HAS BEEN THE POLICY FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
AND THEN WE DO A FORMAL RESOLUTION INDICATING WHICH SUPERVISORS OR WHICH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT HAVE CHOSEN TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THIS GIFT TO THE CITY AT LARGE.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. INDEED, WE DID EARLIER PASS A RESOLUTION THAT NAMED TWO
MEMBERS OF THIS BODY. SUBSEQUENTLY THOSE MEMBERS COULD
NOT ATTEND AND, AS A RESULT, THE TREASURER AND ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL
WENT IN THEIR PLACES. HENCE, THE RESOLUTION THAT IS
BEFORE US TODAY, JUST BY WAY OF
BACKGROUND, I OBVIOUSLY AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR OR AGAINST IT IN
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AS WELL AS PROFESSIONAL SPORTS ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH ARE GROUPED
IN THESE SAME TAX CATEGORY, ARE
ALLOWED TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES
FOR OFFICE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. I GUESS ITS NOT
President Peskin: I GUESS
ITS NOT SUBSECTION C3, ROLL CALL.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE.
SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE. SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AYE.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, NO. SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, AYE.
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, NO. SUPERVISOR DUFTY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AYE.
SUPERVISOR JEW, AYE.
The Clerk: NINE AYES, TWO NOS.
President Peskin: THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.
The Clerk: ITEM 30 30. MOTION APPROVING A JOBSHARE PROGRAM FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEGISLATIVE AIDES AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE BOARD TO TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO IMPLEMENT THE JOBSHARE
PROGRAM. President Peskin: SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER. Supervisor AliotoPier: THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR PESKIN. COLLEAGUES, THIS MOTION WAS PASSED OUT OF THE RULES
COMMITTEE ON JUNE 7 WITHOUT
OPPOSITION. THE MOTION WOULD DIRECT THE CLERK OF THE BOARD TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO IMPLEMENT A SHARE ONE FULL TIME POSITION
WORKING 20 HOUR SHIFTS. AS YOU ARE AWARE, EMPLOYEES
WORKING 20 HOURS OR MORE IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ARE ENTITLED TO HEALTH BENEFITS.
THESE ARE BUDGETARY NEEDS IT
SPEAKS TO. ACCORDING TO OUR DEPUTY CONTROLLER, IT 6,000 MORE PER
YEAR ANNUALLY PER SHARED JOB.
THIS IS PRIMARILY FOR HEALTH COVERAGE. THEREFORE, THE LEGISLATION WOULD
HAVE A MAXIMUM FISCAL IMPACT OF
132,000 ANNUALLY, AND ONLY IF
ALL 22 AIDES WERE TO SHARE A JOB.
IF ONLY ONE OF THE FULL TIME POSITIONS WAS SPLIT, WHICH IS WHAT THE MOTION I BRING TO YOU TODAY ENVISIONS, THE COST WOULD TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 66,000. AND OF COURSE THIS SCENARIO
WOULD ONLY EXIST IF ALL 11 SUPERVISORS ELECTED TO HAVE
THEIR EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATE IN A JOB SHARE PROGRAM.
WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT NOT ALL
SUPERVISORS WOULD CHOOSE TO OPERATE THEIR OFFICES IN THIS
WAY BUT THE ONES WHO WOULD LIKE TO SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN WE KNOW THERE ARE SALARY SAVINGS IN
THE BUDGET TO DO SO. THE SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT ON
THE STATUS OF WOMEN ISSUED A SURVEY REPORT ON WORK LIFE POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN SEPTEMBER OF 2001.
THIS REPORT INDICATED THAT 12 OF OUR CITY DEPARTMENTS ALREADY
HAVE JOB SHARE PROGRAMS IN PLACE. ALL DEPARTMENTS PARTICIPATING IN
SUCH PROGRAMS INDICATED THAT IT
IMPROVES MORALE AND COMMITMENT OF PARTICIPATING EMPLOYEES. FURTHERMORE, WE ARE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT KEEPING FAMILIES
IN SAN FRANCISCO. THE JOB SHARE PROGRAM IS A PROGRAM FLEXIBLE WORK LIFE ARRANGEMENTS SUCH AS JOB SHARE PROGRAMS ARE A POLICY
THAT WE SHOULD PRAISE, ALLOWING EMPLOYEES TO BALANCE WORK COMMITMENT WITH FAMILY,
PERSONAL, AND OTHER NONWORK COMMITMENTS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO
INCREASE EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY,
INCREASE WORKPLACE MORALE AND AN PLEERS ABILITY DONE BEFORE BY OTHER CITY
DEPARTMENTS, AND UPHOLDS IDEALS
AND VALUES OF OUR CITY BY
SUPPORTING FLEXIBLE WORKLIFE ARRANGEMENTS, I URGE YOU TO PASS THIS MOTION. I BELIEVE ITS IMPORTANT THAT WE
KEEP WORKING MEN AND WOMEN, WITH FAMILIES, IN OUR CITY
GOVERNMENT. I THINK IT HELPS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US WHEN WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS ONR WHO IS CLOSE
TO US, WHO IS BALANCING THEIR NEEDS BETWEEN THEIR JOB AND THEIR FAMILY LIFE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE
LEGISLATION THAT WE AS A CITY PUSH FORWARD. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT.
President Peskin: THANK YOU YOU. SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK. Supervisor Mc DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CHERYL ADAMS.
THE THRESHOLD IS 20 HOURS FOR AN
EMPLOYEE TO RECEIVE HEALTH BENEFITS.
Supervisor McGoldrick: NOW,
DO WE KNOW IF WE HAVE OF
COURSE COMP TIME BECAUSE
WOULD EMPLOYEES BE ELIGIBLE TO WORK COMP TIME COULD TW EMPLOYEES EACH WORKING
20 HOURS EACH WORK COMP TIME, EACH ONE COULD WORK
President Peskin: THAT WAS ASKED IN COMMITTEE AND THE
ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YES,
BUT ONLY UP TO THE MAXIMUM THAT ONE EMPLOYEE WOULD OTHERWISE BE
ABLE TO OBTAIN.
Supervisor McGoldrick: SO
THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHARE THE TOTAL OF THE COMP TIME. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE AN
EMPLOYEE WORK LESS THAN 20 HOURS AND HAVE ANOTHER EMPLOYEE WORK MORE THAN 20 HOURS, FOR THE SAKE
OF EXAMPLE, ONE WORKS 19 HOURS,
THE OTHER WORKS 21 HOURS.
IS THAT A POSSIBILITY
President Peskin: THEN THAT EMPLOYEE WOULD NOT RECEIVE BENEFITS. Supervisor McGoldrick: WOULD THE EMPLOYEE WORKING 19
HOURS BE ABLE TO GET COMP TIME
President Peskin: NO.
THEY WOULD NEED 20 HOURS.
Supervisor McGoldrick: TO QUALIFY COMP TIME IS THAT CORRECT
I COULD GET THAT ON LEGAL BASIS. INDEED.
SO YOU HAVE TO WORK 20 HOURS TO
GET THE COMP TIME BENEFIT. I WASNT ABLE TO REVIEW THAT HEARING LAST THURSDAY.
I WAS VERY BUSY WITH PRIVATE MATTERS TOO. I JUST WONDERS, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED IN COMMITTEE BECAUSE I WANT TO BE SURE WE WOULD KNOW WHAT WERE
GETTING INTO, ON TERMS OF VACATION TIME
President Peskin: THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS
Supervisor McGoldrick: I WOULD LIKE AN EXPLANNING ALONG THOSE LINES. ONE OTHER QUESTION.
COULD WE ACTUALLY HAVE THEN FOUR EMPLOYEES, INSTEAD OF TWO LEGISLATIVE AIDES, COULD WE HAVE FOUR, OR WOULD IT BE LIMITED TO ONLY ONE OF THE TWO, AND COULD WE HAVE FIVE OR SIX EMPLOYEES,
EACH WORKING 15 HOURS
HOW DOES THIS DIVIDE AND SUBDIVIDE THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, I ASKED A LOT OF THE SAME QUESTIONS YOURE ASKING. FIRST, NO, THE MOTIONS ONLY
WRITTEN TO ALLOW ONE AIDE TO BE SPLIT.
SO ITS NOT AS IF YOU COULD HAVE FOUR.
SECOND, IN TERMS OF COMP TIME,
ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAD WAS OUR BOARD AIDES ARE LIMITED TO I
BELIEVE 120 HOURS TOTAL OF COMP TIME.
SO HOW IS THAT GOING TO WORK,
DOES ONE GET 80, ONE GET 40 WHAT IF ONE STARTS WORKING MORE THAN THE OTHER, DO YOU HAVE TO TELL ONE TO STOP
THE WAY IT WORKS IS YOURE CAPPED AT 120 AND THE WAY ITS
DIVIDED IS UP TO YOU AS THE SUPERVISOR, AS THE SUPERVISING
OR THE APPOINTING OFFICER, EWELL MAKE YOULL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, VACATION TIME,
SICK TIME, BOTH ARE SPLIT IN HALF.
YOU KNOW, THOSE WERE THE MAIN QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED. WERE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD
I GOT INTO THOSE ISSUES, AND
FELT THAT THEY WERE ADEQUATELY
RESPONDED TO.
President Peskin: ON THE
ITEM, A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE.
SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE. SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AYE. SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, AYE.
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, AYE. SUPERVISOR DUFTY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AYE.
SUPERVISOR JEW, AYE.
The Clerk: 11 AYES.
President Peskin: THE MOTION IS APPROVED.
The Clerk: 31 THROUGH 46
WERE NOT SENT FROM THE GAR COMMITTEE, THEY WILL BE AT THE
JUNE 19 BOARD MEETING.
Supervisor McGoldrick: DO WREE NEED TO MOVE TO CONTINUE THEM, MR. PRESIDENT
President Peskin: THEYRE NOT BEFORE US. THEYRE SET FORTH AS COMMITTEE
REPORTS. Supervisor McGoldrick: THANK YOU.
The Clerk: NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS ROLL CALL FOR
.NTRODUCTIONS.
Supervisor Maxwell: ILL SUBMIT.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER. Supervisor AliotoPier: REREFER.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR JEW.
Supervisor Jew: SUBMIT.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR DALY, REREFER.
SUPERVISOR DUFTY.
SUPERVISORS MIRKARIMI, REREFER.
President Peskin: WHY DONT I DO AN IN MEMORIAM. COLLEAGUES, I WOULD LIKE TO
ADJOURN TODAYS MEETING FOR WHAT
MAY HAVE BEEN SAN FRANCISCOS
OLDEST NATIVE WHO WAS NINE AT
THE TIME OF THE 1906 EARTHQUAKE
AND FIRE AND SHE DIED WEDNESDAY
AT A NURSING HOME AT THE AGE OF
1 10, AND OUR CONDOLENCES TO HER
DAUGHTER, 14 GRANDCHILDREN, 20 GREAT GRANDCHILDREN AND ONE
GREAT GREAT GRANDCHILD.
President Peskin: GO BACK
TO SUPERVISORS ALIOTOPIER AND
MIRKARIMI. Supervisor AliotoPier: THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, A COUPLE OF MONTHS
AGO WHEN WE HAD THE HEALTHY CHILDREN, TALKS OF TOY LEGISLATION, AS YOU RECALL THIS WAS PULLED OUT. TODAY IM INTRODUCING A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD DIRECT THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE VIRMENT ENVIRONMENT TO REPORT POTENTIAL ACTIONS TO
RESTRICT THIS IN CHILDRENS PRODUCTS. WHEN WE PASSED THE HEALTHY PRODUCTS HEALTHY CHILDREN
ORDINANCE BANNING THE SALE OF
CHILDRENS PRODUCTS CONTAINING THIS PRODUCT, THE ORDINANCE
URGED THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CONTINUE ITS INVESTIGATION INTO
THE HEALTH EFFECTS, AND TO IDENTIFY SAFER ALTERNATIVES THROUGH ITS USE. THE ORDINANCE WENT ONE STEP FURTHER AND REQUIRED THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
AND GOES ONE STEP FURTHER AND REQUIRES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT TO MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON REGULATING PRODUCTS CONTAINING THIS PRODUCT.
IF THE STATE NEGLECTS TO TAKE
ACTION I LEARNED THE STATE
BILL ON AB1108 SPONSORED BY
ASSEMBLY WOMAN MA WAS PASSED AT
THE ASSEMBLY BUT THE PROVISIONS
ON THIS PRODUCT WERE REMOVED.
THE STATE BILL ONLY ADDRESSES
THE DANGERS OF THAT WILLATES.
IT CAUSES DANGER TO
IT IS PRUDENT AT THIS TIME TO DIRECT THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT TO COLLABORATE WITH REPRESENTATIVES ON THE SCIENTIFIC AND CHILDRENS HEALTH
COMMUNITY TO ADDRESS THE RISKS
OF THIS PRODUCT AND WHAT THEY POSE TO PUBLIC HEALTH. THIS WOULD REQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT TO REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE U. S. NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF HEALTH
WHEN WE REGULATED THAT WILLADES,
WE WOULD COME BACK TO A IF THE
STATE LEGISLATE DID NOT DO
ANYTHING, THEY DID NOT, SO HERE WE ARE.
I WILL SUBMIT THE REST.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR DALY.
Supervisor Daly: THANK YOU,
MADAM CLERK, AND COLLEAGUES.
NO ITEM TO INTRODUCE THAT IM
GOING TO COVER, BUT I DO WANT TO
GIVE YOU A HEADS UP ABOUT SOME
INFORMATION ACQUIRED BY MY
OFFICE TODAY, WHICH RAISES
PRETTY SERIOUS QUESTIONS AS TO
WHETHER THE MAYORS OFFICE IS
ENGAGED IN ANYTHING IMPROPER IN TERMS OF USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES.
FIRST OFF, I HAVE YOU PERHAPS
HAVE HEARD OF COMPETING RALLIES
SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW. I HAVE SINCE TRIED TO PUT OUT
THE WORD TO CANCEL THE RALLY
THAT MY OFFICE CALLED LAST WEEK.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, I DID GET
COPIES OF THE APPLICATION, THE
INFORMATION SHEET FOR CITY HALL RALLIES. IF YOUVE FILLED THIS OUT WITH BUILDING MANAGEMENT.
AND MY APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED
AROUND A LITTLE AFTER 11:00 ON
JUNE 6, AFTER SUBMITTING THIS APPLICATION, HEARING THAT THE
SPACE WAS AVAILABLE, MY OFFICE
RECEIVED VOICE CONFIRMATION THAT
WE HAD PROPERLY ACQUIRED THE
SPACE. THE MAYORS OFFICE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR THEAME TIME, TH, ON JUNE 7. ON JUNE 7, AFTER THAT APPLICATION WENT IN FROM THE MAYORS OFFICE, MY OFFICE RECEIVED WORD FROM BUILDING MANAGEMENT THAT IN FACT WE DID NOT HAVE THE SPACE AND THE MAYORS OFFICE DID HAVE THE
SPACE. I GUESS MORAL OF THE BETTER TO BE MAYOR. WITH THAT SAID, COLLEAGUES, FAIR IS FAIR.
AND IN TERMS OF A USE OF PUBLIC
SPACE, THE POLICY OF THE CITY IS THAT ITS FOR ALL TIMES OTHER
THAN 1:30, I GUESS ON FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE BASIS FOR
MEMBERS OF CITY FAMILY, IF ONE
MEMBER OF THE CITY FAMILY ACQUIRES THE SPACE AND DOES THE
PRPERWORK AND GETS IT IN
FIRST THEY SHOULDNT BE TRUMPED BY ANOTHER ELECTED OFFICIAL
CALLING IN FAVORS OR DOING WHATEVER IT IS THEY DO OVER THERE.
IN ADDITION, COLLEAGUES, TODAY,
I SENT A MEMO TO THE ETHICS
COMMISSION, QUESTIONING WHETHER
PUBLIC RESOURCES HAVE BEEN INAPPROPRIATELY USED BY THE
MAYORS OFFICE FOR ELECTIONEERING PURPOSES.
IF YOU GET THE NEWSOM CAMPAIGN
EMAILS OR IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR WEBSITE, ALTHOUGH IM NOT RECOMMENDING THAT YOU DO IT, YOULL KNOW THAT THEY MADE TOMORROWS RALLY AND BUDGET
HEARING A SIGNIFICANT EMPHASIS
OF NEWSOM 07 OR LOCALLY SF,
THEIR WEBSITE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY
THE NEWSOM 07 WEBSITE, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. THEY HAVE SENT EMAILS.
THEY HAVE THE WEBSITE POSTING.
THEY HAVE MADE PHONE CALLS.
AND WE HAVE VOICE MESSAGES FROM
NEWSOM 07 TURNING OUT FOR TOMORROWS EVENT. THIS RAISES QUESTIONS AS TO
WHETHER TOMORROWS EVENT IS ACTUALLY A CAMPAIGN EVENT, AND IF IT CAMPAIGN EVENT,
WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY HALL
RESOURCES, WADE CRO FOOT OF THE PHA EUS STAFF, A POLITICAL OPERATIVE IN CITY HALL, BUT ON
THE MAYORS CITY HALL STAFF, A
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE, WHO HAS BEEN NAMED APPLICANT FOR THAT PERMIT. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER RESOURCES FROM THE MAYORS
OFFICE WERE USED, IF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL GETS THE SPACE WE DONT
HAVE TO GET A SOUND PERMITTED
BUT GET THE SOWNT EQUIPMENT PROVIDED.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THIS IS PUBLIC RESOURCES FOR AN ELECTION EVENT AS IT APPEARS TO BE A
FOCAL POINT FOR THE NEWSOM
ELECTION CAMPAIGN OR NEWSOM 07.
IN ADDITION, MORE TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS TO THE ETHICS DIRECTOR
REGARDING OFFICE HOLDER COMMITTEES, AND WHETHER ITS APPROPRIATE FOR CAMPAIGN DOLLARS
TO BE USED FOR ENGAGING IN
LOBBYING EFFORTS, WHICH SEEM
MORE LIKE ALL TYPE OF ACTIVITY
UNLESS OF AN ACTIVITY FOR GETTING OUR INDIVIDUALS ELECTED
TO OFFICE.
COLLEAGUES, BASED ON THIS
SERIOUS CLOUD OF IVE
CANCELED TOMORROWS BUDGET
HEARING.
I WILL BE LOOKING FOR MORE EDUCATION AND DOCUMENTATION TO
FIND IF THERES WRONG DOING. IM INTERESTED IN HAVING A FAIR BUDGET PROCESS THAT PUTS THE
PEOPLE OF SAN FRANCISCO FIRST AND NOT POLITICS.
THAT CONCLUDES MY ROLL CALL.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR
MIRKARIMI.
Supervisor Mirkarimi: I AM SHOULD THEEING A RESOLUTION FOR THE REGISTERED NURSING PROGRAM
TO PETITION THE BOARD OF
A:
3 TO ALLOW ADOPTION OF A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT TO SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTS.
