Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the San Francisco board of supervisors budget and finance Committee Meeting for wednesday march 19, 2014. We are at 1 15 right now and well continue this meeting until 230 30 to allow people to continue to an arrive. Can we take this welcome back t budget and finance committee. My name is supervisor mark farrell. I will be charg this committee. Im joining by supervisor avalos and breed and well be joined by scott wiener and i would like to thank sfgtv committee. Madam clerk, any items. Yes, please submit speaker cards to the clerk. The action will be submitted to the board of supervisors agenda. Supervisor mark farrell please call item no. 1. Item item this is item 140121. This will put more homeless members and provide additional housing for homeless. Our Homeless Outreach is critical to reducing our Homeless Population. Current funding levels facilitates 24 people on the streets. For people sleeping on the streets isnt enough. This will increase t
Given all the appeals over the years. Given that weve had a number of appeals and lawsuit, there are a lot of details that are confusing. We are talking about the mornings modernization of the Masonic Center. Can you tell the number of the proposed project . 135 patrons per show. 3300 from 3100. President david chiu thats my understanding. An increase about 4 percent of capacity for individuals. As i read your appeal letter, it didnt from my perspective didnt address the environmental analysis or the adequacy of that or as much as from 2013 was granted. I wanted to ask why didnt you bring a cu appeal if you spent a lot of time in your letter focused on that. We didnt file a conditional use appeal. The board is very stringent of getting the board before yourself. The reasons we did file a conditional use appeal. It was accepted by the clerk. The analysis of the signature did not meet the threshold required by the board of supervisors and the City Ordinance and we probably depending on h
Signature did not meet the threshold required by the board of supervisors and the City Ordinance and we probably depending on how things go today well see the ultimate outcome, but we did file the appeal. You did not have enough in the threshold. We did not. The appeals in the past were brought with 20 percent property signatures if thats correct. I think that is correct. I was not involved at the time. If you asked the question, i will give you an answer. The Settlement Agreement that some of the neighbors entered into has taken many of the opponents out. Now, what happened on the settlement it was Large Organizations that knob Hill Association. You will hear from barrett, shes the expert. Its been a very contention manner. There are people concerned about getting involved at this point. The fact that we dont have 20 percent is no indication that one is that the project has been properly analyzed. Of course that issue stands on its own, two, the nature of the contention of the neighbo
Focused on that. We didnt file a conditional use appeal. The board is very stringent of getting the board before yourself. The reasons we did file a conditional use appeal. It was accepted by the clerk. The analysis of the signature did not meet the threshold required by the board of supervisors and the City Ordinance and we probably depending on how things go today well see the ultimate outcome, but we did file the appeal. You did not have enough in the threshold. We did not. The appeals in the past were brought with 20 percent property signatures if thats correct. I think that is correct. I was not involved at the time. If you asked the question, i will give you an answer. The Settlement Agreement that some of the neighbors entered into has taken many of the opponents out. Now, what happened on the settlement it was Large Organizations that knob Hill Association. You will hear from barrett, shes the expert. Its been a very contention manner. There are people concerned about getting i
As a discussion to the board and relief to the Administrative Burden that the legislation could have on the agency in terms of enforcement, i am now introducing substitute legislation which differs from the original and the following ways one, in addition to requiring a landlord his or her rights at a time of commencing of by out legislations that reiterate those rights at the time the buy out agreement is reduced in writing. Second, the substitute legislation requires that all buy outs within 45 days following his or her signature on a buy out agreement. The substitute legislation requires a landlord to pay a fee at the time he files the buy out agreement related to the following buy out agreement. The subject legislation also removes any administration in the original version of the ordinance and instead allows tennants, nonprofit c 3 or c 4 with protecting tennants rights or the City Attorneys Office to enforce provisions of the law in San Francisco superior court. I look forward to