AS WE LEARNED, ONLY 38 OF THE STUDENTS ADMITTED TO THE CITY OF COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO NURSING PROGRAM IN THE FALL OF 2007 WERE RESIDENTS OF SAN FRANCISCO.
OVER THE TREND OF THE LAST 10 YEARS, ITS BEEN LOWER THAN THAT. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT SINCE
THIS IS A HIGHLY SOUGHT AFTER PROGRAM, RELATIVE TO THE FACT
THAT THERE WERE OVER 680
APPLICATIONS FOR AD SLOTS LAST
YEAR AND ONLY 30 CAME FROM SAN FRANCISCO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY COLLEGE ENDEAVOR TO DO A BETTER JOB IN HOPING TO BRING SAN FRANCISCANS TO THE CITY COLLEGE NURSING PROGRAM,
SINCE IT IS A VERY WELLNOTED
AND HIGHLY COVETED PROGRAM.
JOINT LABOR AND ITS OUR HEALTH CARE PRINCIPLES DEVELOPED BY
COALITION OF COMMUNITY, CLERGY,
LABOR AND HEALTH CARE, IN
SUPPORTING PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR
ALL WORKING CALIFORNIAANS.
AN IN MEMORIAM FOR THE FAMILY OF
HUGHES de LA PLAZA. THIS YOUNG PLAN WAS FOUND DEAD ABOUT A WEEK AGO.
IT WAS UNCLEAR IF HE WAS
MURDERED OR IF IT WAS A SUICIDE.
THERE WAS A VIGIL LAST FRIDAY, WHICH I ATTENDED. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF OUTRAGED
CITIZENS WHO KNOW MR. de LA PLAZA AND FEEL STRONGLY THAT
IT WAS A MISTAKE TO DECIDE, OR TO DECLARE AT THIS STAGE THAT IT
MAY HAVE BEEN A SUICIDE AND ARE
ASKING FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
TO PLEASE INVESTIGATE MORE THOROUGHLY.
THE REST ILL SUBMIT. THANK YOU.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR ELSBERND.
Supervisor Elsbernd: THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. BRIEFLY, ID LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD ADJOURN TODAYS MEETING IN
MEMORY OF JOSEPH PATRICK
DRISCOL, A LONG TIME MEMBER OF THE MY ASSOCIATION WITH HIM WAS THROUGH HIS SON WHO WAS JUST THIS MORNING ELECTED VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SAN FRANCISCO
RETIREMENT BOARD, HIS SON BEING
JOE DRISCOL WHO HAS BEEN ON THE RETIREMENT BOARD FOR MANY YEARS AND IS RESPONSIBLE IN MANY
RESPECTS FOR THE GREAT WEALTH OF OUR RETIREMENT FUND.
THAT IS MY ROLL CALL. THANK YOU.
IF WE COULD
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER.
Supervisor AliotoPier: I
WAS GOING TO ASK IF WE COULD
MAKE IT FROM THE WHOLE BOARD.
President Peskin: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
The Clerk: NEXT ITEM ON THE
AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMENT 48. PUBLIC COMMENT AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE BOARD ON ITEMS OF INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC THAT ARE WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD, INCLUDING ITEMS BEING CONSIDERED TODAY WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY A BOARD COMMITTEE AND EXCLUDING ITEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY A
BOARD COMMITTEE. EMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE BOARD FOR UP TO TWO MINUTES. EACH MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE ALLOTTED THE SAME NUMBER OF MINUTES TO SPEAK, EXCEPT THAT PUBLIC SPEAKERS USING TRANSLATION ASSISTANCE WILL BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY FOR TWICE THE AMOUNT OF THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY
TIME LIMIT. IF SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION SERVICES ARE USED, SPEAKERS WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY TIME LIMIT APPLIED TO SPEAKERS NOT REQUESTING
TRANSLATION ASSISTANCE. THE PRESIDENT OR THE BOARD MAY
LIMIT THE TOTAL TESTIMONY TO 30 MINUTES. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WANT A DOCUMENT PLACED ON THE OVERHEAD FOR DISPLAY SHOULD CLEARLY STATE SUCH AND SUBSEQUENTLY REMOVE THE DOCUMENT WHEN THEY WANT THE SCREEN TO RETURN TO LIVE
COVERAGE OF THE MEETING.
SUPERVISORS JAKE, HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
JAKE, HE ASK US TO KEEP HIS
BIRTHDAY A SECRET, AND I WONT TELL YOU.
IS SECRET FOR EVERYONE.
IM HERE OUR PRESIDENT, AARON
PESKIN, MY NAME ABDULUM GAY.
I COMING HERE AND I HAVE MESSAGE
FROM ONE OF MY FRIENDS.
HIS NAME IS WILLIAM HEE.
HE HAS TWO YOUNG CHILDREN, AND
THEY CONCERN ABOUT THEIR OWN
FUTURE, ABOUT THEIR OWN LAND. HE KEEP HIS PICTURE YOU SEE NOW,
AND HE ASK ME TO GIVE EACH ONE
OF YOU CARD, CARD THAT SAID
PEACE.
HOPE THAT MEAN LOVE JEW.
WE NEED TO HAVE PEACE.
WELL ASK THE 3,520 AMERICAN
SOLDIER IN IRAQ, BECAUSE OUR IDIOT PRESIDENT, HE WANT TO KILL
THEM THIS WAY. AND HOW MANY OTHER THOUSAND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED BACK HOME. THOUSAND.
BUT OUR MEDIA DOESNT NEED TO
TALK ABOUT IT.
THEY WONT TALK ABOUT THAT IS
AND SHE DID TO HERSELF.
I AM HERE ASK EACH ONE OF YOU
SUPERVISOR TO SUPPORT US TOMORROW, THE BUDGET.
WE NEED MONEY FOR HOUSING, YES.
WE NEED ALSO MONEY FOR THE NURSE
TO HELP US IN THE HOSPITAL.
WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR
YES, YOU HAVE FOR THE MUNI.
AND WE NEED HELP. TOMORROW I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
EACH ONE OF YOU SUPPORT FOR THE BUDGET. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: NEXT SPEAKER.
HONORABLE PRESIDENT, MEMBERS,
IT IS DISINGENUOUS OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER TO
INSINUATE IN TODAYS NEWSPAPER
THAT TAXES WERE NOT PAID BY
SUPERVISOR JEW. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
THANK YOU, SUPERVISORS. STOP THE CORPORATE RAPE OF THE PUBLIC LIBRARY, DONT GIVE MONEY TO THE FRIENDS AND FOUNDATION, DONT ACCEPT MONEY FROM THE FRIENDS AND FOUNDATION.
LET ME RADIO REASSURE, CHRIS DALY, IT IS ALL PUBLIC RESOURCES
BEING SPENT AS PART OF A CAMPAIGN EVENT.
DO YOU REMEMBER THE SCANTSSES
SCANDALS OF THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
THE OVERRUN IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF.
IF THIS HAD BEEN ANY OTHER CITY,
IT WOULD BE CALLED A GATE,
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP GATE.
IT WAS A SUCCESS FOR THE PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.
IT IS TIME TO REVIEW THE
DISASTER AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS.
THERE WAS A DUMPING SCANDAL,
PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE OF THE
ARCHITECTS, THE EVALUATION
SCANDAL, THE LOWER ACCREDITATION SCANDAL, LIBRARY FEES FOR
SERVICE, THURMAN FUND SCANDAL AND SO.
UNDERLYING THEM ALL, THE PUBLIC
RECORDS ACCESS SCANDALS.
IN ANY CASE WHERE THE DANGERS
AND DISTORTIONS OF PRIVATE
INSTITUTION IS TALKED ABOUT, THE
DANGERS OF PRIVATIZATION PUBLIC LIBRARY WILL BE EXHIBIT A.
IT IS DRIVEN BY THE POLITICS OF
FREE ICE CREAM, WHICH IS THIS.
JUDGMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARE
OBLITERATED POLITICIANS GROOMINR VANITY.
IT IS PRETTY EXPENSIVE FREE ICE CREAM. WHEN YOU TOLD YOUR MOTHER YOU WANTED TO GO INTO PUBLIC SERVICE DID YOU TELL HER YOU WANTED TO
STEAL THE PUBLIC BLIND AND DESTROY ACCOUNTABILITY IN FACT WHEN PEOPLE ARE ASKED,
PEOPLE VOTE FOR TERM LIMITS, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, DISTRICT ELECTIONS, WHICH ARE
ALL ATTEMPTS TO PREVENT
INCUMBENTS FROM GIVING AWAY THE STORE. THE LIES COST MORE THAN THE MONEY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS.
MY NAME IS PETER VON VEGGON.
I DRIVE A YELLOW CAB FOR THE
LAST 25 YEARS OR SO, SINCE THE LATE 70s.
IM 60 YEARS OLD AND IVE DEVOTED OVER HALF MY LIFE TO THE SERVICE OF THIS GREAT CITY. I HAVE SEEN MANY CHANGES.
I ARRIVED IN THE LATE 60s,
HERE IN THE HAIGHT ASH BRIE
DAYS. MY CONCERN IS SOME HOT HEADED
ACCUSATIONS BEING THROWN AROUND.
THE ONE THAT HAS ME UPSET IS
THIS THING ABOUT A LONG TERM LEASE. SOME DRIVERS LIKE THAT BUT MOST
OF US DO A DAILY GATE AND GAS LEASE.
WE WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THE
PROBLEM WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE UTW FILING A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE DRIVERS.
THE UTW DOES NOT, NOR EVER WILL, REPRESENT ME.
THEY SEEM TO GO AROUND, CAUSING TROUBLE WITH THE UNION AND
MANAGEMENT OF THE MAJOR CAB COMPANIES.
THERE IS A FLIER SAYING LONG TERM LEASE IS WHAT ITS GOING TO
DO. WELL IF THEY DROP THE LAWSUIT THIS WONT HAPPEN.
IF IALTH INSURANCE OR
ANY OTHER KIND OF THING, I DONT
NEED UTW TELLING ME WHAT I NEED.
THIS IS NOT A REGULAR STRAIGHT JOB. WERE TAXI DRIVERS.
WE CERTAINLY DONT HAVE THE
REGULAR JOB LIKE THE 9 TO 5 DOWNTOWN PEOPLE DO. WE ARE NOT THE NORM. WE ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. A LOT OF US PURSUE OTHER
INTERESTS BECAUSE WE CAN DO OUR JOBS AS CAB DRIVERS.
IF I WANT GUARANTEED WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT AND OTHER STUFF LIKE THAT, I COULD HAVE A STRAIGHT
JOB, BUT I DONT WANT THAT. THATS NOT MY STYLE.
I WANT THE UTW TO LEAVE US ALONE.
I WANT THEM TO STOP YELLOW CAB COMPANIES. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES YOUR TIME. WE ALL RECEIVED YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT.
I THOUGHT I HAD THREE MINUTES.
YOU DID HAVE THREE MINUTES. TWO MI YOU ONLY HAD TWO MINUTES TODAY. CAN I FINISH
SORRY, WEVE RECEIVED YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE. HI. I AM LOIS ROBERTS, IVE BEEN
HERE SINCE 1986, AND I MIGHT NOT
BE HERE A LOT LONGER.
IVE COME BEFORE THE BOARD FOR
OTHER PEOPLE.
TODAY, IM COMING PARTLY FOR MYSELF. IT APPEARS THAT THE PLACE I HAVE
BEEN LIVING HAS BEEN SOLD, BUT
THAT THE ELLIS ACT WILL NOT APPLY. THIS IS DUE TO THE MAYORS
PROGRAM FOR THE HOMELESS.
IT DOESNT MAKE A LOT OF SENSE,
BECAUSE IT WILL MAKE OTHER PEOPLE HOMELESS, AND THEN THEY
WILL HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE CITY.
ALL OF US AT THIS POINT, I THINK PAY OUR OWN RENT.
ITS QUITE LOW DUE TO THE RENT CONTROL BOARD.
BUT AS I SAY, IT HAS BEEN SOLD. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD AT A MEETING
LAST WEEK, IT HAS BEEN SOLD TO
THE TJ EVANS COMPANY, AND THEY
HAVE PAID FOR A MAN TO REMOVE PEOPLE, AND GIVE THEM A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF MONEY. AND I DONT KNOW WHEN THIS WILL
BE TAKING PLACE. I HAVE BEEN TO THE RENT CONTROL BOARD, AND I HAVE WRITTEN TO A FEW PEOPLE.
AND I PROBABLY USED IVE
STILL GOT A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.
BUT, ANYWAY, THATS THE MAIN THING.
THE YMCA WILL RENT THEIR SPACE IN THE BUILDING.
THE BUILDING HAS NOT BEEN
CONDEMDZ AND DOESNT REALLY NEED
NEED IT HAS A BRAND NEW IT
HAS A LOT OF NEW THINGS IN IT
THAT DONT REQUIRE FIXING.
BUT THE POINT IS TO REMOVE THE
TENANTS AND TO BRING PEOPLE IN AT A DIFFERENT RATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I HOPE THIS ISNT THE LAST TIME
ILL BE HERE. THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS.
YOU KNOW WHAT IM HOLDING HERE
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS
IT IS A TAM ALE.
THIS SATURDAY IS THE DRAGON
FESTIVAL IN CHINATOWN TOMORROW
WE WILL HAVE DRAGON AND LIONS
PARADING DOWN ON GRAND AVENUE AT
4:00, AND AT 5:00 WE WILL MAKE THESE.
WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT DURING THIS FESTIVAL
THE STORY GOES 2000 YEARS AGO
THERE WAS A PATRIOTIC POET AND HE WANTED TO SAVE THE PEOPLE.
SO INSTEAD OF OBEYING ORDERS
FROM THE HIGH OFFICIALS, HE COMMITTED SUICIDE, BY JUMPING IN THE RIVER.
SO BY AND THE ORDINARY PEOPLE WANTED TO HONOR HIM EACH YEAR AROUND THIS TIME, THE FIFTH DAY OF THE FIFTH MONTH. INSTEAD OF THROWING RICE INTO THE RIVER, WHICH DISSIPATES,
THEY MAKE THIS TAMALE, MAKE SURE IT WILL REAP TO HIS SPIRIT
INSTEAD OF RICE.
SO AT 5:00, WELL MAKE THIS.
THIS IS THE TIME OF THE YEAR
THAT WE ESPECIALLY MAKE THIS
TO IN MEMORY OF THE POET.
SO I HOPE YOU PLEASE JOIN US
THIS SATURDAY AT 4:00.
WE CAN DO THE LION AND DRAGON
WALK, THEN FOLLOWED BY MAKING TAMALES AT 5:00.
WE WILL HAVE THE PERFORMANCE IS RIGHT ON WAVERLY AND WASHINGTON.
SO I HOPE TO SEE YOU ALL THERE. YOU ARE INVITED.
SO HOPEFULLY PESKIN, OUR DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE IT.
SO, ANYWAY, WHATS MADE OUT OF IT
ITS STICKY RICE.
VERY YUMMY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
HELLO.
I AM WALTER FROM SAN FRANCISCO. HELLO PRESIDENT PESKIN,
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AND ALL THE SUPERVISORS.
I HAVE A GRAPHIC.
WELL, YOU KNOW, GOOD ENERGY IS EVERYTHING.
THE BEST IS YET TO COME FOR
SAN FRANCISCO, AND WONT IT BE FINE.
YOU AINT SEEN NOTHING YET. YOURE GOING TO SEE THE SAN FRANCISCO SUNSHINE.
WAIT TILL I GET TO YOU,
CLIMBING UP KNOB HILL SO TRUE AND FINE, COME THE DAY YOU GIVE
ME A DIME, AND THE TIME, IT WILL
RHYME.
FATHERS DAY IS SUNDAY.
DADDY, DONT YOU WALK SO FAST.
DADDY, DONT YOU WALK SO FAST.
WONT YOU SLOW DOWN, BECAUSE YOURE MAKING ME RUN.
DADDY, DONT YOU WALK SO FAST.
AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TODAY, THE CHANCE TO SAY WONT
YOU SLOW DOWN SOME, HAVE SOME
FUN, AND I WANTED TO SAY, HAVE A
HAPPY FATHERS DAY.
President Peskin: THANK YOU, WALTER. ON SUNDAY.
President Peskin: NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE. PERFORMING ARTS. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS JOE BRENNER, CODIRECTOR FOR CENTER ON POLICY ANALYSIS ON TRADE AND HEALTH. WE ARE A NATIONAL ORGANIZATION
THAT CONDUCTS ANALYSIS, RESEARCH
AND EDUCATION ON GLOBAL TRADE, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND HEALTH RELATED SERVICES. WE COMMEND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR CONSIDERING A RESOLUTION URGING CONGRESS NOT
TO RENEW THE FAST TRACK NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY.
TRADE AGREEMENTS NEGOTIATED
UNDER FAST TRACK THREATEN THE ABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS INTEREST, TO SAFEGUAD
OUR HEALTH AND PROMOTE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC WELL BEING.
THE RECENTLY NEGOTIATED U.S.
KOREA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IS AN EXAMPLE WHICH THREATENS POOR
PROTECTION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH
UNDER THE NOTORIOUS CHAPTER 11.
WE HAVE CONDUCTED A SCORE CARD
ON ITS IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH.
I JUST CAME BACK FROM SOUTH KOREA LAST WEEK WHERE THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THAT
AGREEMENT ON THEIR POPULATION.
DESPITE MOUNTING CALLS FOR
PARTICIPATION IN TRADE POLICIES,
THE U. S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVES
HAVE FAILED TO INVOLVE ITS OWN
ADVISORY COMMITTEES, MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS, STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS AND THE PUBLIC IN NEGOTIATING KEY TRADE PROVISIONS. AS A RESULT THE KOREA TRADE AGREEMENT CREATES ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE DRUGS FOR SENIORS AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS IN THE
UNITED STATES, IT RAISE HIS DRUG
PRICES IN KOREA.
MANY KOREANS CANNOT AFFORD
LIFESAVING DRUGS.
THE AGREEMENT GR COMPANIES MONO.
AND IT REVERSES IMPORTANT
TOBACCO CONTROLS IN KOREA.
45 OF MEN SMOKE AND THE LEADING
CAUSE OF DEATH IS LUNG CANCER.
SAN FRANCISCO IS KNOWN FOR ITS TOBACCO THANK YOU FOR PASSING THE RESOLUTION TODAY.
President Peskin: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
PEACE, FRIENDSHIP.
MY NAME IS EUGENE GORDON JUNIOR.
MY HERITAGE IS INDIGENOUS TO
FOUR CONTINENTS.
MULTIETHNIC PEOPLE CULTIVATES
NURTURES CULTURE SHOCK, RACISM, CHAUVINISM. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, CLOTHED IN HERITAGE KILT FOR
YEARS TO KNOW I AM IN WILD OF
THE CONDITION PUBLIC
PSYCHOLOGICALLY STIMULATED FOR CONFRONTATION.
AFRICANAMERICAN NEGROES USE AS
EXAMPLE ON MUNI LINE 9 WITHOUT CONSCIENCE ADDRESS THEMSELVES
AND OTHER PEOPLE AS N AND MY
N WORD AND A FUTURE. WORDS, PEACE, FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY
IS A PROP NEEDING TO BE DATED.
CHRISTIANS SAID TO BE JEWISH MAN
DISPLAYED SCULPTURE HELD ON A HP
WHICH IS A DEAD OR CRUCIFIED JEW.
JESUS CHRIST BORN BY HUMAN
INVETION, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
DEFINE LIFE WHO IN MY PERCEPTION
AS AN ATHEIST JEW SYMBOLIZES
CONVICT AS IN PREDATOR AND PREY,
THE DYING JEW IS SAID TO BE DYING FOR THE PEOPLE AND THAT ABSURD A PROMISED RETURN AS A
SAVIOR OF FAITHFUL FROM THEMSELVES.
THIS GUT RENCHED FROM A JEW
LIVING IN IT AND RADIATING. HUMANS CREATED BY DIVINE TO
SPEND MONEY AND BE DIVIDED BY CLASS RANK
WHAT A FRAUD.
THE STATE SO MUCH EFFORT TO
CONVINCE AS IT SELF DESTRUCTS. DESTRUCTS.
President Peskin: THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER.
GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CITY OF
SAN FRANCISCO, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
ID LIKE TO COMMEND THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THEIR ESCAPE FROM HOSTAGE ENERGY SOURCES IN THE CITY THAT THE CITY HAS NO
CONTROL OVER.
IF WE HAVE A LOOK AT OTHER SOCIETIES IN HISTORY THAT HAVE
FALLEN, ITS ALL BEEN DUE TO ECOLOGICAL SUICIDE.
AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS,
IS THAT WE HAVE TO USE ENERGY
RESOURCES, THAT WE CAN CONTROL, RATHER THAN ENERGY RESOURCES
THAT HOLD US HOSTAGE.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THIS IS OUR
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, WHICH THE
TURN OF THE CENTURY, HAD A LOT
OF REUSABLE, RENEWABLE ENERGY. EQUESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION BEING
ONE OF THEM.
SO THE QUESTION IS, HOW LONG CAN
WE AFFORD NOT TO STEP BACK AND
REALIZE HOW FUNCTIONALLY IMPORTANT HORSE TRANSPORTATION
IN THE CITY WAS, AND STILL CAN BE.
BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY WAY
FORWARD TO REALIZE THAT ECOCIDE IS ONE THING THAT YOURE NOT
AWARE USUALLY UNTIL ITS TOO LATE. SO PGE, COMPANIES LIKE THAT,
THEYRE NOT GOING TO MAKE US
AWARE OF THE FACT THAT WE IN FACT HAVE TO BREAK THE
DEPENDENCE ON THIS TYPE OF FUEL. SO MAYBE A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR
ALL THE EQUESTRIANS THAT USED TO
WORK AND INHABIT THIS CITY. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
MY NAME IS BRUCE ALLISON.
I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND ROSS MIRKARIMI, SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI,
FOR THE HOSPITAL DISCHARGE BILL
THAT THEY WILL ANNOUNCE TODAY.
THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE
DISCHARGED ON I WAS ON THE
HOSPITAL DISCHARGE TASK FORCE.
RICH AND POOR COMBINED, ON A FRIDAY NIGHT WHEN THEY COULDNT
GET HELP, TILL ABOUT MONDAY, THE
NEXT MORNING, AND A LOT HAS BEEN SENT TO SHELTERS LATELY, WHERE
THERES NO WAY IN HAIGHT THAT
THESE PEOPLE ARE GETTING HELP.
THEYVE BEEN CARRYING THEIR ID TAGS WITH THEM.
ID LIKE TO THANK ROSS PH EURPBG
FOR MIRKARIMI FOR APPROVING
AB I FORGET THE NUMBER OFF MY HAND.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS.
MY NAME IS CHARLES RATHBONE, A TAXICAB MEDALLION ASSOCIATION, I
ASK YOU TO VOTE NO ON ITEM 58 REGARDING TAXI LEASES AND WHAT
WE CALL THE DRIVE YOUR OWN RULE.
ARE A DO OR DIE FOREITHER OF
US BUT I WOULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE INCREASING
NUMBER OF CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE
BEING PLACED ON THE TAXI INDUSTRY. HOWEVER THERE ARE NO CONSTRAINTS
ON THE ILLEGAL SECTOR OF GYPSY
CABS THAT IS GROWING RAPIDLY,
FREE OF CONTROL, FREE OF HEALTH CARE REQUIREMENTS, FREE OF INSURANCE AND VEHICLE STANDARDS PREVENTIVE WE ARE ON THE ROAD NOW I BELIEVE IN SAN FRANCISCO
TO A SITUATION LIKE IN
LOS ANGELES, WHERE THE ILLEGAL
CABS OUTNUMBER THE LEGAL CABS.
PLEASE BE AWARE OF HEAVYHANDED REGULATION THAT MAKES THE GYPSY
CAB SECTOR EVER MORE ATTRACTIVE TO OPERATORS.
I HOPE YOU ALLOW THE TAXI COMPANIES FLEXIBILITY THAT THEY NEED IN THIS MATTER OF THEIR LEASES. REGARDING THE DRIVE YOUR OWN RULE, THATS CURRENTLY UNDER
REVIEW AT THE TAXI COMMISSION.
THERE ARE VALID ARGUMENTS ON
BOTH SIDES, INCLUDING A
SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC SERVICE
DOWNSIDE, FROM TOO STRICT, TOO RIGID ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE BOARD TO INTERVENE IN THIS MATTER AT THIS TIME SO I HOPE THAT YOU WILL VOTE NO ON THAT.
AND IF I MAY SAY, GENERALLY, THE TAXI COMMISSION SPENDS VIRTUALLY
ALL OF ITS TIME ON WHAT DRIVERS WANT.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECOGNIZE THAT THERE
ARE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS INTERESTS ON THE SIDE OF THE
TAXI COMPANIES AS WELL.
THANK YOU. MR. PRESIDENT, BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, MY NAME IS GERALD GANLY.
I AM A MEMBER OF THE MEDALLION HOLDER ASSOCIATION IN SAN FRANCISCO.
IVE BEEN DRIVING HERE SINCE 1979 AND HAVE A FAIRLY GOOD IDEA
OF WHATS GOING ON IN THE CITY. THE TAXICAB INDUSTRY IS CURRENTLY ONE OF THE MOST REGULATED BUSINESSES IN THE CITY. AT THIS TIME WHEN THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF UNKNOWNS CURRENTLY
FACING THE INDUSTRY, THE INTRODUCTION OF THE HYBRID
VEHICLES AS WELL AS THE HEALTH
INSURANCE SITUATION, WHICH IS
CAN BE TENUOUS, I DONT THINK
THIS IS A TIME TO BE ADDING FURTHER REGULATION AND FURTHER
CONTROL OF THE INDUSTRY. ITS FUNCTIONED VERY WELL AND
THE LONG TERM LEASE SITUATION IS
VERY VIABLE FOR MANY DRIVERS. I DONT THINK THIS IS A TIME TO STOP THAT.
SO I WOULD URGE YOU ALL TO
PLEASE VOTE NO ON ITEM NUMBER 58.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR. PRESIDENT, BOARD, SUPERVISOR MAXWELL.
ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE IN GENERAL, RESPONSE TO
INTERNATIONAL REPORTS ABOUT THE
ABUSES AND VIOLATIONS AT PRISONS
AND COUNTY JAIL IN
SAN FRANCISCO, IN PARTICULAR
PNCHS KNOWN AS THE EIGHT FROM
FOOD CONTAMINATION. WE URGE FOR HEARINGS
PARTICULARLY SINCE THE MAJORITY
IS AFRICANAMERICAN DECENT.
WE ASK YOU SUPERVISOR MAXWELL TO
ADDRESS THIS PRESSING NEED WITH WHAT IS GOING ON AT THE
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY JAIL.
WE APPRECIATE THAT CALL.
SUPERVISORS, GOOD EVENING, I
AM ROBERT BUST MONTE WITH THE
SAN FRANCISCO LIVING WAGE COALITION. ALL OF MY LIFE, MY WORK LIFE,
IVE WORKED HERE IN SAN FRANCISCO. AND MOST OF THAT WORK HAS BEEN
AT COMMUNITY NONPROFIT.
AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE IDEA
OF CONTRACTING OUT TO THESE
NEIGHBORHOOD NONPROFIT. I THINK THATS A VERY GOOD WAY TO DELIVER SERVICES.WORKERS
WHO ACTUALLY PROVIDE THAT WORK,
THESE NONPROFITS, ARE VERY SEVERELY UNDERPAID.
IN MY MIND, SOMEHOW, IT JUST SEEMS EVEN LIKE THE LARGE
AMERICAN CORPORATIONS THAT SHIP
THEIR FACTORIES ACROSS THE SEA TO MAKE A FEW BUCKS.
I THINK ITS TIME THIS BOARD GIVE DUE RESPECT TO THE WORKERS THAT ARE PROVIDING
SERVICES TO THOUSANDS OF
SAN FRANCISCANS EVERY SINGLE DAY.
FAIRLY SOON, THE AMENDMENTS TO THE MINIMUM COMPENSATION ORDINANCE WILL BE BEFORE YOU,
AND IM HOPING THAT THIS BOARD
WILL DO THE RIGHT THING BY THOSE WORKERS.
I HAVE SOME SIGNATURE PETITIONS
HERE FOR PRESIDENTNONPROFIT, AE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS, AND
SUPERVISORS AT THESE AGENCIES.
THERES AT LEAST 160 SIGNATURES HERE. AND WEVE PROVIDED OTHER
PETITIONS TO YOU IN THE PAST, WITH HUNDREDS OF SIGNATURES THERE ALSO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
President Peskin: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
IM WILMA NEWSOM, PRESIDENT OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO UNIT OF CHURCH WOMEN UNITED.
AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, CHURCH
WOMEN UNITED FOUNDED IN 1941, IS
AN HE CAN IEW MIN CAL MOVEMENT
OF PROTESTANTS, ROMAN CATHOLICS, ORTHODOX AND OTHER CHRISTIAN WOMEN.
OUR ONGOING GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
ARE TO WORK TOWARDS AND END
COALITION TO ENHANCE THE SOCIAL
AND ECONOMIC POWER OF WOMEN AND
CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN POVERTY.
WE WERE HERE LAST YEAR, RALLYING
FOR A FAIR AND JUST WAGE
INCREASE FOR HOME CAREGIVERS,
WHOSE LIVING EXPENSE IS THE SAME
AS EVERYONE ELSES.
WE ARE BACK AGAIN THIS YEAR,
ASKING YOU, WHEN YOU VOTE, TO
THINK ABOUT THE HOME CAREGIVERS,. THEIR JOBS ARE EQUALLY AS
IMPORTANT AS MOST OF OUR JOBS.
AND THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED
THE A LIVING WAGE INCREASE.
AND I FEEL LIKE THIS IS UNJUST.
AND WE ARE BEHIND THOSE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE TO WORK AND TAKE CARE
OF OUR PEOPLE, WHO ARE HOMEBOUND, THAT WHILE WE WORK.
SO IM ASKING YOU, AND URGING
YOU, TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF A COST
OF LIVING WAGE FOR THE
CALIFORNIA WORKERS MOTHERS ON
WELFARE, TO WORK AND WORKING
ON GANPA. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS. I AM BILL SHIELDS, I WORK WITH
THE COMMUNITY LABOR STUDIES, SAN FRANCISCO LIVING WAGE COALITION. RATHER THAN SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT
THESE AMENDMENTS, WE HAVE A
LIVING STATUE, WITH YOUR INDULGENCE, SUPERVISOR PESKIN,
15 SECONDS SHORT. WERE ASKING FOR YOTO RAISE
AND EQUALIZE THE HOME WORK CARE
AND NOFT PROFIT WORKERS BECAUSE THEIR WAGES ARE VERY LOW.
WE HAVE THE LOW WAGE LAMENT TAB
LOW.
[INAUDIBLE]
IN SLOW MOTION.
WORKING FOR
OUR SECOND OF THREE TO SHOW
YOU HOW MUCH WORKERS IN THESE CATEGORIES NEED THESE AMENDMENTS
TO BE PASSED, AND WANT THEM TO
BE PASSED WE HAVE THE WE WANT A
LIVING WAGE TAB LOW.
EMPOWERMENT, EMPOWERMENT,
NOW, EMPOWERMENT, NOW,
EMPOWERMENT, NOW.
EMPOWERMENT, NOW.
AND THE LAST ONE, WE HAVE PRESUPPOSING YOU PASS THESE AMENDMENTS AND THE HAPPY DAY
COMES WHEN FOLKS GET EQUALIZATION AND MORE MONEY, WE
HAVE THE WEVE GOT A LIVING WAGE
TAB LOW.
[BUZZER SOUNDING.]
[INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
YOUR CONSIDERATION.
President Peskin: GO AHEAD.
NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS, AND EVERYONE PRESENT. ID LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE
PRESENCE OF THE PRESS CORPS OUTSIDE IN THE HALLWAY THIS AFTERNOON.
I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY EVERY MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE CONCEPT OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. SINCE THREE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE INVOLVED IN CONTROVERSY, I
THINK ITS IMPORTANT THAT EVERY
MEMBER OF THE BOARD REMAIN
NEUTRAL, AND LET THE PROCESS GO THROUGH, AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS AT THE END.
I DONT THINK ITS FAIR THAT ANY SUPERVISOR, INVOLVED IN CONTROVERSY, WOULD HAVE TO BE
TAKEN ADVANTAGE BY OTHER
SUPERVISORS, WHILE THEYRE COMMENTING TO THE PRESS OUTSIDE.
ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT AS
TO WHY, SO FAR, NONE OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS GOTTEN
TO TRY TO START AN INQUIRY
REGARDING SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL.
IN MY OPINION, THERE SEEMS TO BE FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES, AND
MISUSE OF CITY RESOURCES, LIKE
SUPERVISOR DALY WAS ALLUDING TO. AND THE THIRD THING I WOULD LIKE
TO SPEAK ABOUT IS I WOULD LIKE
TO THANK SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL FOR
PUSHING FORTH THE CONCEPT OF MOBBING FOR CITY EMPLOYEES.
THIS IS A LONG NEGLECTED PROBLEM. THE REASON WHY IM SPEAKING TO
YOU ABOUT IT IS I CONSIDER
MYSELF THE NUMBER ONE EXAMPLE OF
MOBBING OF CITY EMPLOYEES.
I SHOULD BE AT WORK, DOING MY JOB.
BUT I HAVENT BEEN AT WORK FOR
OVER FOUR MONTHS, BECAUSE OF THE
CONCEPT OF MOBBING.
THANK YOU, SUPERVISORS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
I AM A FORMER PHYSICIAN SPECIALIST WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEAL OF HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD.
I AM HERE TODAY TO CLARIFY SOME ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED
WITH YOU LAST WEEK, DURING
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, AS WELL
AS MAY 7 HEARING OF THE LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE BY A LARGE
POPULATION OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPRESSING SYMPTOMS OF A TEXTBOOK WRITTEN BY THE DIRECTOR
OF TOXICOLOGY FOR A HARVARD
AFFILIATED HOSPITAL DEFINESFINES
PNEUMOKIN NIGH SIS.
THE SYMPTOMS THAT HE DESCRIBES
FITS THE SYMPTOMS THAT PEOPLE PRESENTED TO YOU LAST WEEK.
I HAVE INFORMATION I WILL BE PRESENTING IN PUBLIC COMMENT. MOST SERIOUSLY, I WANT TO PRESENT TO YOU DOCUMENTATION
THAT THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IS CONCEALING ASBESTOS CONCENTRATIONS THAT EXCEED WORK
STOPPAGE LEVEL AT HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD, SPECIFICALLY THERE IS
DOCUMENTATION THAT ON APRIL 12,
THERE WAS A WORK STOPPAGE, THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUED THIS EMAIL. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DATA,
THERE IS A DATA GAP ON APRIL 12.
THIS IS A RUNNING LOG OF ALL OF THE AIR MONITORING DATA FROM
JANUARY THROUGH MAY 29.
THIS IS ALSO A GRAPH THAT I
PRESENTED, THAT ALL OF PARCEL
A IS A NAL SOURCE OF AS NATURAL SOURCE OF ASBESTOS. I WILL LEAVE YOU WITH
DOCUMENTATION THAT THE MAYORS CAMPAIGN TREASURER AND COUSIN,
LAWRENCE PELOSI WAS DIRECTOR OF ACQUISITION FOR LENNAR CORPORATION. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
PATRICIA MULHOLLAND MERCHANTS.
WE GET CONSENSUS OF OUR NEIGHBORS BEFORE WE GET INVOLVED IN SOMETHING. I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE BACKGROUND OF OUR ASSOCIATION. IT WAS FORMED NOT JUST TO BE A
GROUP OF FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE WHO PONTIFICATE AS NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS BUT WHO HEAR WHAT THE PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY.
WE DECIDED TO BECOME A TEST CASE
ON DOING SELFDEFICIENCY FOR A
LOT OF OUR SERVICES AND GOODS. WE STARTED OUT WITH THE WORK PROGRAM SO THAT WE COULD TRAIN
KIDS THAT WE WERE CONCERNED WERE
LOST KIDS, FROM 18 TO ABOUT 30, THAT WERE NEVER TRAINED HOW TO GET A JOB. WE HAVE CHILDREN OF ALL RACES
INVOLVED IN THIS, AND ALL
ORIENTATIONS, I GUARANTEE YOU.
AND WEVE BEEN QUITE SUCCESSFUL
AND TURNING IT INTO A GRANTS PROGRAM.
WE ALSO ARE TRYING TO BECOME SELFSUFFICIENT, SO THESE
MERCHANTS AREAS, THESE MERCHANTS CORRIDORS AND THESE MERCHANTS AREAS DONT HAVE TO RELY ON THE BUDGET OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THATS WHY WE ARE DOING PROGRAMS
SUCH AS A FARMERS MARKET, WHERE
THE PROFITS COME BACK TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT TO PAY
NONPROFITS THAT HAVE HIGHPAID EMPLOYEES AT THE TOP.
WE ALSO ARE TRYING TO, VERY
HARD, GET IT WHERE WE CAN BE
SELFSUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO BE
ABLE TO CHANGE OUR SIDEWALKS,
STEAM CLEAN OUR SIDEWALKS, DO PROMOTIONS WITHOUT HAVING TO RELY ON THE CITY.
WEVE TRIED VERY HARD TO DO THIS. WERE ALMOST THERE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE CHANCE
TO BE ABLE TO PROVE OURSELVES,
INSTEAD OF HAVING GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. AND I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU WHO WE ARE [BUZZER SOUNDING.] AND IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SEE
OUR MEMBERS, COME AND ASK US,
BECAUSE WE GOT THEM.
President Peskin: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS.
MARK GRUBURG WITH YUNTD TAXICAB WORKERS AND A MEMBER OF THE
LIVING WAGE COALITION AND I FULLY SUPPORT ITS GOALS AND AIMS.
I AM HERE TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY
AS IVE SPOKEN BEFORE ABOUT
YELLOW CAB AND LUXOR CABS
NOTICES TO DRIVERS THAT THEY ARE ABANDONING SHIFT LEASING. LET ME READ YOU A SENTENCE FROM THIS NOTICE.
WE WILL BE PHASING OUT ALL MONTHLY LEASES, ALL MONTHLY LEASES, TO BE REPLACED BY ANNUAL
LEASE CONTRACTS.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT DRIVERS, SOME OF THE POOREST PEOPLE IN TOWN, ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME
UP WITH ACCORDING TO THIS
NOTICE, A MINIMUM OF 2,928 AS ADVANCE PAYMENT AND EVERY MONTH AFTER THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO
MAKE A MONTHLY LEASE PAYMENT IN ADVANCE.
DOESNT MATTER IF THEY GET SICK.
DOESNT MATTER IF THEY CANT WORK. THEYRE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY
THAT MONEY IN ADVANCE. ACCORDING TO THIS NOTICE, SUBLEASING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED, SHORT SHIFTS WILL NO LONGER BE ALLOWED. THAT MEANS THEY CANT GET ANYBODY ELSE TO DRIVE THEIR TAXI FOR THEM. ITS EITHER WORK OR STARVE.
DRIVERS ARE FRIGHTENED TO DEATH.
I CAN TELL YOU THIS.
THEY ARE FRIGHTENED TO DEATH.
THESE COMPANIES ARE TAKING
ADVANTAGE IN THE MOST CALLOUS,
MOST SHAMELESS WAY, OF THEIR
WORKERS, TO GET THEIR ENDS. AND THE EXCUSES, THE REASONS
THAT THEY HAVE GIVE FOR THIS,
ARE TOTALLY FALSE, ARE TOTALLY BOGUS. I DONT HAVE TIME TO GO INTO THAT.
BUT JUST LET ME SAY THAT CAB
COMPANIES AND CAB INDUSTRY IS AWASH IN PROFITS, AND THESE
PROFITS ARE GOING TO MEDALLION
HOLDERS IN THE FORM OF DIVIDENDS
AND LEASE FEES. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS.
MY NAME IS BLAKE DERBY.
YOU HOLD MEDALLION 1092. I GREW UP HERE.
I HAVE SOME SCOPE OF THE INDUSTRY. WHATS HAPPENING HERE, AT FIRST
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I WOULD
ASK YOU TO VOTE NO. BUT WHAT I REALLY WANT TO TALK
ABOUT IS THAT THE TAXI
COMMISSION ITSELF IS COMPOSED OF SEVEN MEMBERS THAT REPRESENT ALL KINDS S TO
BE JUST A RUBBER STAMP FOR THE MAYOR AT THIS POINT.
IVE SEEN THEM TRY TO TAKE AWAY PEOPLES MEDALLIONS WHO HAVE AMPUTATED LEGS, AND LET OTHER
PEOPLE KEEP THEIR MEDALLIONS AND GIVE THEM TO THEIR KIDS. THIS IS AN APPARENT CONNECTION
TO THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY,
AMONG ALL OF THEM.
HEINICKE REPRESENTS THE CHAUFFEURS UNION. THE HOTEL REPRESENTATIVE IS THERE.
A MR. OKA IS A CONSULTANT FOR THE HOTELS.
THE COMMON ENEMY OR ADVERSARY OF
THE TAXICABS ARE MR. GROUPER
HAS AN ORGANIZATION CALLED UTW.
ITS OPEN TO DRIVERS. IM A DRIVER, WHO HAPPEN TO
ATTAIN THE STATUS OF AN OPERATOR.
BUT I CANT VOTE IN THIS ORGANIZATION, EVEN THOUGH HE HAS
THREE TIMES THE POOL OF PEOPLE AS DRIVERS IN THE STREET TO CHOOSE FROM, THEY WILL NOT LET
US IN THERE.
SO... I DONT PRETEND TO
UNDERSTAND YELLOW CABS MANAGEMENT LONG TERM LEASING. I JUST GOT A
SO I WISH YOU THE BEST IN
SORTING THIS OUT.
BUT I DONT THINK I THINK IT CALLS FOR MORE DISCUSSION.
President Peskin: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
IF THERE ARE ANYMORE SPEAKERS FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM MICHAEL PORTRELIS. USUALLY I ASK YOU TO DO
SOMETHING, SUCH AS AUDITS OF THE
AIDES OFFICE OF DPH BUT TODAY
IM HERE TO SAY THANK YOU TO
ITS A THANK YOU FROM A MAN
NAMED NICK LIE, A GAY RUSSIAN
ACTIVIST WHO SENT ME AN EMAIL TO CONVEY HIS THANKS TO ALL OF
YOU FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS, IN TAKING AN IMPORTANT STAND WITH
YOUR RESOLUTION AS GAY AND
LESBIAN PEOPLE IN MOSCOW HAVE
TRIED TO STAGE A GAY RIGHTS MARCH, AND UNFORTUNATELY HAVE
BEEN BEATEN UP, BLOODIED AND
SENT TO THE HOSPITAL BY RUSSIAN HOMOPHOBES. WHAT ID LIKE TO CONVEY TO YOU
IS A DEEP SENSE OF THANKS, NOT
JUST FOR THE RECENT RESOLUTION
TO HELP THE GAY RUSSIANS, BUT I
THINK EVERY TIME THE BOARD TAKES
A STAND FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, FOR
LOTS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD,
IT IS AN INCREDIBLE ACT OF SOLIDARITY AND IT CARRIES A LOT OF WEIGHT.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS
RESOLUTION ON GAY RUSSIANS, AND
ALL OF YOUR RESOLUTIONS,
STANDING UP FOR GAY RIGHTS AROUND THE WORLD, BECAUSE WE NEED MORE OF THAT. COUNCILS
AROUND THE U.S. FOLLOWED THE
TERRIFIC EXAMPLE OF THIS BOARD. THANK YOU AGAIN.
President Peskin: THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
HELLO, SUPERVISORS. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY. I RACED DOWN HERE BECAUSE I WANTED TO CATCH IT ON TIME. I AM JAMES, WITH THE HEALTH CARE
ACTION TEAM, PART OF PLANNING
FOR ELDERS IN THE CITY.
AND WE HAVE APPRECIATIVELY BEEN HELPED BY SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI
WITH ITEM 52 ENDORSING AB364 AT
THE STATE LEVEL, WHICH IS TO SUPPORT DISCHARGE PLANNING RIGHTS AND INFORMATION OF INDIVIDUALS BEING DISCHARGED
FROM HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES,
AND SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES. PRETTY SIMPLE.
ITS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND ITS REALLY NEEDED BECAUSE THERES A CRUCIAL GAP IN INFORMATION THAT PEOPLE GET WHEN THEY GET IN THE HOSPITAL, AND THE INFORMATION THAT THEY ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO. SO ALL THIS DOES IS REQUIRE THAT
PEOPLE ARE INFORMED FULLY OF THEIR RIGHTS. THATS SOMETHING THAT THE HEALTH
CARE ACTION TEAM HAS WORKED ON
THROUGHOUT THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS. WEVE BEEN WORKING WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO GET SOMETHING PUSHED FORWARD IN THIS WAY. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU ALL.
AND THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR HOPEFULLY VOTING FOR IT AND PUTTING IT FORWARD BECAUSE ITS CLEAR THAT THE LEGAL RIGHTS THAT ARE OUT THERE ARE NOT ALWAYS MADE AWARE OF TO FOLKS. WITH THAT, ID LIKE TO THANK YOU AND ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT
ITEM NUMBER 52, SUPPORTING AB364. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
President Peskin: THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT,
PLEASE LINE UP IN THE CENTER AISLE. OTHERWISE THIS WILL BE THE LAST
SPEAKER. I AM FRANCISCO DeCOSTA. ON JUNE 5, MANY OF THE BOTTOM LINE OF THAT MESSAGE
WAS THAT OUR CHILDREN ARE DYING.
AND SO FAR, WE HAVE NOT HEARD A
WORD FROM THIS BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH, ABOUT A HEARING.
SO WERE NOT GOING TO GO AWAY.
SOME OF US COME HERE FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT. PUBLIC COMMENT IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT GIVES YOU THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND HOPEFULLY
THE MAYOR, WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, A FEEL FOR THE PULSE OF THE PEOPLE.
WHAT IVE BEEN OBSERVING HERE, AND IVE BEEN SITTING OVER HERE AND WATCHING IT AND I HOPE WE CAN VIDEOTAPE IT, IF SOME OF YOU
WANT TO FORM A COMEDY CLUB, FORM IT OUTSIDE THE CHAMBERS.
BUT IT IS REALLY DISRESPECTFUL
WHEN CERTAIN PEOPLE COME HERE,
ESPECIALLY OUR SENIORS, AND IVE
HEARD SOME SIDE COMMENTS, IVE GOT GOOD HEARING.
IF YOU WANT TO FORM A COMEDY
CLUB IN THESE CHAMBERS, FORM IT OUTSIDE.
YOU REMEMBER AT ONE TIME, YOUR
SALARIES WERE ABOUT 38,000 37 ITS NOW
President Peskin: IT WAS 37 AND NOW 92. BUT KEEP ON GOING.
92,000 PLUS, WHATEVER IT IS,
THAT SALARY COMES FROM THE TAX. WE PAY THE TAXES.
AND IM SAYING THIS BECAUSE, IN
THE BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT, 60
OF THE HOMEOWNERS PAY TAXES. WE HAVE 5,000 SMALL BUSINESSES THAT PAY TAXES.
YET, OUR HEALTH DEPARTMENT
CANNOT COME AND LOOK AFTER OUR CHILDREN. IM BRINGING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION AND ILL BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION AGAIN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
President Peskin: NEXT
SPEAKER PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, GENTLEMEN. IM GOING TO BE SPEAKING I
BELIEVE ON ITEM 58, THE LONG TERM LEASE.
MY NAME IS DAVE SNYDER, SPEAKING
FOR MYSELF, ALTHOUGH I AM A
COFOUNDER OF UNITED TAXICAB
WORKERS, IVE BEEN A LONG TIME
CAB DRIVER IN THE CITY, A FORMER CHICAGO LEGAL AID BUREAU ATTORNEY, AND ALSO A JOURNALIST
PURCHASE I KNOW ALL OF YOU FOLKS ARE WORKING ON THE BUDGET HERE, AND THIS YOUR TIME.
AND I KNOW BUDGET INVOLVES A LOT OF COST.
BUT THE ITEM ON ITEM 58 PROBABLY RELATES TO COST, AND WHOS GOING
TO TAKE THE BIG HIT.
AND BASICALLY, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, WITH LONG TERM LEASING,
WHAT I FIND IS THAT, ONCEG THE Y
TOWARD A MAJOR FEE CHANGE IN THE
STRUCTURE OF THE TAXI LAW OF
SAN FRANCISCO, THAT WOULD PUT
CAB DRIVERS TO WORK ONCE AGAIN
AS I HATE TO SAY IT, SHARECROPPERS. GAVIN NEWSOMS FATHER, WHEN HE
WAS ON THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN
A CASE CALLED WORKERS YELLOW
CAB COOPERATIVE VERSUS WORKERS
COMP, 266 CALIFORNIA APPEALATE N
EFFECT, CAB DRIVERS WERE
EMPLOYEES, WHEN YELLOW CAB TRIED TO GET OUT OF PAYING FOR DAMAGES
TO A CAB DRIVER WHO HAD BEEN INJURED ON THE HILTON HOTEL LINE BETWEEN TWO CABS THAT CRASHED INTO EACH OTHER.
THEY ALWAYS WANT TO AVOID THE COST, AND YET TAKE THE MONEY
FROM THE CAB DRIVERS, AND PASS
IT UP TO THE BOSSES. [BUZZER SOUNDING.] LET ME CONTINUE.
President Peskin: I CANT.
I SUPPORT SUPERVISORS
AMMIANO [NO AUDIO]
President Peskin: YOUR TIME IS UP. I AM SORRY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.
WE WILL GO TO OUR 3:30 SPECIAL ORDER COMMENDATION.
WE ARE DELIGHTED TO SEE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE HOUSE, AND SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, IF YOU WANT, EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER YOUR SPECIAL
ORDER COMMENDATION, WE CAN TAKE THE ITEM 59 OUT OF ORDER, AND
PASS IT AS YOU LIKE.
Supervisor Ammiano: WHAT IS 59
President Peskin: THAT IS YOUR RESOLUTION COMMENDING MS. CHAN FOR HER SERVICE TO THE CITY.
Supervisor Ammiano: WHY
DONT WE DO IT THAT WAY. President Peskin: COLLEAGUES, WELL TAKE ITEM 59 OUT OF ORDER. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.
MADAM CLERK, READ ITEM 59.
The Clerk: ITEM 59.
RESOLUTION COMMENDING GWEN CHAN
IN HER CAPACITY IN THE SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
President Peskin: ON THAT ITEM, COLLEAGUES, A ROLL CALL.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE.
SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE.
SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AYE.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, AYE. SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, ABSENT.
SUPERVISOR DUFTY, AYE. SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AYE.
SUPERVISOR JEW, ABSENT.
The Clerk: NINE AYES. President Peskin: UNANIMOUS. THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED. SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
Supervisor Ammiano: THANK YOU.
AND THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT, AND PARTICULARLY I WANT
TO COMMEND GWEN CHAN FORHE CHILF SAN FRANCISCO.
I THINK WE BOTH STARTED TEACHING IN AND AROUND THE SAME TIME OR
THE SAME GENERATION, ANYWAY. I AM A LOT OLDER.
BUT THOSE DAYS, COMPARED TO
THESE DAYS, ITS MORE THAN A GENERATIONAL GAP.
THIS IS ALMOST AS IF WERE ON A
DIFFERENT PLANET, IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
AND WE WANTED REALLYGWEN FOR HEY SERVICE AS A SUPERINTENDENT ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF
DUTY, DURING A TIME OF GREAT UPHEAVAL IN THE DISTRICT. YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE CITYS CHILDREN HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN
YOUR CARING APPROACH TO YOUR WORK. YOUR PERFORMANCE WILL REALLY BE A HARD ACT TO FOLLOW. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXTENDS
TO YOU ITS HIGHEST COMMENDATION.
SUPERVISOR CHAN.
[APPLAUSE.]
President Peskin: MADAM SUPERINTENDENT, BEFORE YOU
SPEAK, I THINK THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY WHO WANT TO ADD TO SUPERVISOR AMMIANOS COMMENDATION. SUPERVISOR DUFTY.
Supervisor Dufty: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, COLLEAGUES, AND SUPERINTENDENT, I JUST WANT
TO JOIN OUR COLLEAGUE, SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, IN THANKING YOU FOR YOUR INCREDIBLE SERVICE TO THE STUDENTS OF SAN FRANCISCO, AND TRULY TO OUR
CITY. ITS BEEN A PRIVILEGE FOR ME TO WORK WITH YOU AS SUPERINTENDENT, AND I THINK DISCONTINUE A WONDERFUL JOB.
THE WATERS HAVE BEEN ROCKY IN
THE TIME THAT YOU CAME IN, AND
YOUVE HAD A GRACE AND A VERY SELFEFFACING MANNER THAT I
THINK HAS REALLY BEEN NEEDED AT THIS TIME, TO PUT THE FOCUS ON
THE CHILDREN, AND TO REALLY GIVE THE SENSE THAT WE ALL CAN WORK TOGETHER. AND I THINK ITS BEEN A WONDERFUL ERA IN WHICH THE BOARD HAS WORKED WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD
AND THE MAYOR, AND I THINK THAT
GREAT THINGS HAVE HAPPENED. PROP H PROCESS THAT WEVE HAD
I THINK IS REALLY WONDERFUL, AND THE FACT THAT ANY OF US CAN VISIT ANY SCHOOL IN OUR DISTRICTS, AND HAVE TEACHERS,
STUDENTS AND PRINCIPALS, POINT
TO SOMETHING AND SAY PROPOSITION H FUNDED THAT AND MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR US.
I WANT TO SAY PERSONALLY IVE ENJOYED YOU SO MUCH.
YOUVE BEEN SO WARM TO ME IN MY WANTING TO DO MORE AND FOLLOW IN THE FOOT STEPS OF SUPERVISOR
AMMIANO AND MAKE A CONTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. WHETHER ITS BEEN AT AN EVENT THAT YOUVE COME TO BECAUSE IVE
ASKED OR THE FACT YOUVE FED MY BABY AND WATCHED HER WHEN SHE
WAS FUSSY HAS GIVEN ME GREAT CONFIDENCE. I JUST ADORE YOU. WHATEVER OPPORTUNITIES, NEW
THINGS THAT YOU DO, YOU KNOW, I
AND MY COLLEAGUES WILL BE THERE TO SUPPORT YOU AND ENCOURAGE YOU, AND APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOUVE DONE. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR ELSBERND. Supervisor Elsbernd: SUPERVISOR, YOU KNOW, WHEN IVE
MET WITH NOT ONLY PARENTS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS, BUT JUST GENERAL PUBLIC AND TALKED TO
THEM ABOUT THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, WE TALKED ABOUT WHATS THE BIGGEST ISSUE, THE BIGGEST PROBLEM FACING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
THERES A BUNCH THAT WE HEAR, FUNDINGITION SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS,
BUT THE GENERAL IS THE OVERALL REPUTATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. WHAT IVE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN SINCE YOUVE BECOME SUPERINTENDENT IS HOW THAT REPUTATION HAS IMPROVED AND I THINK A GREAT DEAL OF THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE REPUTATION IS
DUE TO YOUR STEADY HAND, YOUR LEADERSHIP, YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
WORK WITH VARIOUS INTEREST GROUPS, YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH ME. I APPRECIATED OUR INTERACTION AND I KNOW THOSE CONSTITUENTS OF
MINE WHO HAVE WORKED WITH YOU
HAVE REALLY FELT ENRICHED BY WORKING WITH YOU.
IM REALLY SORRY TO SEE YOU GO BUT AT THE SAME TIME VERY GRATEFUL FOR ALL THAT YOUVE DONE.
THANK YOU. President Peskin: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL.
Supervisor Maxwell: THANK YOU.
AND I TOO WANT TO I DITTO
EVERYTHING EVERYONE HAS SAID. I HAVE BEEN TO A NUMBER OF EVENTS WITH YOU AND EVERY TIME I
GO IM AMAZED AT THE WARLth WARMth OF APPRECIATION THAT
THE PARENTS, STUDENTS GIVE YOU. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU DO.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE LOVE FIRST BECAUSE I THINK THATS
WHAT PEOPLE FEEL FROM YOU, THE
LOVE, COMMITMENT AND SINCERITY. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO AND ENJOY YOURSELF.
HAVE A LOT OF FUN, LAUGH A LOT, AND HAVE A GOOD TIME. President Peskin: SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER. Supervisor AliotoPier: THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR PESKIN. SUPERINTENDENT, ITS NICE TO SEE
YOU IN THESE CHAMBERS TODAY.
YOU KNOW, IM SURE WEVE ALL HAD OUR CONTROVERSIES.
I KNOW THAT WE HAVE IN DISTRICT 2.
AND I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING.
YOU HAVE BEEN A SUPERVISOR AS SUPERVISOR DUFTY MENTIONED,
YOUVE BEEN A JOY TO WORK WITH.
YOU ARE SUCH A WONDERFUL EXAMPLE
TO ALL THOSE YOUNG SCHOOL CHILDREN IN YOUR SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY THE GIRLS, WHO CAN
LOOK UP TO SOMEONE, WHO STARTED
OFF IN OUR SCHOOLS A LONG TIME
AGO, AND REALLY WORKED YOUR WAY THROUGH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT POSITIONS, TO FIND YO LEADING THE CHARGE. ITS SUCH A GREAT EXAMPLE FOR ALL OF THEM.
IT WAS SO WONDERFUL NOR THIS
FOR THIS CITY TO HAVE SOMEONE WHO INVESTED SO MUCH TIME AND
LOVE INTO A SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT MEANS SO MUCH TO ALL OF US.
SO ITS GOING TO BE REALLY SAD TO SEE YOU GO. BEST OF LUCK,YEARS OF SERVICE TO ALL OF US. President Peskin:
SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI. Supervisor Mirkarimi:
SPEAKING OF CONTROVERSY... FROM OUR VANTAGE POINT, WE GOT TO
KNOW EACH OTHER ON THE HEELS OF THE SCHOOL CLOSURE PROCESS.
AND I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT,
DESPITE THE TENSION AND AGITATION THAT I WAS FEELING ON
BEHALF OF OUR CITY AND MY
DISTRICT, I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE
YOUR PRACTICING MATTISM AND YOUR DETERMINATION TO TRY TO MAKE THE SITUATION RIGHT, NO MATTER HOW STEADFAST YOU HAD TO BE, AND ALSO TRYING TO ADVOCATE FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
YOU PUT A VERY, I THINK, SOUND
AND SMART FACE ON THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT AMID A VERY TUMULTUOUS
AND STORMY PERIOD, ESPECIALLY AS
IT FILTERED INTO THIS CHAMBERS, BECAUSE OF OUR GREAT CONCERN
ABOUT THE SCHOOL CLOSURE EFFECT IN THE PROCESS. BUT YOU WERE GREAT FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT, AND SAY HOW MUCH I APPRECIATED WORKING WITH YOU IN THE SHORT PERIOD THAT WE HAD.
President Peskin: THEN LET ME JUST CONCUR WITH ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES AND THANK YOU FOR A
LIFETIME OF DISTINGUISHED SERVICE TO THE CHILDREN OF THE SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, WHICH YOU HAVE DONE
WITH PROFESSIONALISM AND APLOMB AND GRACE, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. MADAM SUPERINTENDENT, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
YOURS. ITS THE ONE THAT YOURE IN FRONT OF.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I AM TRULY OVERWHELMED.
IM USUALLY NOT SPEECHLESS, BUT
YOUR KIND WORDS HAVE TRULY TOUCHED ME.
I THINK WE ALL CARE ABOUT OUR CITY, A CITY THAT WE LOVE, AND
WANT THE BEST FOR OUR CITIZENS,
PARTICULARLY IN PREPARING OUR YOUNGSTERS TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN LIFE AFTER SCHOOL. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF
THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON PROP H HAS BEEN
PHENOMENAL AND WERE BENEFITING FROM THAT NOW, AND FOR A FEW MORE YEARS TO COME.
ITS BEEN A PRIVILEGE BABYSITTING SIDNEY, SUPERVISOR
DUFTY, AND WHAT YOU DO FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL AND OTHER SCHOOLS.
AND SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, THERE WERE TIMES WHEN WE DISAGREED BUT WE ALL KNEW THAT WE HAD TO COME TO A COMPROMISE
IN TERMS OF HOW TO BEST MEET THE NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS AS WELL STUDENTS. SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, THANK YOU
FOR COMING IN TO HELP US THROUGH
LABOR NEGOTIATIONS AND OTHER CHALLENGES THAT WERE PUT FORTH ON US.
YOU ARE POSITIVE AND HONEST, AND FORTH RIGHT SUGGESTIONS WERE WELL RECEIVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AGAIN, WE
MET UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE
DIFFICULT TO SIT DOWN AND TALK
QUIETLY, BUT I LEARNED A LOT.
I UNDERSTAND YOU WERE PASSIONATE
ABOUT SERVING YOUR DISTRICT AND
YOUR CONSTITUENTS AS WELL AS LOOKING AFTER THE OVERALL NEEDS OF THE CITY AS I HAVE TO LOOK
AFTER THE OVERALL NEEDS OF OUR STUDENTS AND OUR BUDGET SITUATION. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP
AND YOUR ABILITY TO BE HONEST IN
WORKING WITH US IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, ITS BEEN A PHENOMENAL PLEASURE IN WORKING WITH YOU AS WELL.
YOUR MOTHER HAS LEFT A LEGACY IN OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT. WE WILL ALWAYS KEEP HER NAME ON THE SCHOOL WALLS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CARING, PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE NEEDS,
THE SPECIFIC NEEDS OF YOUNGSTERS
IN THE HUNTERS POINT.
I HAVE NEVER TURNED DOWN AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE COMMUNITY SO THEY DONT FEEL LIKE THEYRE BEING LEFT OUT.
WE CANT ALWAYS AGREE BUT THEY
KNOW MY HEART HAS BEEN THERE TO BEST MEET THE NEEDS OF A STUDENT ALL OVER THE CITY.
PRESIDENT PESKIN, YOU ARE QUITE A LEADER.
AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR HONESTY
WHEN YOU MET WITH US REGARDING PROP H AND OTHER ISSUES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HONEST TOO, AND TRYING TO HELP COME UP WITH OTHER SUGGESTIONS, OTHER WAYS TO MEET THE NEEDS.
SO YOU WERENT ABANDONING US, NONE OF YOU HAVE. BUT ITS BEEN A LEARNING PROCESS FOR ME.
THE 40 YEARS HAVE COME AND GONE, COUNTING MY YEARS AS A STUDENT
IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ITS 50 SOME ODD YEARS, MORE THAN SOME OF YOUR TIME ON EARTH.
SO I LIKE TO RUB THE MAYOR ON THAT TOO. SO IVE BEEN VERY PRIVILEGED TO HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE. AND I WILL STAY POSTED.
I WILL ENJOY MY RETIREMENT AFTER AUGUST.
I WILL BE HELPING THE NEW SUPERINTENDENT BECOME ATTUNED TO THE NEEDS OF THE CITY. AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO MEET WITH HIM TOGETHER. I KNOW SOME OF YOU WILL BE AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE TOMORROW. THANK YOU.
THATS A GREAT START TO SEND A STRONG MESSAGE THAT WE WILL
CONTINUE OUR COLLABORATION.
MAYBE ON MY FREE TIME I WILL
WATCH YOU ON TELEVISION AND
POPCORN AND COCACOLA I
SHOULDNT SAY THAT, ORANGE JUICE OR WHATEVER.
I WISH YOU CONTINUED SUCCESS AND
DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP BECAUSE I
KNOW YOU CARE A LOT AS A CITIZEN OF SAN FRANCISCO. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: THANK
YOU, SUPERINTENDENT. [APPLAUSE.]
President Peskin: MADAM
CLERK, LETS DISPENSE WITH THE
ADOPTION WITHOUT COMMITTEE
REFERENCE CALENDAR AND GO TO OUR
4:00 SPECIAL ORDER.
The Clerk: ITEM 49 THROUGH 74 49. RESOLUTION URGING THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO FULLY ANALYZE A WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVE IN THE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT WILL NOT RESULT IN INCREASED DIVERSIONS OF FRESHWATER FROM THE TUOLUMNE RIVER AND URGING THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TO Y AND POLICY SPACE BY REJECTING ANY REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF FAST TRACK TRADE AUTHORITY, AND TO CREATE A DEMOCRATIC, INCLUSIVE TRADE NEGOTIATING PROCESS THAT INCLUDES MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS. 51. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO CERTIFY A UNION AS THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE WHEN A MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES
VOLUNTARILY SIGN AUTHORIZATIONS DESIGNATING THAT UNION TO REPRESENT THEM PROVIDE FOR FIRST CONTRACT MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION AND ESTABLISH MEANINGFUL PENALTIES FOR VIUNION.
52. RESOLUTION ENDORSIN
64. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DESIGNATED CITY AND COUNTY OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE AND FILE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, A PUBLIC ENTITY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ANY ACTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND SUBGRANTED THROUGH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNDER THE FY 07 STATE
SHSP: GRANT, THE FY 07 URBAN AREAS
UASI: GRANT, THE FY 07 LAW ENFORCEMENT TERRORISM PREVENTION PROGRAM
LETPP: GRANT, THE FY 07 METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE
MMRS: GRANT, THE FY 07
CCP: GRANT, THE FY 07 BUFFER ZONE
BZPP: GRANT
OR ANY OTHER FEDERALLY FUNDED GRANT PROGRAM AND PUBLIC LAW 107206. 65. RESOLUTION INDICATING THAT THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS TOP BUDGET PRIORITY IS ENSURING THAT HIVAIDS PROGRAMS ARE FULLY FUNDED DESPITE THE LACK OF SUPPORT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 66. MOTION APPROVING FINAL MAP
3995, A 14 UNIT MIXEDUSE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, LOCATED AT 845 MONTGOMERY STREET BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 029 IN ASSESSORS BLOCK NO. 0176 AND ITYPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO PLANNING CODE SECTION 101.1. 67. MOTION APPROVING FINAL MAP 4364, A 18 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, LOCATED AT 1234 HOWARD STREET BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 014 IN ASSESSORS BLOCK NO. 3728 AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND CITY PLANNING CODE SECTION 101.1. 68. MOTION APPROVING FINAL MAP 3608, A 13 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, LOCATED AT 3065 CLAY STREET BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 033 044 IN ASSESSORS BLOCK NO. 1005 AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND CITY PLANNING CODE SECTION 101.1. 69. MOTION APPROVING FINAL MAP 3289, A 224 RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND 2 COMMERCIAL UNIT MIXEDUSE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, LOCATED AT 601 KING STREET 830 7TH STREET BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 001, 002 IN ASSESSORS BLOCK NO. 3800 AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND CITY PLANNING CODE SECTION 101.1. 70. MOTION APPROVING FINAL MAP 3683, A 826 UNIT RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL MIXEDUSE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, LOCATED AT 300 SPEAR STREET BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 001 IN ASSESSORS BLOCK NO. 3745 AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND CITY PLANNING CODE SECTION
101.1. 71. MOTION APPROVING FINAL MAP 3610, A 30 LOT SUBDIVISION PROJECT, LOCATED AT 1300 EDDY STREET BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 002 IN ASSESSORS BLOCK NO. 0733 AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND CITY PLANNING CODE SECTION 101.1. 72. MOTION APPROVING FINAL MAP 4184, A 8 LOT SUBDIVISION PROJECT, LOCATED AT 445701 WAWONA STREET BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 008 IN ASSESSORS BLOCK NO. 2540 AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND CITY PLANNING CODE SECTION 101.1. 73. MOTION APPROVING FINAL MAP 4181, A 432 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, LOCATED AT 399 FREMONT STREET BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 001E, 002, 006 IN ASSESSORS BLOCK NO. 3747 AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND CITY PLANNING CODE SECTION 101.1. 74. MOTION SCHEDULING THE BOARD TO SIT AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO CONSIDER HEALTH SERVICE
BIELENSON HEARING: , TO BE HELD ON JUNE 19, 2007 AT 3:30 P.M.
President Peskin: WOULD ANY MEMBER LIKE AN ITEM OR ITEMS SEVERED SUPERVISOR AMMIANO.
Supervisor Ammiano: 58.
President Peskin: ITEM 58. SUPERVISOR ELSBERND.
Supervisor Elsbernd: 72.
President Peskin: ITEM 72. SUPERVISOR MAXWELL.
Supervisor Maxwell: 49.
President Peskin: ITEM 49. ON THE BALANCE OF THE CALENDAR, EXCEPTING ITEM 59, WHICH WE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED, A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
The Clerk: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL.
Supervisor Maxwell: I HAVE AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE.
President Peskin: WERE
VOTING ON THE BALANCE OF THE CALENDAR, AN AYE ORvisor Maxwel. SUPERVISOR MCGOLDRICK, AYE. SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, AYE. SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AYE.
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER, AYE.
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO, AYE.
SUPERVISOR DALY, AYE. SUPERVISOR DUFTY, AYE.
SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, AYE.
SUPERVISOR JEW, ABSENT.
The Clerk: 10 AYES.
President Peskin: THOSE
RESOLUTIONS ARE ADOPTED AND MOTIONS APPROVED.
ITEM 49.
The Clerk: ITEM 49. President Peskin: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL.
Supervisor Maxwell: I HAVE AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE AND
ITS BEEN PASSED OUT TO EVERYONE.
President Peskin: A MOTIONSUR
MAXWELL, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR DUFTY.
COLLEAGUES, CAN WE DO THAT WITHOUT
Supervisor McGoldrick: I DONT HAVE A COPY, IM SORRY.
President Peskin: I THINK ITS ON EVERYONES DESK.
Supervisor McGoldrick: CAN
SOMEONE SUMMARIZE IT President Peskin: SUPERVISOR MAXWELL, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO SUMMARIZE THE CHANGES
Supervisor McGoldrick: HERE WE GO. IF WE CAN JUST GET A SUMMARY OF WHAT THE AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE IS. I DONT KNOW.
Supervisor Maxwell: WELL,
WE Supervisor McGoldrick: THANKS. A FEW THINGS AND TOOK YOURE OUT A FEW THINGS SUCH AS WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT NOT
ONLY DO WE SAY THAT WE WANT WATER LESS WATER TO COME FROM
THE TUOLUMNE RIVER BUT WE WANTED
TO HAVE A PROGRAM THAT INITIATES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING.
AND AT THIS PRESENT, THE SAN FRANCISCO PUC DOES NOT DO THE BEST JOB OF THAT.
SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ADDED THAT.
AND THEN THERE WAS THERE WAS A I THINK SOMETHING WE
MENTIONED THAT WE WANTED THE PUC AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO
BE INVOLVED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL EIR, AND ACTUALLY ITS JUST THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO THAT WAS KIND OF TECHNICAL.
BUT BASICALLY, THAT WAS IT. Supervisor McGoldrick: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITS JUST THE AMENDMENT OF THE
WHOLE DID NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY
KIND OF, IF YOU WOULD, TYPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES ALLOWING
ME TO SEE WHAT WAS ADDED AND DELETED. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: SAME HOUSE, SAME CALL, THE AMENDMENT
OF THE WHOLE IS ADOPTED. ITEM 58.
The Clerk: ITEM 58. President Peskin: SUPERVISOR AMMIANO. Supervisor Ammiano: COMMITTEE.
President Peskin: SHALL BE REFERRED TO COMMITTEE.
ITEM 72.
The Clerk: ITEM 72, MOTION
APPROVING A FINAL MAP AT 445701 STREET.
Supervisor Elsbernd: THIS IS A MOTION NOT ONE THAT I CAN SEND TO COMMITTEE. THIS IS FOR A FREQUENT THAT I THINK JUST PROJECT THAT I THINK TODAY MAY HAVE RECEIVED ITS CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. THE NEIGHBORHOOD HASNT HAD A CHANCE TO WAY IN ON THE ISSUE SO I WOULD ASK WE CONTINUE THIS MOTION FOR AT LEAST A MONTHS
TIME TO THE PROJECT CAN WORK ITS WAY THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS. THEN THIS BOARD, WHILE I DONT
THINK ITS LEGALLY REQUIRED, JUST ON RECORD ONE WAY OR THE OTHER SUPPORTING THE PROJECT UNTIL AFTER THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROCESS AND THE PLANNING PROCESS HAS HAPPENED.
President Peskin: I BELIEVE IF YOU CAN COUNT TO SIX, YOU CAN SEND IT WHEREVER YOU WANT.
Supervisor Elsbernd: I MAKE A MOTION TO SEND IT TO COMMITTEE.
President Peskin: A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR ELSBERND TO SEND
THIS ITEM TO COMMITTEE, SECONDED
BY SUPERVISOR ALIOTOPIER.
TO THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY,
INSOFAR AS SOME OF THIS
SUBDIVISION STUFF, OR MUCH OF
THE SUBDIVISION MOTIONS ARE
GOVERNED BY THE STATE MAP ACT,
CAN YOU ADVISE US WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS MIN STEERL.
I KNOW WEVE GOTTEN INTO THIS A FEW YEARS AGO.
THIS IS A MINISTERIAL REQUIREMENT THE BOARD ADOPT
THESE MAPS WHEN THEY COME BEFORE THE BOARD UNLESS ON THEIR FACE
THE BOARD FINDS THEM TO BE UNLAWFUL.
President Peskin: SO
REGARDLESS OF WHERE WE WHETHER WE CONTINUE IT OR SEND IT TO COMMITTEE, YOU WOULD NEED
TO MAKE SOME FINDINGS, SUPERVISOR.
Supervisor Elsbernd: THATS FINE. BUT I DONT HAVE TO DO THOSE FINDINGS TODAY. I CAN SEND IT TO COMMITTEE AND
WORK ON IT IN COMMITTEE, CORRECT
President Peskin: MADAM DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY. MR. PRESIDENT, I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE BOARD TAKE ACTION ON THIS
RIGHT WHEN ITS FIRST PRESENTED. BUT LET ME DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT.
President Peskin: I THINK WE I REMEMBER GETTING INTO
THIS ABOUT 2001, AND THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME WITHIN
WHICH WE DO HAVE TO ACT, BUT I DONT THINK WE HAVE TO ACT ON IT AT OUR FIRST MEETING.
OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, SUPERVISOR ELSBERND, WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE RESCINDING YOUR
MOTION THAT I SUGGESTED, AND INSTEAD CONTINUE THE ITEM ONE
WEEK WHILE YOU CAN TALK TO COUNSEL
Supervisor Elsbernd: SURE.
. President Peskin: A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR ELSBERND TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM ONE WEEK, SRKDED BY SUPERVISOR DUFTY.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, ITEM 72 IS CONTINUED TO JULY 19. AND WITH THAT, MADAM CLERK,
WOULD YOU READ ITEMS 25 THROUGH
28. The Clerk: 25. HEARING OF PERSONS INTERESTED IN OR OBJECTING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS APRIL
5, 2007, CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IDENTIFIED AS PLANNING FILE NO. 2003.0347E, THROUGH ITS MOTION NO. 17406, FOR A PROPOSED MARKET AND OCTAVIA PLAN, AMENDMENTS TO THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE AND ZONING MAPS, AMENDMENTS TO THE SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN, ADOPTION OF URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE WESTERN ADDITION A2 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE PLAN AREA IS GENERALLY LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE CITYS DOWNTOWN AREA AND INCLUDES PORTIONS OF CIVIC CENTER, HAYES VALLEY, WESTERN ADDITION, SOUTH OF MARKET, INNER MISSION, THE CASTRO, DUBOCE TRIANGLE, EUREKA VALLEY, AND UPPER MARKET NEIGHBORHOODS OF SAN FRANCISCO.
(APPELLANTS: MARTIN HAMILTON ON BEHALF OF NEW COLLEGE OF CALIFORNIA, F. JOSEPH BUTLER ON BEHALF OF THE SAN FRANCISCO PRESERVATION CONSORTIUM AND MARY MILES REPRESENTING THE COALITION FOR ADEQUATE REVIEW.) 26. MOTION AFFIRMING THE CERTIFICATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARKET AND OCTAVIA AREA PLAN. 27. MOTION DISAPPROVING THE CERTIFICATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR MARKET AND OCTAVIA AREA PLAN. 28. MOTION DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE BOARD TO PREPARE FINDINGS DISAPPROVING THE CERTIFICATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARKET AND OCTAVIA AREA PLAN FEIR.
President Peskin: THANK YOU. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT SUPERVISORS DALY AND DUFTY ARE RECUSED BY VIRTUE OF THE PROXIMITY OF THEIR RESIDENCES. THERE ARE THREE APPEALS BEFORE
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. ARE THERE REPRESENTATIVES OF EACH OF THE APPELLANTS
I SEE MS. MILES, MR. WILLIAMS,
AND MR. BUTLER. OKAY.
SO WHY DONT WE DO THIS.
I BELIEVE I CAN CONSOLIDATE
THESE MATTERS, AND WE CAN HEAR THEM TOGETHER.
SOME OF YOU HAVE SIMILAR ISSUES.
MS. MILES HAS SOME OTHER ISSUES, TION ISSUES THAT AREHE
BROUGHT UP BY THE OTHER TWO APPELLANTS. COLLEAGUES, WOULD YOU BE
COMFORTABLE IF WE NORMALLY,
THE PROCESS IS 10 MINUTES FOR
THE APPELLANT, AND THEN 10
MINUTES FOR THE DEPARTMENT.
THERE REALLY ISNT A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST IN THIS CASE.
SO HOW WOULD YOU, COLLEAGUES, FEEL, GIVEN THAT THERE WONT BE
A REAL RIGHT
THERES NO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, CORRECT
SO WHY DONT WE TAKE THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST TIME AND GIVE
IT TO THE APPELLANTS, ALL RIGHT,
OUT OF A ABUNDANCE OF FAIRNESS,
AND GIVE THE APPELLANTS,
TOGETHER, NOT TO EXCEED 20 MINUTES.
AND YOU THREE CAN DIVIDE THAT UP HOWEVER YOU WANT. DOES THAT WORK MS. MILES, YOU NEED TO USE THE
MICROPHONE TO YOUR RIGHT. MS. MILES, YOU NEED TO USE THE
MICROPHONE TO YOUR RIGHT.
MR. PRESIDENT, BEFORE ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE
SUBSTANCE OF OUR APPEAL, WE HAD
A COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS THAT WE WANTED THE BOARD TO CONSIDER,
BEFORE THEY CONSIDER THE ACTUAL SUBSTANCE, AND THOSE ARE OUR
REQUEST FOR ANOTHER CONTINUANCE,
AND A REQUEST FOR RECIRCULATION
OF THE EIR.
WE SUBMITTED THOSE TO YOU TODAY, AND
President Peskin: IVE JUST
BEEN HANDED THOSE MOMENTS AGO. AND THE REASON FOR YOUR DESIRE FOR A CONTINUANCE, MS. MILES
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED
ALTHOUGH WEVE DILIGENTLY AND REPEATEDLY REQUESTED COPIES OF WHATEVERS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD TODAY.
WE DONT THINK, FROM WHATS ON
THE WEBSITE, THAT YOU HAVE THE FULL PACKAGE OF MATERIAL IN FRONT OF YOU. AND WE THINK YOU NEED TO LOOK AT
THIS PLAN VERY CAREFULLY.
President Peskin: THIS IS WHAT IS BEFORE US, THE EIR, RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, YOUR APPEAL, THE OTHER TWO APPEALS, AND THE DEPARTMENTS RESPONSE. THAT IS THIS IS IT. I DONT THINK THATS THE COMPLETE PACKET THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU.
AND I THINK THAT
President Peskin: WHAT DO YOU THINK I SHOULD HAVE IN FRONT OF ME YOU NEED TO HAVE COPIES OF
ALL THE LEGISLATION, THE ORDINANCES THAT WERE PROPOSED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CHANGES THEY MADE IN THEM,
THE PROGRAMS THEY INITIATED
THERE, AND A FULL TRANSCRIPT OF
THEIR HEARING, SINCE THE COPIES OF THEIR LEGISLATION DONT MATCH
WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID IN THE HEARING.
President Peskin: ALL RIGHT.
COLLEAGUES, IS THERE ANYBODY
HERE INTERESTED IN A CONTINUANCE W E CONTINUED THIS ITEM ONE TIME.
MS. MILES HAS JUST NOW DELIVERED
THIS REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE. ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM
THERE ARE OTHER REASONS WEVE DELINEATED IN OUR REQUEST.
President Peskin: I READ
ALL TWO PAGES OF IT. SO, I DO NOT SEE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM, SO THAT
REQUEST IS RESPECTFULLY DENIED.
AND THEN WHY DONT THE THREE OF
YOU DECIDE HOW YOU WANT TO DIVIDE UP YOUR 20 MINUTES, AND
THEN WE WILL START THE PRESENTATIONS.
SORRY, AGAIN, MR. PRESIDENT. WE ALSO REQUESTED THAT THE EIR BE RECIRCULATED AND WERE
REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD MAKE A
FINAL EXCUSE ME, TAKE A FORMAL VOTE AND MAKE FORMAL FINDINGS ON OUR REQUEST.
WE SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR RECIRCULATION TO THE COMMISSION,
AND WE GOT NO RESPONSE AT ALL, NOTHING. SO WED LIKE TO HAVE A FORMAL RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST.
President Peskin: YOU HAVE, BEFORE THIS BODY, AN APPEAL AS
TO THE ADEQUACY, THOROUGHNESS, COMPLETENESS OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT BEFORE US. THIS IS WHAT THE APPEAL IS. AND YOU CAN START YOUR TIME, IF
YOU WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO THE OTHER TWO APPELLANTS, AS TO HOW
YOU WISH TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME. I SUGGEST YOU DO THAT, AND WE
START THE APPEAL PRESENTATION.
AM I TO TAKE THAT SUGGESTION
AS A DENIAL OF OUR REQUEST FOR RECIRCULATION, AND A DENIAL OF
OUR REQUEST FOR A VOTE ON THE MATTER OF RECIRCULATION
President Peskin: YOU CAN
TAKE IT AS THAT, YES.
ILL TELL YOU WHAT, IF YOU GUYS CANT DO THIS, YOU EACH GET
SEVEN MINUTES, WELL HAVE 21 MINUTES.
EACH OF YOU CAN HAVE SEVEN MINUTES, AND ILL DO IT LIKE
THAT. COLLEAGUES, ANY OBJECTION SEEING NONE, FIRST SPEAKER OF B, SO YOU KNOW THE PROCESS, WELL HAVE SEVEN MINUTES FROM EACH OF THE APPELLANTS, THEN WE WILL GO
TO SPEAKERS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS. EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE NOT TO EXCEED THREE MINUTES. THEN WE WILL GO TO THE DEPARTMENT.
THE DEPARTMENT CAN HAVE UP TO 21 MINUTES.
IF YOU USE ALL 21 MINUTES, ILL BE ASTOUNDED. AND THEN WE CAN GO TO SPEAKERS
ON BEHALF OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE DOCUMENT. EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES. AND THEN THE MATTER WILL BE IN THE BOARDS HANDS.
AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE
NOT BEEN TO A HEARING OF THIS NATURE, THIS HEARING IS ABOUT
THE ADEQUACY OR INADEQUACY OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT.
WERE NOT INTERESTED IN COMMENTS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK
THE PLAN IS GOOD OR BAD, OR TOO HIGH, OR TOO LOW.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE HEARING
IS ON THE ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. MS. MILES, YOUR SEVEN MINUTES BEGINS NOW.
WEVE SUBMITTED A LENGTHY COMMENT TODAY.
WEVE ALSO SUBMITTED A SIMILAR COMMENT TO THE COMMISSION, SO ITS NOTHING ALTHOUGH WEVE
MADE SOME ADDITIONS TO IT, TO
UPDATE IT, AND HAVE ADDED SOME
ATTACHMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL, THE COMMENT, WED LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SUPERVISORS
TO SEE THOSE ATTACHMENTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THE MANY FANTASIES THAT ARE PROMULGATED
IN THIS PLAN, SUCH AS MAGIC HIGH
RISES THAT DONT CAST SHADOWS,
LIKE THIS 400 FOOT, 40 STORY HIGH RISE TWO BLOCKS FROM HERE
THAT WILL CAST SHADE ON THE
CIVIC CENTER PLAZA.
WE HAVE OTHER MAGICAL FANTASY
BUILDINGS HERE.
SUCH ATION THE ONE FOR 555 FULTON, DEPICTED IN THE DRAWINGS
WHICH ARE ATTACHED TO OUR COMMENT AS A FIVE STORY BUILDING THATS ONLY AS TALL AS A THREE STORY BUILDING.
THERE ARE SO MANY OF THOSE IN THIS PLAN.
LOTS AND LOTS OF THEM.
BY THE WAY, ON THAT 40 STORY TOWER, AND THERE WILL BE 10 OR
12 OF THEM IN THIS PLAN, WHICH
REZONES OVER 4,000 PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN THE CIVIC CENTER OF
SAN FRANCISCO ARE BEING REZONED.
THERE WILL BE SEVERAL OF THEM.
IN PLANS LIKE RINCON, THE
CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED YOU HAD SHADOW STUDIES.
DO YOU HAVE THEM HERE
NO.
IS IN THIS HERE NO.
IS THIS IN THE EIR
THE PAPERS ARE FULL OF ARTICLES
ABOUT MUNI FOR THE PAST SIX MONTHS.
ALL THATS IN THE EIR IS HOW
TRANSIT RICH WE ARE HERE.
ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THATS
WRONG WITH THE EIR IS THAT IT
REACHES CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING DATA.
IT CONCLUDES THERE ARE NO IMPACTS. CEQA REQUIRES THAT ANY
CONCLUSION OF NO SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND YET
THERE IS NONE HERE. ONE OF THE MAJOR FANTASIES, ANOTHER IN THIS EIR
IS THAT PEOPLE OWN CARS SO THAT
THEY CAN PARK THEM.
ERGO, IF THERES NO PARKING,
THEY WONT OWN CARS ANYMORE. THATS NOT TRUE. THERES DATA THAT SHOWS THATS
UNTRUE YET THATS THE UNDERLYING PREMISES FOR ELIMINATING PARKING REQUIREMENTS THROUGHOUT THE
CIVIC CENTER OF SAN FRANCISCO. ALSO ELIMINATED ARE DENSITY RESTRICTIONS, YARD REQUIREMENTS,
OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, ALL
REQUIREMENTS EVER DENSITY ARE
COMPLETELY ELIMINATED FOR OVER 4,000 PARCELS.
DO YOU REALLY WANT YOUR NAMES OKAYING THIS IS THAT OKAY IF
WE MEASURE THE IMPACTS OF THAT NO. DOES IT SAY IN THE EIR THAT
WERE REZONING 4,000 PARCELS NO. THERES NOTHING IN THERE.
YOU HAVE TO SEARCH THROUGH THE
254 PAGE ORDINANCE TO FIND THIS
STUFF. LETS SEE.
I COUNT HERE ONE, TWO, THREE,
FOUR SUPERVISORS HEARING ME TODAY.
SHALL I MAKE THAT FIVE HEARING ME, SIX.
ONE SITTING OVER HERE, BUT HES RECUSED HIMSELF.
THATS NOT EVEN A QUORUM. IM OBJECTING TO THIS PROCEEDING
RIGHT NOW.
AND IM OBJECTING TO YOUR
CONDUCT, ITS DISRESPECTFUL TO ME.
IVE SPENT SOME TIME DELINEATING
SOME THINGS THAT ARE WRONG WITH THIS EIR. AND YOUT EVEN LISTENING. YOURE NOT HEARING US.
YOURE NOT HEARING ANYBODY.
WHAT DOES THIS SAY
WELL, ITS ALL ON THE RECORD NOW. THANKS. THANK YOU.
WHICH OF THE OTHER TWO WANTS TO
GO NEXT GOOD AFTERNOON, STEVE
WILLIAMS, I REPRESENT THE PRESERVATION CONSORTIUM, A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PRESERVATION GROUPS AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO,
THAT ARE DEDICATED TO PRESERVING
HISTORIC RESOURCES IN SAN FRANCISCO. HOPEFULLY YOUVE HAD TIME TO
READ MY COMMENT AND LETTER BRIEF I SUBMITTED. I TRIED TO KEEP IT SHORT AND
SOMEWHAT REASONABLE IN ITS LENGTH. WE ALSO ATTEMPTED, I SHOULD NOTE
THAT WE ARE ATTEMPTED AND STILL ARE ATTEMPTING TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH PLANNING ABOUT
THE FUTURE OF THE MARKET OCTAVIA AREA AND PROPOSE AN ORDINANCE TO
THIS BODY THAT PROCESS IS STILL ONGOING.
KEEP IN MIND THE HISTORY BEHIND
THE MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN. THE DEPARTMENT WASNT GOING TO
DO ANY SURVEY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES, UNTIL PROMPTED, UNTIL
SHAMED INTO IT, BY THE PRESERVATION CONSORTIUM. THEYVE NOW ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ONE HAS TO BE DONE, AND THEYRE
TELLING US ITS GOING TO BE DONE SOME TIME IN JULY. BUT NOT ALL OF THE IMPACTS HAVE
BEEN REVIEWED.
THE SURVEY HASNT BEEN COMPLETED. AND THEYRE ASKING YOU TO CERTIFY THE EIR.
WE THINK THATS IMPROPER AND IT VITAL CEQA.
IVE LAID IT OUT IN MY BRIEF BUT THE CEQA GUIDELINES SAY THAT IF
YOU HAVE KNOWN IMPACTS, YOU MUST CONSIDER THEM, YOU MUST COMMENT
UPON THEM. [BUZZER SOUNDING.]
THE QUICKEST SEVEN MINUTES IVE EVER HAD.
President Peskin: I AMOL JIEZ. I HAD AN EMERGENCY CALL WHICH I
HAD TO TAKE ON A VERY SERIOUS
MATTER BUT I AM BACK AND WE ARE
PAYING ATTENTION.
AT ANY RATE President Peskin:
MS. MILES, IF YOU CANNOT BEHAVE YOURSELF APPROPRIATELY, YOU CAN
LEAVE HEES CHAMBERS.
LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR. MR. WILLIAMS APOLOGIZED FOR THAT. YOUR TIME IS BEING RESTORED BY THE CLERK. GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE THE BALANCE OF YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. COMMENT IS REQUIRED ON CUMULATIVE IMPACTS THAT MAY BE BROUGHT ON BY A PROJECT AND
ESPECIALLY IF THOSE IMPACTS ARE KNOWN.
IF YOU LOOK AT 15165 OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES IT STATES THAT AN EIR, ON A PROJECT, MUST SHOW TH. IF THE APPROVAL OF ONE PARTICULAR ACTIVITY COULD BE EXPECTED TO LEAD TO MANY OTHER ACTIVITIES BEING APPROVED IN THE
SAME GENERAL AREA, THE EIR
SHOULD EXAMINE EFFECTS OF THE U. MAT CHANGES. THE QUESTIONS THIS BODY HAS TO
ASK ITSELF IS THERE REASON TO BELIEVE THERE MAY BE OTHER IMPACTS, IS THERE REASON TO
BELIEVE THERE MAY BE OTHER PROJECTS. ABSOLUTELY. MARY MILES JUST SHOWED YOU PICTURES OF SEVERAL PROJECTS.
THERE ARE NUMEROUS PROJECTS OUT
THERE, IN THE POP PIPELINE, PROJECTS SIMILAR TO THE PROJECT
YOURE APPROVING BY THIS
SURGERIES.
CERTIFICATION LOCATED ON THE FREEWAY PARCEL. IF YOU LOOK AT THE RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT, PAGE 4, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE FREEWAY PARCELS THE PLAN DOES NOT PROPOSE OR ENDORSE ANY SPECIFIC PROJECT ON ANY RESPECT LOT.
THATS NOT SO. WE HAVE NOTIFICATIONS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND OTHER REVIEWS, APPLICATIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE, DEPENDING UPON THE MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN, AS IF IT
WERE ALREADY PASSED. JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, LET ME SHOW YOU ONE THATS SLATED FOR THE
CORNER OF BUCHANAN AND MARKET STREET. THE LAST SENTENCE OF THAT
NOTIFICATION SAYS THE PROJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENTS OF THAT PLAN WHEN IT IS ADOPTED.
ITS A NINE STORY ACTUALLY 10
STORY, 22,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. ITS NOT ANALYZED IN THIS EIR IN FRONT OF YOU. THESE ARE KNOWN IMPACTS.
PLEASE LOOK AT THIS. THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IS LICKING THEIR LIPS WITH GOOD REASON. THE IMPACTS HAVENT BEEN MEASURED AND THEY ARENT GOING
TO BE MEASURED, KNOWN IMPACTS
THAT THE DEPARTMENT KNOWS ABOUT.
IF THESE PROJECTS DIDNT EXIST, PERHAPS YOU COULD PASS THIS EIR, BUT THIS IS NOT A POLICY
DOCUMENT, PIS NOT A GENERAL PLAN. THIS IS A NUTS AND BOLTS REZONING, A NUTS AND BOLTS
PLANNING DOCUMENT THAT REQUIRES FULL REVIEW OF ALL THE IMPACTS
THAT WILL OCCUR IMMEDIATELY UPON ITS PASSAGE, WHICH YOU DO NOT
HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE.
SO THAT EXAMPLE AND THE EXAMPLES BY MARY I THINK ARE EVIDENCE IN
FRONT OF YOU THAT THE IMPACTS
HAVE NOT BEEN ASSESSED IN THIS DOCUMENT AND HAVENT BEEN MENTIONED IN THIS DOCUMENT, KNOWN IMPACTS. SO IF YOU CERTIFY THIS TODAY, IF
YOU DONT REQUIRE A LONGER TIME PERIOD TO HAVE THE SURVEY THAT THEY PROMISED US WILL BE DONE IN JULY ADDED, TO HAVE THESE OTHER
KNOWN PROJECTS ASSESSED AND ADDED, YOURE DOING SO WITHOUT
THE FULL IMPACTS BEING DISCLOSED TO YOU.
YOURE DOING SO WITHOUT THE FULL IMPACTS BEING DISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PUBLIC HAS NOT HAD OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THOSE. AND THATS WHAT THE EIR IS
SUPPOSED TO BE, A PUBLIC INFORMATION DOCUMENT.
IF YOU PASS THE MARKET OCTAVIA
PLAN, WHAT WILL THE IMPACTS BE. AND YOURE HERE TO SAFEGUARD
YOUR CONSTITUENCIES AND TELL
THEM I KNOW WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE
GOING TO BE WHEN I VOTED FOR THAT PLAN, WHAT THE HNK IMPACTS
WILL BE, THE SHADOWING IMPACTS,
THE TRAFFICKING IMPACTS, THE
MUNI IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION
AND ALL THE OTHER CATEGORIES CA. YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF YOU AND YOURE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A LEAP OF FAITH. WHAT IS THE DANGER THE DEPARTMENT SAYS DONT WORRY,
THIS IS JUST A PROGRAM EIR. AND EVERY OTHER PROJECT THAT COMES ALONG, WELL TAKE CARE OF
IT, DONT WORRY, TRUST US. THAT BELIES THE ADVANTAGE OF
PASSING A PROGRAM EIR, AND
ABUSING THE TIERING PROCESS, THE VERY PURPOSE, ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF PASSING A PROGRAM
EIR, USING THE TIERING PROCESS LATER, IS SO YOU DONT HAVE TO DO ANOTHER EIR. ALL THESE PROJECTS ARE GOING TO
SAY WE DONT HAVE TO DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THE MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN TOOK
CARE OF IT. IF WE GET SOME SORT OF GUARANTEE IN THE PLAN ITSELF THAT WILL NEE
WONT BE A DEPENDENCY ON THAT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, THAT WOULD
GO A LITTLE WAYS TOWARDS SAFEGUARDING THAT.
BUT THE TIERING PROCESS ITSELF
DEPENDS ON REVIEWS DONE IN THE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU.
LACK OF A COMPREHENSION SURVEY OF THE RESOURCES IN THE PLAN AREA [BUZZER SOUNDING.] ARE ALSO DIFFICULTY AND SOME
OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS FROM THE CONSORTIUM WILL SPEAK TO THAT. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS.
I AM CYNTHIA SIRCRETNICK,
COCHAIR OF SAVE THE EXTENSION LAGUNA STREET CAMPUS, AND I AM
HERE WITH ATTORNEY AND FRANCISCO
HERRERA OF NEW COLLEGES, CALIFORNIA.
THE MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN DOES NOT
ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT ON THE SIX
ACRE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
BERKELEY EXTENSION LAGUNA STREET CAMPUS NOR DOES IT ADDRESS THE REPROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THAT CAMPUS ON THE PLAN ITSELF.
THE DRAFT EIR, FOR THE MARKET
OCTAVIA PLAN, EVALUATES THE
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE TRAFFIC
FOR THE PROPOSED REUSE PROJECT,
WHICH IS BEING DONE BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, AF EVANS, AND OPEN HOUSE ON THE
PLAN, BUT IT FAILS TO ADDRESS
IMPACTS ON HISTORIC RESOURCES,
OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC SPACE,
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES,
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, RECREATION RESOURCES.
ON THE PLAN OF LOO LOSING THAT
PUBLICLY ZONED SIX ACRE PARCEL
AND VICE VERSA, IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED INCREASED DENSITY THAT
THE PLAN IS ENCOURAGING AROUND
THE CAMPUS, ON THE REUSE OF THE
CAMPUS. THANK YOU.
THIS IS THE 2002 DRAFT MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN. WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY
PUBLISHED, THE PLAN TALKED ABOUT PRESERVING IMPORTANT PUBLIC
CULTURAL FACILITIES, AND IT
SPECIFICALLY LISTED THE UC BERKELEY EXTENSION LAGUNA STREET
CAMPUS AS A REGIONAL DESTINATION.
AND IT EVALUATED IT UNDER PUBLIC
USE ZONING.
THEN, IN FEBRUARY 2004, THE PLAN
WAS REVISED, AND IT STARTED TO
TALK ABOUT A PROCESS WHICH WOULD
INVOLVE ATTACK HOLDERS TO DO
MASTER PLANNING FOR THIS SITE, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN.
AND THEN, LATER IM SORRY, I
HAVE A GRAPHIC HERE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHAT MR. WILLIAMS WAS TALKING TO YOU
ABOUT BEFORE, WHERE WE DONT
HAVE AN ANALYSIS OF THIS
HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND YET WERE
LOOKING AT THE SIX ACRE PARCEL IN THE CENTER OF THE MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN, WHICH IS THE
LARGEST DEVELOPMENT PARCEL IN THE PLAN, AND WE DONT KNOW WHAT THE EFFECT OF THE PLAN IS ON THE RESOURCE, NOR THE REDEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED ON THE PLAN.
AND THEN IN 2006, ID LIKE TO
READ FROM THE REVISIONS TO THE PLAN. THE CAMPUS AGAIN IS THE LARGEST DEVELOPMENT AREA WITHIN THE MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN. THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE
MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN DATED MAY
22, 2006, STATE THAT ANY
SUBSEQUENT CHANGE IN ZONING TO THE UC BERKELEY LAGUNAXT OF A FOCUSED COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS THAT INVOLVES RESIDENTS
AND ATTACK HOLDERS, STAKEHOLDERS
AND ANY USE OF THE CAMPUS SHOULD BALANCE REUSE TO INTEGRATE THE SITE INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND
PROVIDE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF LAND FOR PUBLIC
USES SUCH AS EDUCATION,
COMMUNITY FACILITIES, AND OPEN SPACE.
BRIEFLY, ILL GOING THROUGH
IM GOING THROUGH THE DATES WITH YOU.
IN DECEMBER 02 THE PLAN WAS
PUBLISHED, IN 03 THEY DEVELOPED QUALITY COMPAITIONZ FOR A CAMPUS.
A MONTH LATER IN NOVEMBER MARKET
OCTAVIA PLAN WAS SCOPED FOR ITS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
IN AUGUST 04, AF EVANS SUBMITTED A COMPLETE ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION, WITH
ALL OF THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO
EVALUATE IT UNDER CEQA, TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THATS AUGUST 2004.
IN DECEMBER 04, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CREATED A POLICY
GUIDE THAT USES ALL OF THE PLAN LANGUAGE, HOWEVER THEY SAY THAT
IT IS NOT PART OF THE PLAN, AND
THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC
INPUT TO EVALUATE THE SITE.
THEN IN JUNE 05, THE MARKET
OCTAVIA PLAN DRAFT EIR WAS PUBLISHED.
COLLEGE OF CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED ON THAT BECAUSE CONCURRENTLY THEY SUBMITTED A
PROPOSAL THAT IS BEING EVALUATED
AS AN ALTERNATIVE IN THE LAGUNA
STREET EIR, FOR REDEVELOPING IT
UNDER PUBLIC USE ZONING.
FINALLY, WE ARE HERE NOW, IN
JUNE 07 TO CERTIFY AN EIR THAT
HAS A BIG HOLE IN THE MIDDLE OF
IT, AND THAT IS THE UC BERKELEY EXTENSION LAGUNA STREET CAMPUS. WEVE GOT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TELLING US ITS NOT IN THE PLANNING. IVE SHOWN YOU A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS THAT SHOWS ITS
CLEARLY IN THE PLAN.
THE MAIN POIRNT IS THE IMPACT OF THE PLAN ON THE SITE AND THE SITE USED IN THE PLAN HAVE NOT BEEN EVALUATED.
AND I WILL LEAVE FURTHER COMMENT
ON NEW COLLEGES ISSUES TO BELIND
A BGS SIVERD AND FRANCISCO
HERRERA. HERRERA.
President Peskin: MAAM, GIVEN THAT YOU HAVE 5 A SECONDS
LEFT, ITS PROBABLY MORE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR YOU TO SPEAK AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
DO WE HIT ALL SEVEN, ALL THREE
OF THE THIS IS OUR LAST SEVEN MINUTE SPEAKER, RIGHT SO YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES
AS COMPARED TO 55 SECONDS IF YOU
SPEAK AS A COMMENTOR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS. YES, THATS WHAT IM SAYING.
SO WERE GOING TO ZERO OUT THE
REMAINING 55 SECONDS AND THE OFFICIAL APPELLANT TESTIMONY IS OVER, AND THEN YOU CAN NOW HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: MY PLEASURE.
MY NAME IS BELINDA SIFFORD PROFESSOR OF LAW, HERE TO SPEAK
ABOUT OUR ONGOING AN PASSIONATE INTEREST IN THE SIX ACRE PARCEL
THAT WE THINK OF MORE AS A
COMMUNITY AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIVERSE GROUPS TO COME TOGETHER,
TO FULFILL THEIR NEEDS AND OUR MISSION.
NEW COLLEGE IS KNOWN FOR BEING
SOCIALLY ACTIVE. WE HAVE LAW CLINICS THAT WOULD
BE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL CLINIC President Peskin: COUNSELOR, I DONT WANT TO CUT
OFF YOUR TESTIMONY AND THIS WONT COME OFF OF YOUR TIME. ALL WE WANT TO KNOW IS WHY YOU BELIEVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS OR IS NOT ADEQUATE, NOT WHAT YOUR DESIRE FOR THE
LAND USE AT 55 LAGUNA OUGHT TO BE. THANK YOU. BECAUSE WE ARE AN EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION, WE BELIEVE THE EIR
HAS NOT ADEQUATELY ANALYZED WHAT
WILL HAPPEN WHEN THIS GOES FROM
A PUBLIC LAND SITE TO A PRIVATE LAND SITE.
THERE IS A REPORT, BUT IT REALLY DOESNT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF
THE NEEDS THAT A COMMUNITY DEPENDS ON WHEN YOU HAVE A SPACE
THAT SERVES THE PUBLIC THROUGH ITS EDUCATIONAL FUNCTION.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD RETAIN ITS PUBLIC ZONING AND THAT WE
CAN OFFER A BASE, GIVEN OUR HISTORY, THAT WILL SERVE THE NEEDS THAT SO LONG HAVE BEEN
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PARCEL OF LAND. WE ALSO BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE MORE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN AN ADVISORY BOARD THAT CAN REALLY HELP STRUCTURE THE FUTURE OF
THAT PIECE OF LAND FOR THE COMMUNITY NEEDS OF THE WESTERN
ADDITION OF THE GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY OF THE LATINO
COMMUNITY, ALL OF THE NEEDS THAT
ARE SERVED BY SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
THANK YOU VERYdent Peskin: NEXT
SPEAKER.
EITHER START MY THREE MINUTE CLOCK HERE
I AM ROB ANDERSON, ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO, A HANDFUL OF US STOOD BEFORE YOU FOLKS AND TRIED TO
WARN YOU ABOUT THE BICYCLE PLAN. DEJA VU.
WE KNOW HOW THAT CAME OUT. ITS REMARKABLE ABOUT THIS SOCALLED EIR IS IT TOOK SEVEN
YEARS TO DEVELOP AND BASICALLY
THERES VERY LITTLE SUBSTANCE THERE.
ITS THE WINCHESTER HOUSE OF
EIRs TO KEEP TACKING ON NEW DOCUMENTS, LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF NEW DOCUMENTS HAVE
BEEN ADDED TO THIS EIR, SINCE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS CLOSED. USUALLY THEY PUT THEM ON THE WEBSITE, AND YOU FIND THEM OR YOU DONT, AND LOTS OF LUCK. THATS NOT PUBLIC REVIEW.
THATS NOT AN ADEQUATE PROCESS. THE REZONING THOUSANDS OF PARCELS IN THE HEART OF SAN FRANCISCO, INCLUDING 40
STORY HIGH RISES IN THE MARKET
AND VAN NESS AREA WHICH WILL
CAST SHADOWS PERHAPS ON THIS BUILDING ITSELF. ITS PREPOSTEROUS.
THERE ARE NO SERIOUS STUDIES.
THE TRAFFIC STUDIES ARE A JOKE, TRAFFIC STUDIES ARE DISHONEST.
THEY INCLUDE THE SINK CIVIC
CENTER GARAGE IN MARKET OCTAVIA.
THEREFORE IT ADDS PARKING SPACES
TO PAIR BASELINE OF PARKING IN
THIS AREA.
THE ADDITION TO THIS EIR TELL US
THAT WERE NOW TALKING ABOUT 6,000 NEW HOUSING UNITS WHEN WE
WERE TALKING NOW ITS UP TO 6,000. THIS WAS ADDED AFTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. NOW WERE TALKING ABOUT 10,000 NEW RESIDENTS WHEN WERE TALKING
ABOUT 8,000.
THIS IS WHY IT NEEDS TO BE
RECIRCULATED AND YOU NEED A SUPPLEMENTAL EIR. THERES NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INCLUDED IN THIS, BY THE WAY. THERE IS SOME INCLUDED IN THE OLD FREEWAY PARCELS BUT
OTHERWISE THERES NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
ITS ALL A FANTASY. INSIST THAT PARKING IN
SAN FRANCISCO IS NOT AN IMPACT UNDER CEQA.
I KNOW THIS IS THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUT ITS SIMPLY NOT SO.
THE CASE LAW IS VERY CLEAR ON THAT.
THEY BROUGHT THIS UP DURING THE BICYCLE PLAN LITIGATION. SAME ISSUE. ITS FALSE.
THIS WHOLE PLAN IS BASED ON
FALSEHOODS AND FANTASIES.
DPW PUT OUT A REPORT ON OCTAVIA BOULEVARD, A PLAN ON THE OCTAVIA
BOULEVARD, WHICH IS A DISASTER. ITS NOT EVEN REFERRED TO IN THIS EIR.
THAT STREET IS ALREADY NEAR
TRAFFIC CAPACITY, ACCORDING TO DPT. THAT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THIS EIR. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.
THANK YOU, SUPERVISORS.
I AM FRANCISCO HERRERA, GOOD AFTERNOON.
I AM REPRESENTING TODAY, I AM
STANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NEW COLLEGE COMMUNITY RELATIONS. THIS EIR IS INADEQUATE BECAUSE
IT DOES NOT EVALUATE THE IMPACTS
OF THE PLAN ON THE LAGUNA STREET CAMPUS NOR THE IMPACTS OF THE
PROPOSED CAMPUS REDEVELOPMENT BY
A.F. EVANS ON THE PLAN ITSELF.
IT DOES NOT EVALUATE THE IMPACT
ON HISTORICAL OPEN SPACE,
EDUCATION, AND RECREATIONAL
RESOURCES, AND ALSO REGARDING
THE SAID PIPELINE PROJECTS.
AND SO WE REALLY ARE HERE TO ASK
YOU NOT TO CERTIFY THIS EIR.
IT HAS TOO MANY HOLES IN IT.
IT WILL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITIES.
AND WE, AT NEW COLLEGE, ARE
READY TO MAKE A PROPOSAL, A
MARKET RATE VALUE FOR THE CAMPUS, LAGUNA CAMPUS. WE HAVE BEEN BLOCKED FROM BEING
ABLE TO DO THAT. AND WERE ABLE TO MAKE A
PROPOSAL FOR THE LAGUNA CAMPUS UNDER PUBLIC ZONING.
IM HERE TO REQUEST YOU DO NOT CERTIFY THIS SOCALLED EIR.
IT HAS TOO MANY HOLES, NOT ENOUGH ANALYSIS ON THE IMPACT AS ITS ALREADY BEEN SAID.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
President Peskin: NEXT
SPEAKER.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS.
MY NAME IS SALEM I AM SPEAKING AGAINST THE PROJECT.
I OWN A BUILDING ON 34 BUCHANAN, AND MARKET.
IF YOU SEEN THE PROJECT IS GOING
TO WRAP AROUND MY BUILDING, AND
ITS 34 BUCHANAN IS SO SMALL,
THE THREE STORIES BUILDING WRAP
AROUND WITH 10 STORIES BUILDING
ALL AROUND.
SO THAT GOING TO ELIMINATE THE
SUN, THE LIGHT, THE VIEW, AND
THE AIR, TO 50 OF ALL MY TENANT.
AND IT GOING TO REDUCE THE VALUE
OF MY PROPERTY AT LEAST BY 40.
I HOPE YOU WILL STOP REZONING THIS PROJECT.
BECAUSE ITS GOING TO EFFECT THE
ENTIRE ENVIRONMENT OF SUN,
LIGHT, AND FRESH AIR TO SO MANY
SMALL BUILDINGS.
LET US SUPPORT THE SMALL GUYS,
AND STOP THE BIG DEVELOPER.
I DONT THINK WE NEED ANYMORE LARGE DEVELOPMENT.
I LIVED IN SAN FRANCISCO FOR THE
PAST 50 YEARS, AND I SEEN HOW
MANY SMALL HOUSES HAS BEEN
DESTROYED, SO WE CAN MAKE MORE
ROOM FOR HUGE DEVELOPER.
THE POPULATION OF SAN FRANCISCO INCREASED. LETS CHECK IT.
DO WE NEED ANYMORE HUGE PROJECT ANSWER IS NO.
WE NEED TO KEEP SAN FRANCISCO
NICE AND UNIQUE CITY.
WE DONT NEED ANOTHER HUGE BUILDINGS.
WE NEED SMALL GUYS.
LET US SUPPORT THE SMALLER GUYS. LET SOMEBODY ELSE SUPPORT THE BIG DEVELOPER.
THANK YOU.
President Peskin: THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS HIRSCHO, AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ A LETTER FROM
COALITION OF SAN FRANCISCO NEIGHBORHOOD.
I READ THIS BEFORE BUT IM GOING TO READ IT AGAIN.
THE TOLLING RESOLUTION IS PASSED
BY MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS, APRIL
17, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETING RESOLVE THE CULTURAL SAN FRANCISCO NEIGHBORHOOD STRONGLY URGES THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO SUPPORT THE APPEALS OF THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO RECOMMEND
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THE
FINAL EIR FOR THE MARKET OCTAVIA
PLAN AND TO RETURN SAID FEIR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
GROUNDS THAT SAID FEIR IS INSUFFICIENT, INADEQUATE,
INACCURATE, AND MISLEADING. FOR CORRECTION AND REVISION SO
IT COMPLIES COMPLETELY WITH PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
THE SUBJECT FEIR CONTAINS NO
ANALYSIS OF REASONABLE
FORESEEABLE CITYWIDE CUMULATIVE E NEWTS RESULTING FROM THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS.
AT THIS POINT, ID LIKE TO
REMIND WELL, AS I REMEMBER,
IN 2000 AND 2004, MANY OF YOU
ALL OF YOU CANDIDATES SUPERVISORS WENT TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS, TO YOUR
DISTRICTS, AND TOLD THEM IM THE
NEIGHBORHOOD GUY, I BELIEVE IN
NEIGHBORHOOD GRASS ROOTS, IM
GOING TO IM YOUR MAN OR WOMAN.
AND I WANT TO INFORM YOU NOT INFORM YOU.
I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT
THIS MARKET OCTAVIA NEIGHBORHOOD
AREA PLAN IS VERY MISLEADING.
ITS A TROJAN HORSE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE ITS A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ONLY FOR
MARKET OCTAVIA. BUT THESE THREE NEW ZONING CATEGORIES, THEYRE NOT ONLY FOR MARKET OCTAVIA.
THEY COULD BE FOR ANYWHERE, THE
TRANSIT RICH, AS SOMEONE
PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, TRANSIT RICH SOURCES OF SERVICE, BUT
TRANSIT RICH. HOWEVER, ALL THIS AREA, THE TRANSIT CORRIDORS THAT HAVE BEEN
MENTIONED TIME AND TIME BEFORE,
AND OTHER ZONING LAND USE.
WELL, IM GOING TO DISTRIBUTE THIS, BUT THIS IS A MAP OF THE
TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
AND THESE THREE NEW ZONING
CATEGORIES EFFECT ALL OF THEM.
ITS NOT JUST MARKET OCTAVIA. THE FEIR DOES NOT EVEN MENTION ALL THE DIFFERENT TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
THIS IS REALLY MISLEADING. THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS, ALL OF YOU. AND YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHEN
YOU APPROVE THIS, IS THIS MARKET OCTAVIA NO.
ITS GOING TO AFFECT YOU GUYS.
I WOULD THINK YOUR CONSTITUENTS
WOULD BE UPSET [BUZZER SOUNDING.]
President Peskin: THANK YOU.
IM GOING TO GIVE THIS FOR DISTRIBUTION.
President Peskin: WE WILL COME AND COLLECT IT. NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS.
MY NAME IS LA VON TAIBACK A
MEMBER OF SAVE THE UC BERKELEY
EXTENSION CAMPUS GROUP WHO
ADVOCATE FOR A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IN THE MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN. AND THIS WOULD BE IN REFERENCE
TO THE 55 LAGUNA PROPERTY.
President Peskin: I DONT WANT TO CUT YOU OFF BUT I DONT UNDERSTAND HOW THIS HAS ANYTHING
TO DO WITH THE ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT.
WELL, YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD EARLIER, I DONT KNOW IF YOU
WERE IN THE ROOM WHEN CYNTHIA
SPOKE REGARDING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
REQUIRES THAT A STAKEHOLDER, CITIZENS, NEIGHBORS AND OTHERS,
WHO ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY
THESE PROPOSALS, CONVENE IN SUCH
A WAY WHERE THEY CAN WEIGH IN
AND ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN THE
REUSE OF A PROPERTY LIKE 55 LAGUNA, BEFORE THOSE PLANS ARE IMPLEMENTED. AND THATS WHAT IM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF.
IM NOT JUST HERE BY MYSELF. I IVE WORKED WITH A NUMBER
OF CITIZENS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND HAVE COLLECTED OVER 700 SIGNATURES IN FAVOR OF A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
NOW, THATS A COMPLICATED IDEA
BUREAUCRACY THAT IS UNWARRANTED.
HOWEVER, THIS IS A SOCALLED PROGRESSIVE CITY.
THIS IS A SOCALLED DEMOCRATIC CITY.
AND I WOULD URGE YOU TO FOLLOW
THE EIRS GUIDELINES FOR
IMPLEMENTING A VERY REASONABLE
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, WHEREBY THE CITIZENS WHO ARE DIRECTLY
IMPACTED BY SUCH A PROPOSAL,
THAT YOURE SEEING TODAY, CAN AFFECT IT IN SOME WAY. LIKE I SAID, WERE NOT TRYING TO BE UNREASONABLE. WHAT WERE TRYING TO DO IS OPEN THE PROCESS.
WE WANT TO MAKE IT FAIR.
AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE
COMMUNITY, AS LONG AS AND ALL
THE OTHER PARTIES, THROUGH
INFLUENCING THE PROPERTY, ARE BEHOLDING TO THE HIGHEST AND
BEST USE OF IT GOING FORWARD, WHICH HASNT REALLY BEEN CONSIDERED YET. THOSE TERMS ARENT REALLY
BROUGHT UP UNLESS YOU DO CONVENE
A STRONG CITIZENS PROCESS LIKE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COULD BE. NOW IVE HEARD SOME OF OUR
REPRESENTATIVES SAY THAT THEY HAVE LEGAL CONCERN ABOUT THE IMPL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
I WOULD URGE YOU TO BROADEN THAT
SCOPE, AND RECOGNIZE THAT, BY
HAVING A CAC, YOU MIGHT CIRCUMVENT PROBLEMS DOWN THE LINE. YOU MIGHT JUST AVOID PROBLEMS
DOWN THE LINE, IF THIS MATTER
WAS DECIDED BY A HIGHER AUTHORITY IN A COURT OF LAW, FOR INSTANCE, THAT YOU WOULD FOLLOW
YOUR OWN GUIDELINES, AND CONVENE
A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
ITS REASONABLE, ITS IMPORTANT. [BUZZER SOUNDING.] THANK YOU.
President Peskin: NEXT
SPEAKER.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I AM HERE REPRESENTING I AM
PETER, REPRESENTING 40 BUCHANAN STREET. I AM ASKING YOU NOT TO APPROVE
THE EIR REPORT BASED ON, FOR ME,
THIS REPORT IS APPROVED, IT
SHOWS THE REPORT AT THE
GAS STATION, 76 GAS STATION,
WOULD BE DEMOLISHED, AND THIS BUILDING WOULD BE BUILT.
MY BUILDINGS RIGHT NEXT TO THIS, AND WE WOULD HAVE NO SUN,
LIGHT, OR FRESH AIR. IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY BLOCKED ON TWO SIDES OF THE BUILDING.
THIS ISNT A GOOD IDEA.
I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE CAN YOU REMEMBER THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS FIVE FEET AND IF IT GOES INTO EFFECT, THE BUILDING WILL BE AT LEAST 10 STORIES HIGH. I DONT THINK ANY OF THESE I
DONT THINK THE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE, AND I ASK YOU TO PLEASE REVIEW THIS AND NOT APPROVE IT.
THANK YOU.
President Peskin: THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER.
HELLO. I AM ALLEN MARTINEZ. FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, MANY OF US IN THE PRESERVATION COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH
CITY PLANNING TO ADDRESS THE INADEQUACIES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION POLICIES IN THE PLAN, AND IN THE EIR.
AND IT WAS AGREED THAT HAVING
A SURVEY OF THE MARKET OCTAVIA, WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT.
A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, UPON
REVIEWING THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY, THE FIRST ONES THAT HAVE
COME IN, WE REALIZE THE SURVEY
BEING DONE IS REALLY INADEQUATE.
A: FORM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE FOR EVERY LOT AND THEY WERENT AND WE WERE
EXPECTING HUNDREDS OF B FORMS AND ABOUT 150 SOMETHING WERE DONE.
SO WE FEEL, ON THIS ASPECT, THE
SURVEY BEING DONE IS SIMPLY INADEQUATE AND THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT.
WE HAD AGREED, A WHILE AGO, THAT
WE COULD DECOUPLE THE TIMING OF
THE SURVEY FROM APPROVING THE
PLAN AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. BUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SURVEY BEING DONE IS
INADEQUATE, WE FELT AN APPEAL
HAD TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO GET
THE SURVEY UP TO SPEED. SPECIFICALLY, IN THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU, THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF WHAT A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY IS.
WE NEED, AS A CITY, TO COME UP WITH A DEFINITION.
WEVE DRAFTED SOMETHING THAT IS INELEGANT AND AWKWARD BUT WE HAVE A PAGE OF WHAT WE THINK
THAT DEFINITION WOULD BE.
SECONDLY, THERE HAS TO BE A
METHOD THAT THE SURVEY HAVE PEER
REVIEW AND REVIEW BY THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE. IN THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU
THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY.
WE FEEL THAT SINCE IF YOU DO DO A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY, WERE PROBABLY ANOTHER YEAR OUT, THAT
MAYBE WE SHOULD BE EXTRA
SCRUTINY TO THE ENTIRE MARKET OCTAVIA AREA INSTEAD OF CERTAIN
PARTS AS IT IS NOW, BECAUSE WE WERE ANTICIPATING THE SURVEY WOULD BE DONE IN THE NEXT YEAR,
BUT IT MIGHT BE ANOTHER YEAR, IF
WE TRY TO GET THE SURVEY UP TO SPEED.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ORDINANCE SEPARATELY, DEALING WITH THIS AS
A POLICY OF THE CITY, THAT THE SURVEY SHOULD ALWAYS BE DONE
BEFORE AREA PLAN STATING SPECIFICALLY WHAT A
COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY IS, AND HOW
THE FUNDING GETS DONE, AND HOW THE SURVEY IS REVIEWED. AND IT WILL SAVE US A LOT OF
GRIEF TO GET THIS ALL SET OUT AT THE BEGINNING INSTEAD OF HAVING TO PLAY CATCH UP AS WITH THE MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN. ANOTHER THING ID LIKE TO
CLARIFY IS THE REASON 55 LAGUNA COMES UP IS BECAUSE PLANNING IS
APPLYING THE PLAN AND EIR TO 55 LAGUNA, EVEN THOUGH IT ISNT IN THE PLAN OR THE EIR. THATS THE PROBLEM. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER.
HELLO, EVERYBODY. I AM PETER LEWIS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND ALSO ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE
OF SAFE CLEAN GREEN. IM HERE TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE
TWO GROUPS THAT I REPRESENT ARE
OPPOSED TO THE EIR IN ITS
CURRENT STATE.
IN SAYING THAT, I MUST SAY THAT
ALLEN AND THE REST OF US IN THE PRESERVATION CONSORTIUM HAVE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THE LAST
YEAR AND A HALF. SUPERVISOR PESKIN, THROUGH THE
CITY ATTORNEY, RECENTLY GAVE US
A DRAFT OF AN ORDINANCE.
I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN REACH A CONSENSUS AND REFERENCE TO COMING UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE SOLID, THAT EVERYBODY WOULD BE HAPPY WITH. OBVIOUSLY NOT HAPPY RIGHT NOW.
AND ILL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
MISSION DOLORES, THE OLDEST NEIGHBORHOODS IN SAN FRANCISCO,
A MISSION.
THE THEIR INADEQUATE SURVEY
STATES TA THERE ARE NO HISTORICAL POTENTIAL HISTORICAL DISTRICTS IN THE NORTHERN PART OF MISSION DOLORES. THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS. THE PRESERVATION FUND COMMITTEE
HAS FUNDED A CONTACT STATEMENT
THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY, THE DRAFT OF THAT CONTACT STATEMENT FOR MISSION DOLORES WILL BE COMPLETED AT THE END OF THIS
WEEK, AND IN THAT DRAFT OF THE
CONTEXT STATEMENT, IT STATES
THAT THERE IS A LARGE POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT IN THE MISSION
DOLORES NEIGHBORHOOD THAT
OVERLAPS INTO THE MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN.
IN ADDITION, THE INNER MISSION NORTH CULTURAL
HARD ON STATES THERE ARE FIVE POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN THE NORTH MISSION.
THEYRE MENTIONED IN THE MARKET OCTAVIA EIR BUT THERES NOTHING
IN THERE THAT SAYS THEYRE GOING
TO ADOPT ANY OF THOSE HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
IN ADDITION, RANDALL DEAN FROM
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORKED
HARD ON A DOCUMENT OF THE
MISSION DOLORES ARCHEOLOGICAL
DISTRICT THAT LIES ALSO IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE MISSION DOLORES NEIGHBORHOODS AND IN THE MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN AND THAT DOCUMENT, THERES MENTION IN THE EIR BUT THERES NOTHING THAT
SAYS THAT THAT HISTORIC DISTRICT WILL BE ADOPTED. THATS OUTRAGEOUS AGAIN.
THERES FIVE POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS. THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT SAYS THEY WILL BE ADOPTED. IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE RECEIVED, IT SAYS THAT IT WILL
BE BASED ON WHAT PAGE AND TURN
BULL COMES UP WITH IN TERMS OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
I DONT TRUST THEM ANYMORE.
AFTER AN INADEQUATE SURVEY, ONE OF THE WAYS THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT EXPLAINS THAT IS THEY
SAY WE RAN OUT OF MONEY. IF YOU RUN OUT OF MONEY TO DO A
SURVEY, DO A SMALLER ONE.
MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN IS WAY TOO BIG.
IF YOU WANT TO SAVE MONEY LET US OUT. WE VOTE TO BE LET OUT OF THE
PLAN. THANK YOU.
President Peskin: INCOME SPEAKER PLEASE. MR. MARSH.
MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE
BOARD, I AM CITY PLANNER AND ARCHITECTURAL HISTORICIAN
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY PLANNER, NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVIST AND FRIENDS OF THE 1800 MARKET
STREET AND A PARTY TO THIS CEQA APPEAL. BASICALLY THE HISTORY OF THIS
MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN RELATED RESULTED IN PREPARING OF A LAND
USE PLAN WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING
OF THE IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVOCACY WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN PREPARATION OF A SURVEY AT ALL, THE PRESERVATION IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON HISTORIC RESOURCES IN THIS PLAN ARE GREAT.
AND THEY WILL THE PLAN AREA BOUNDARIES WILL AFFECT THOUSANDS OF HISTORIC RESOURCES.
HOW CAN YOU CHANGE THE ZONING TO
RELAX EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THEREBY INCREASING
AND CREATING NEW THREATS TO POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES
BEFORE YOU UNDERSTAND THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
STUDY AREA AND ITS BUILDING STOCK.
NOT ONLY IS THERE STILL A TIMING PROBLEM WITH RESPECT TO THE SURVEY THAT WILL BE COMPLETED AFTER THE PLANS ADOPTION, BUT
WE ARE NOW LEARNING THAT THE
AREA PLAN IS AN AREA PLAN RATHER THAN A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY.
THIS SURVEY HAS A LIMITED UTILITY BEYOND THE ADOPTION OF
THIS PLAN BECAUSE SO MANY OF THE
PROPERTIES NOT EVALUATED AND BECAUSE THOSE THAT ARE EVALUATED ARE HELD TO STANDARDS OF
SIGNIFICANCE WHICH ARE UNJUSTIFIABLY HIGH.
WE BELIEVE THIS SURVEY IS FLAWED
FROM ITS INCEPTION AND BECAUSE OF THE TIMING IN BUDGET RELATED
TO THE SURVEY THAT HAS PUT INTO THE PLAN. EVEN AFTER THIS SURVEY IS
COMPLETED THERE WILL STILL BE UNCERTAINTY AROUND WHICH PROPERTIES ARE HISTORIC IN THE PLAN AREA. THIS PERPETUATES A STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCTIVE. WITHOUT COMPLETE SURVEY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES WILL
CONTINUE TO BE EVALUATED ON A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIATED
CASE BY CASE BASIS WITHOUT OBJECTIVEITY FORWARDED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY. TO FIX THIS PROBLEM, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE SURVEY UNDERWAY BE EXPANDnd SCOPE SO
IT CAN BE COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE MARKET OCTAVIA PLAN AREA.
WE WANT THIS SURVEY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE METHODOLOGY
USED IN THE CENTRAL WATERFRONT STUDY AND INNER MISSION SURVEYS.
WE BELIEVE ALL FUTURE SURVEYS TO
BE UNDERTAKEN BE HAVE AN
OVERSIGHT OF VOLUNTEER PANEL OF PRESERVATION PROFESSIONALS WHO CAN PROVIDE OBJECTIVE PEER REVIEW FOR THE ENTIRE SURVEY
PLAN AREA FROM RESEARCH, DESIGN,
BUDGET REQUEST, SCHEDULED WORK PRODUCTS AND RESULTS. THIS PANEL SHOULD INCLUDE ONE OR MORE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES OF STAKEHOLDERS IN THE SURVEY AREA. THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE MARKET
OCTAVIA PLAN [BUZZER SOUNDING.] THANK YOU.
President Peskin: THANK YOU
FOR THOSE COMMENTS.
NEXT SPEAKER.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS.
MY NAME IS JUDITH
President Peskin: CAN YOU JUST WERE GOING TO RECESS
THIS MEETING FOR JUST A MINUTE. THERES BEEN SOME INTERESTING
DEVELOPMENTS HERE AT CITY HALL. WERE GOING TO RECESS FOR ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
President Peskin: LET ME APOLOGIZE BUT I THINK WE ARE GOING TO SUBJECT TO A MOTION
THAT IS ABOUT TO BE INTRODUCED,
CONTINUE THIS HEARING TO THE
MEETING NEXT WEEK, AND TAKE IT
UP THEN.
SO I AM SORRY FOR THAT.
ALL OF THIS WILL BECOME MORE CLEAR TO ALL OF YOU.
BUT WITH THAT, WE ARE BACK ON. SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI.
Supervisor Mirkarimi: THANK YOU. I THINK IT WAS OBVIOUS TO ALL OF
US THAT, DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY AND DEPTH OF THE HEARING AND COMPETING DISTRACTIONS, IT MAY BE WISE THAT WE CONTINUE THIS FOR ONE WEEK.
President Peskin: MOTION BY SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR ELSBERND. COLLEAGUES, LETS DO THAT WITHOUT OBJECTION. THE BALANCE OF THIS HEARING WILL
BE TAKEN UP IN ONE WEEK. AND, MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE IN MEMORIAM.
The Clerk: YES, MR. PRESIDENT. ON BEHALF OF SUPERVISOR PESKIN FOR THE LATE LUCILLE MYERS, ON BEHALF OF SUPERVISOR MIRKARIMI
FOR THE LATE HUGHES de LA PLAZA, ON BEHALF OF THE
ENTIRE BOARD FOR JOSEPH PATRICK DRISCOL.
President Peskin: THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED.