a moment and thank leo and jesse larson from sfgov for broadcasting this meeting clerk, any announcements? >> >> completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the may 10, 2016, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> let's get start item one a resolution approving the designation of forest on mshthd and spear street good afternoon mr. lazzaro he's here ladies and gentlemen, he's staff of the arts commission will present on this item. >> thank you, supervisors for hearing this that he appreciate it on behalf of the street actors whom the arts commission willss we're here to does for your recommendation to designate 4 additional artist street spaces think market street north side of market street at spear street you may recall that under 3 separate regulations you have designated some 2wr0 other spaces on this same block on the same side of the street were we asking for a remaining four those four would be in compliance with the other spaces that you've designated that are 10 foot by 10 foot spies to meet the size of what they cotton the easy up tents they use it looks like a beautiful market fair arts and crafts fair and highly successful fair in order to provide for the 10 by 10 just as you did in the other resolutions k3789 the spaces from various regulations of police code and -- excuse-me. typically well before i state them you're probably aware under ordinance 344 dash 83 you are authorized to exempt a space or an area of spaces from any or many of the regulations as long as as the exemption are not inconsistent with the purposes of the regulations and, in fact, over the - since 1983 you have in offer 40 resolutions exempted street arts spaces from various regulations and so to begin with all 4 of those spaces we're here before you on behalf of would be exempted from the displayed spaces is 3 by 4, 4 feet wide by 3 feet deep and six feet at all exempted as well as the height the height will be instead of 5 needed to 7 feet again with keeping with the other spaces the four spaces are exempted from the 5 foot distance between booster regulations and in this case they'll be next door to each other as the other spaces two of the spaces of the four will be exempted from the distanced from the crosswalk regulations that is normally says that a space will be 5 feet away from a crosswalk in this case they'll be opposite the crosswalk but interestingly and i'll go this this sidewalk is 48 and a half feet wide so with these spaces and their exemptions just like the other spaced on the sidewalk they would be 1-800- 19 and a half from the front of the booth to the adjacent hostility regulationcy hotel over two times the required way width and similarly the back of the boat is 19 square foot away from the curve in this case the sidewalk and again that is like over two times this requirement for a passageway directly opposite the crosswalk are a tree and lamp pole i've observed they don't heroin the flow of pedestrians we feel safely that that two of the four spaces we're requesting would be in line with the tree and the lamp post and not hinder pedestrian traffic so that i think i've covered all of this oh, one more regulation one of the four spaces would be exempted from the distance from the 10 foot distance from entrance how it is measured if you look like an entrance a doorway you'll measure parallel 10 feet away aperpendicular and 19 and a half feet opposite that entryway that is actually a subterranean entry exit so far a vehicle of the hotel and again and there's a railing opposite that two so again that space will lead 17 and a half feet of pedestrian passage way again morning twice the requirement anyway, i'm hear and i'll be happy to answer your questions if i can. >> thank you, mr. lazzaro colleagues, any questions seeing none, public comment at this time all right. members of the public that would like to speak on the item come up to the microphone as a reminder 2 minutes a soft chimney with thirty sections remaining. >> thank you, supervisors my name is tale of two cities sky i've been a street artist since 1974 since the mr. lazzaro took over i'm a cheerleader and in fact, i'm confused by the numbers but know where they are we have very good neighbors with the neighbors and streets of san francisco artists are popular like the artists and they say we gentrify the area and one of the reasons this is important we've had the arts and crafts market at herman plaza it is popular as other spaces around the city have become less popular we expanded down market street and in other words, to do that we've had to come and ask for more spaces unlike the craft fairs i saw supervisor wiener others a festival a couple sunday good those are think on this weekend but those spaces are all year round so you can make the cost of living so i urge you to agree and recommend this proposal not o to the full board and want to thank supervisor peskin for on the edge of his district very, very vocal and a nice supporter of our program i appreciate your support and thank you very much all of you. >> all right. thank you is there any additional public comment on this item please come up. >> my name is maria one of the managers the market over there we do assign people the spaces and everything and those spaces are important for the other people sometimes, we have one hundred and 50 people and on this 95 so this will add more more spaces a great relationship with the hyatt to work together thank you. >> anyone else seeing none, public comment is closed at this time and the matter is in the hands the committee colleagues a motion on that item. >> move we forward with positive women's by supervisor wiener and without objection amazing all right. get to item number 2. >> item 2 ordinance to seriousy massage with the conditional use preliminary and north of market. >> april on for supervisor kim's that will be presenting on item 2. >> good afternoon, supervisors again, i'm april and i'm here on behalf of the jane kim thank you for your consideration of this legislation today supervisor kim has forwarded this legislation to change the north of market special use district to allow massage serves as part of the existing businesses with the is that a and the special use district prohibit massage establishment unless part of a hospital are gym or residential care facility diego sanchez is here to talk about the analysis and the north of market street special use district was passed at a time a prohibition of massage establishments to protect the public safety health and safety that was very much a community-based initiative and this change seeks to update the recognition of the positive changes in the neighborhood and the community effort over the years to encourage new small business opportunities in the tenderloin the legislation seeks to strike the balance to support small businesses and small businesses that are desired in the neighborhood that legislation enables massage establishment as an accessory but requires a conditional use for any business that will utilities this opportunity for massages in the special use district and with that, i hope you'll support this legislation today and building that diego sanchez is here from the planning department to subscribe the planning department's staff report. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> diego sanchez superintendant on march 10 the commission heard those and the planning commission moved to remedy the proposed ordinance the commission strongly support the cus for the personal services in the north of math sud from the increasing access to massage therapy and establishing the regulatory controls that concludes my presentation. >> wow. thank you appreciate the brevity anyone else i'm going to open up for public comment it is open at this time you can come up and share with you as you good afternoon, supervisors my name is carolyn smith and my husband sunny and i have been working for two years now on convert an old brick building that was formally a mechanics garage into a japanese style 135 with limited to our business first a restaurant a japanese inspired restaurant with fresh vegetable dishes and a large key moe menu we have 6 treatment rooms for facials and others massages and lastly we'll have communal bathing elements there will be a soaking tube and a steam room we're a small business opening in the heart of tenderloin and the focus of the elements of our business will be fostering well-being and community the treatments we'll offer will permit relax but support our clients wellness and goals we feel like massage is a valuable part of my well routine program we're well aware of the amendments to the health code and will follow those and will foster community with our clients and neighbors that offer a acupuncture and on one day a week for our neighbors thank you very much listening for listening. >> anyone else. >> i work for central collaborative that is part of clinic but here i'm here to speak on behalf of brenda washington who is a tenant in the collaborative and a tenants of jefferson hotel couldn't be here i'm reading her statement i'm brenda with the collaborative in jefferson which is a neighbor for this business we support this amendment for planning code to permit the massage the owners have gone to numerous community meetings that were held and tenderloin stations and other places they've discussed their business and we totally support and hope you support this thanks. >> any other members of the public who will come up? >> hello and told me i'm kathy and i'm from the cadillac hotel in support of sunny and carolina they've been strong community members and it is important to have a dialogue it is interesting i'm supporting this product i want you to know i believe they're committed to the community and it's well-being thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm john nolte a board member of the planning collision in 1999 we passed the north of market special use district the business came to several meetings before they asked for an amendment we told them they couldn't do their business because of special use district and no meetings and outreach to the community to deal with the proposed amendment that is going i urge the board not to amend the special use district we had a coalition involved in 1999 and not enough community members were you outreached in the packet there be no letters of support for this item so up urge the board to deny this amendment to the special use district and no recommendations to the full board thank you very much. >> anyone else? okay public comment is closed. thank you >> all right. this matter in the hands the committee and a motion by supervisor cohen's and without objection the motion to full board with a positive recommendations call item 3. >> item 3 motion from the land use and transportation at the board of supervisors is with the attorney attorney/client privilege for closed session for the purposes of kevin with and getting advise for the litigation arisen out of the north focal island on the street and referred to the california code and the san francisco administrative code 67.102 to remitted this discussion in open session will be likely prejudice the city in the anticipated litigation. >> thank you mr. clerk. >> the clerk should call the owners that the committee will be considering today, i understand the closed session is part of potential consideration of the ordinance. >> the oxen is the pine tree as a landmark. >> all right. so intending to proceed first a presentation from staff of the urban forestry council and then we'll take public comment then the committee will entertain a committee to hold a closed session to confer with the city attorney and not take actions on the issuance but will reconvene and consider taking action so thank you for calling those items together i'm to call up the urban forestry of the environment to give you a brief presentation on this item. >> i provide the staffing support for the department i'll briefly go over the landmark designation so far the trees it is near to some of you and go over the process for this particular nominated tree in general all landmark trees are nominated they're all designated by the board of supervisors the urban forestry council serves as part of progress and landmark tree nomination came from the owner of labor subject and the agencies and the historic preservation commission is the land use advisor ordinance the board of supervisors can nominee and once a nominees is made the staff will perform on onsite evaluation and the council holds the landmark tree hearing at that public hearings a specific time for the pertaining to have a say follow at the hearing the vote can go one of 3 ways but regardless of the economy recommendations to the full council the nomination to the full council for the consideration one of 3 outcomes to the vote and in all cases to pass a motion they need 3 members to pass the motion a suppo nomination will be a recommendation 3 of the members voting against or a split vote they can't get the votes for the tree like i said, it goes to the full council for consideration had the full council holds their nomination the chair will provide a report on the committee the committee hearing and then at the end of the hearing similar to the landmark try committee they'll have a 3 okay either for against or split 15 members of the council so will members needed to vote for or against the motion if denied by 8 members the 23450e78gs stops otherwise with the slit voted for the board of supervisors for consideration additionally important to note that all landmark don't need to meet all the requirements but it meets the threshold for landmarking i'll provide for detail for you if you're interested and in this case the nomination for this tree the hook north pine was made by the planning commission the property owner didn't give permission to ensure his property for an evaluation of the tree we were able to get permission from the estate of the next door neighbor and council members and staff rendered the evaluation the landmark tree committee held two meetings at the end of the first hearing didn't have enough information and at the end of the second hearing a vote of 2 to one 3 council members we are present and two voted against one for so this went to the full council no recommendation from the committee at the full council they had two hearings after the first hearing a 5, 5 vote 4 members in favor against because they needed 8 council members that was a slit vote with no decision this is what went forward to the board of supervisors in in response, the urban forest was to reconsider the council did in march of this year at the end of that the council voted 9 members in favor and two against this is today, the nomination is back before the board of supervisors for consideration. >> the urban forestry council supported this bans 4 criterias the trees attribute and environmental benefits and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> supervisor wiener. >> so i noticed in the packet this is amongst did tallest trees in san francisco. >> it is quite at all. >> i know this is out of a catalog and the tree heights change but can you elaborate in terms of where in from the photos it is enormous. >> the tree was quite large they found that meet the landmark tree but the physical go attribute are the age, the try is estimated between 70 and one hundred and 20 years old at the lower end of the angle an advanced age for a tree in san francisco. >> there was also a so-called sister tree another tree that was planted at the same time the owner removed that tree. >> we were told that 3 other trees were other than the property and one was either a hybrid or a pine that was either on this parcel or an adjacent parcel and p that appears a multi parcel lot. >> my understanding this tree is any removal is not about for example, creating more housing. >> there's no plans to or developments for the location of this tree and removal is not one of the criteria for consideration we didn't see plans and wouldn't be able to consider any plans for housing for the tree. >> ongoing thank you. >> any other questions i don't think there are any other questions supervisor peskin thank you for your presentation. >> now public comment is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak on this presentation please come up and do so. >> hello, i provided a picture to answer your questions of the trees before and after. >> sfgov overhead please. hello, i'm vanessa i'm a neighbor representative for landmarking the tree an cook street san francisco we as a communities are here to support the urban forestry council 9 to two vote and present to you why we lieve this tree is worthy of landmarking as you may know and we're learned the board of supervisors approved the ordinance in 1995 for the landmarking of special trees in san francisco in 2006 it was sported and the board passed a resolution for the implementation to guide did landmarking process those order the tree the way is it so evaluated the urban forestry voted 9 to two, that the cook street pine and recommended to the board of supervisors that be landmarked today, we would like to present the same information to the urban forestry the same presented to the urban forestry council as those trees - this tree meets the criteria for the attributes and little historic significance we hope you'll enforce this meets the criteria and the san francisco law the ordinance that was written by a supervisor who we agree it deserves to be landmarked thank you very much. >> thank you, very much any other members that would like to speak on this - excuse me - on this, please come. >> i'm reading a letter from a professor and he is speaking on the environmental criteria i'd like to give my port to save an old tree on cook street a professor at university of california, san francisco and my research focuses on how dw efforttion effects bird their relative to their size their disproportion providers of resources crucial for wildlife and the loss of life oak trees is a - those trees are homes to birds and species and i believe that the tree on cook street is for birds flying westbound presidio and the golden gate park to preserve the urban life it is important to keep it i'll - it will be detrimental to existing laws given the science i'll encourage to preserve this from the i'd like to add i live in district 11 and thank you, supervisor wiener for landmarking the beautiful sequoia this magnificent tree is wonderful. >> thank you for your presentation. >> hello, i'm richard i live on cook street i'd like to talk about the rarest of the street tree tree at urban forests council meeting the council adopted the identification of the 46 a cook tree and cook island hybrid the following is an e-mail from carli short in it she states the information if mta doctor irate says hybrids are common in california they're not everywhere i have knowledge of 10 of them i don't have any in san francisco their way way less common known for pine end of quote i have copies of the e-mail and a few comments during the march merging mike says i've not fined a hybrid in northern california they're not common in san francisco so today i'd like to vote to landmark this tree updating unquote and councilmember san francisco landmark not the california state landmarked ordinance i want to say i want to know what is going on in reality on the ground in san francisco end quote and coordinator of the urban forestry may i link say quote i - when the council talked about the code the council committee determined it applies to san francisco unquote in closing the urban forestry council agreed to receive the amendment of the dr. and to apply those hybrid species to california to serves none if this tree is not found rare. >> thank you. any other members please come up. >> for a year my parents and friends my neighbors and i have been doing what we were told to protect a tree i really love this tree is important to me when i was 5 years old my parents and i walked to kindergarten at the top of the mountain i looked any neighborhood and saw the tall trees knew that was where my home was made me feel safe supervisor mar says he want this tree and agrees it is important part of our neighborhood please let this tree live i was saying that trees help the more it helps please help landmark this tree i have a letter from supervisor eric mar. >> thank you supervisor peskin will get it from you is there any additional public comment on this item please come on up. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is john nolte i'm the co-founder and of the ordinance to landmark the trees in san francisco and it is - jogged the memories of supervisor peskin in 1996 it was the north ward pine on ellis street that was torn down in our neighborhood that was one hundred foot tall that started this ball rolling i urge that the committee support this landmarking and that we save another tree we lost that tree but it was a swatch we have a tree that is a northward hybrid for the city for its benefits it does to the city and county of san francisco thank you very much. >> thank you is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak. >> i'm a neighbor thank you very much on february 23rd over one hundred members of our community came to the urban forestry council meeting at city hall to show their strong support for landmarking the tree pine the meeting was cancelled they last minute and no time to alert money here's the video of people that couldn't make the meeting. >> thank you excuse me. we can't hear you. >> there's a video for the rest of her time. >> okay. if you could put the microphone near the speaker of the laptop it should play. >> (yelling). >> thank you. >> (noise). >>) background noise). >> hello my name is maria (inaudible) i'm here to support the trees (inaudible) as part of a large (inaudible) in the law of the neighborhood one of things we've heard. >> thank you that's the end any other members of the public that would like to speak at this time. >> yes. laura community member we would like to continue with the videvideo presentation. >> i'm disappointed to hear (inaudible) everything else in the neighborhood (inaudible) all the birds and lives of the bird and it is a big part of our neighborhood we need the trees and they encourage the birds anything. >> i'm diane we live in the neighborhood i for one walk by that street everyday with my daughters on the way to school the culture of our neighborhood rests on the area (inaudible) and one of the fundamental values of (inaudible) is the (inaudible) we're thankful the tree is in the community and we believe (inaudible) it should be protected our desire that we support the tree. >> hello, i'm doctor reuben of the university of california, san francisco and i study birds and ecology and how it effects birds and diversity of birds so those birds emigrating they need to find their place from one to another we believe - >> thank you how much longer is the video there is a rule we're not able to - lend someone else's time this gentleman can speak i allowed it the first one we get even though jest of the video would you like to speak. >> i'm bill a neighbor of that property i'd like to read a letter from one of my apartment mates her name is - i'm are concerned the large tree to be a beacon of greenery in a neighborhood it targeting for destruction i've pained that tree i see daily from my apartment is makes a contribution and it's survival is practical ramifications to the future of san francisco and for this neighborhood i'd like to read a letter from another neighbor this is from the louie family on cook street we love this tree it makes wonderful music is a 4th tree not a good reason to take a healthy tree off the planet i'd like to see this is an iconic tree towers over everyone or everything did property owner removed 3 other trees and if you look at gaerz it is utterly - the view it is the last tree stand and the biggest beam in this city we should preserve it. >> thank you. any more public comment on this item anyone else. >> good afternoon i'm nancy here in support of landmark nomination of the 46 a cook street it is reached the land use and transportation because we've follow the laws governing the process this is has been part of municipal codes for over 20 years in 1995 with the adoption of the public works with the mooefrt ordinance describing the landmark trees it was to create and maintain a unified urban forest resource for the character of sense of place in 2001 the urban forestry council was created by chapter 5 of the administrative code to establish criteria for landmark heritage programs to provide for the protection of valuable preys trees on public and private property in 2003 the environmental code wasy peddled that readopted the counsels work they scheduled the authority in the environmental code to aid the urban forest the council shall consider the use as it relates to private property and to protect the community interest to make sure that san francisco understand the benefits for the future in 2006 and 8 the amendments to the section clarified the designation procedure to be followed to a landmark tree up to referring the nomination for you for final version you may designate thai tree within the material areas of san francisco supervisor in, 2006 emphasized that landmark trees have a significance to the communities it is hard-pressed to find another tree that is loved and bordered supported by the tree on cook street this tree is what the landmark section to honor and protect thank you. >> thank you is that the end of public comment. okay. >> good afternoon. my name is daily rogers the property owner of the lot 46 cook a excuse me. landmarking of this tree is a real prejudice to me it is well within the rear of the property and is not near the public right-of-way and in response to supervisor wiener's question this will preventive the housing creation and consider this tree might be in your backyard and all the things you have to deal with thank you. >> just a minute supervisor wiener has a question for you. >> i have a question for you so thank you for for stating that it come in the future prevent the future but is there a plan to add housing what is what's happening there. >> at this moment i've been spending my money to defend my private property right. >> you have a plan there. >> i might have a plan or my kids and. >> right now does the hours and a cartridge house in the back. >> to there's a little carriage house in the back. >> how close is the tree. >> it is 12 feet and i am i don't know what the zoning is i'm guessing. >> rh2. >> rh2. >> rh2 and i imagine that carriage house will not be buildable because i think there is rear yard requirements. >> i don't know the answer that might be a reasonable guess. >> the backyard area didn't seem particularly likely but you have more information than i have i'm trying to ferret that out. >> i don't have any more information. >> sir, your time to defend yourself so - >> every time i speak things get thrown at me. >> i know. >> (multiple voices). >> is the carriage house vacant. >> okay i'll let someone that can speak better than i can go ahead. >> my name is steve hammond i represent the property owner and says this makes it parcel impossible to add additional housing the fact there is a significant amount of space in front of between the tree and the street line it because of the location this tree would not be developable and it would be irresponsible to speculate on plans obviously because the environment but to be absolutely clear it would make the addition of housing impossible which otherwise is my professional opinion is could be completed. >> and so i'm trying to understand through the planning code how likely it is because of rear yard setback excuse me - requirements and some maybe of you additionally are people under the view we should be building for rear yard cottages but under the san francisco planning code that is often not allowable so i'll just trying to understand if we - realistically this will block a project that is either contemplated or will be feasible or legal under the planning code. >> for one, if that tree was not there that back unit could potentially be expanded and two this is at the rear of the lot and so there is quite a bit of space in front of this tree i believe it is 2000 secret between the tree and the road this requires a more inept analysis because it is consistent with the policy goals to have housing i'll put together a memo - >> we're asked to vote on this now i raise the issue the owner has brought up that will block future housing creation i really wrote a detailed letter and it seems to me that were a real truly an issue here that i would suspected you were extremely thorough in the letter that would have been - to a topic about why it would be legal under the planning code to add housing this carriage house and why this will prevent that from heaping. >> the reason that was not added is because the highly politicalized hearing of this hearing to date it is a significant consideration of the owner not because he has immediate plans to develop but because he will losses the ability to develop or to potentially develop with the location of this tree as it is and it is my opinion that because of the amount of vacant lot in front of the tree that there is ample space to add additional hours as a matter of a vested right under the planning code. >> a vested right. >> done without the need for conditional use or a variance. >> huh? >> steve what kind of a law do you practice. >> real estate law >> for 15 years i'm not calling into question our professionalism but you're a land use attorney fox. >> - is there experienced levi stadium attorney. >> how do you know this land is not developable. >> how do i know that is not developable because of the square feet requirement for open space and my understanding that with this tree in place those minimum open space will he no longer be met. >> uh-huh. >> supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin i'm reaching this property on line on the property information map of the city and looking at it on google maps it looks like a number of building permits have been issued as recently as late last year december of 2015 a permit for the development of accessory rooms in the basement adding full bath and playroom and office laundry and utilities. >> supervisor peskin spending a retaining wall it sounds like those permits were issued without impact on that in the middle of last year there was another permit for a kitchen remodel and bath and some other things didn't sounds like the tree is getting in the way of any of those permitted that were issued. >> let me address that question i'm glad you asked is it that leads to the nightclub lots the owner owns 3 contiguous lots 44, 46 and 48, 6th street we're considering what was referred as 46 a cook street none of the permits you're referring to relate to the neighboring parcel they all relate to a improvement that is already in place a full house that is that's not the same parcel not the same lot next door. >> so and i'm looking a google earth imagine it appears that the tree that is a subject of landmarking proposal that is the item before you is in the back of 46 cook street; is that correct. >> that's correct a one hundred and 26 feet lot in the back on the lot line a carnival house. >> i see that in front of. >> is the tree you have the tree and then in front of that that you have in the back 48 cook in the back of 48 cook the carriage and in front of the that the tree and in front of the that you have this huge open area. >> i see the tree. >> and the street. >> a respectful i'll go to supervisor wiener was saying which is he was asking what the rh2 and indeed that is a according to the property information map that is a rh2 district devoted to one and two single-family homes or rather uncommon two large flats by the owner they're available torrential and it goes on on talks about heights but were it appears to me that as your discussing the carriage talking about the non-conforming use and it appears to me by and balling it but you can't build on this yard it didn't require the rear yard setback. >> if you don't worry about it and replace a two unit improvement. >> you couldn't do that in the back. >> you wouldn't have to from the tree was not there. >> you can't intense city a non-conforming use. >> if you demolished the normal improvement which by the way, i question whether it is - >> it says here that according to the again, i'm reading to you what is on the planning department property information map but it indicates that the built environment on it as a category a historic resource that is listed on a formally determined to be eligible for the california historic register. >> those listed can be broad and wide inch not looked at that issue i'll ask the subcommittee to look at this and re-evaluate this issue and reconvene so we may present evidence that is truthful and answers the question posed. >> if i made this to my colleagues and members of the public we're in receipt of we've probably killed the tree and saved this tree but in receipt of any amount of documents from council representing the property owner of that we have here submitted by various part on behalf of your client. >> correct. >> i'm saying i don't know we need any more information regardless i think all the information has been before this - the urban forestry council for quite a number of months now. >> all right. so you're saying public comment is just about over. >> my public comment hadn't started i'm answering your questions and that's unless you disagree. >> i disagree public comment you have one minute and 6 seconds left. >> thank you. >> none of the 5 criteria has been met required by the ordinances of support by the expert record many of the understanding by the opponents have been found to be in accurate this is a case of first expressions not a contested motion by the property owner with the tree not near the right-of-way and not the intent of the status to take the property or racing the condemnation and could not stress that is completely within the backyard not near the right-of-way it sets a dangerous cyclist precedent and no written finding as required by the ordinance and i extremely disagree this lot this tree is not interfere teller with the ability to add to the housing stock of san francisco the - no historical significance. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> at this time please come up. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is larry costello i'm a resident of san francisco and horticulture couldn't i served as an environmental horticulture and in the san francisco bay area focused on the premanagement i've served on the university council and i've served on the landmark tree committee and here to oppose this motion including but not limited to this tree didn't qualify as a landmark tree it is a large tree a nice tree but is it really special or unique and it didn't match up in my mind it is not rare in california and not known whether it is rare in san francisco that is speculation it is not a unique specimen not a pine altogether and it didn't have a historical significance the planning department representative on the urban forestry established it and stated that it is on the record not historically significant so it doesn't quality in my mind as a historic tree but the second reason a large tree in a small yard surrounded by housing trees radio unstable if this trees fails structurally it did consequences will be severe there be safety and liability issues associated with this tree and i think that those 20/20 reasons are my basis for - >> thank you, supervisor wiener. >> is quick question the tree potentially failing is the tree unstable now? or is it dyeing >> it's been established a tall tree it is not the tell you itself in san francisco a lot of the weight is on the upper half a lien to the east so we can see those parts what we can't see is what's below ground and how unstable the root system is we have lots of examples in san francisco and of trees up roots the western garden says not a tree for backyards it should be in parks golden gate park and the presidio is this be in large open spaces not in small yards as in this case. >> thank you. >> supervisor wiener no questions. >> you're done all right. >> is there any additional public comment on this item. >> okay public comment is closed at this time thank you. >> all right. colleagues thank you is there a motion to continue - >> yep is there a motion to go into closed session to confer with the advice from the city attorney you don't need to go full session supervisor wiener. >> all right. there's a - >> i'd like to go into closed session we'll go into closed session a roll call vote never mind supervisor peskin will be with us without objection the motion to go into closed session is unanimous. >> supervisor peskin. >> by all three of us it will be brief thank you. >> okay ladies and gentlemen, chamber. >> all right. the meeting will come to order we're concluded with the closed session on item 3 i'd like to announce the committee has taken no action during the closed session colleagues i'd like to know if there is a motion if we should disclose we've got anonymous not to close without objection mr. clerk thank you so colleagues item 3 is before us a motion on that item. >> anyone. >> so i will make a motion but first of all, want to make comments i appreciate the thoughtful discussion by all accidents in this i think that what seems clear to me is that first of all, the a reach tree not that common that you see a tree of this size and grandeur in the residential neighborhood is it so i think that is not worthy and meets the threshold for landmarking the reason he asked the questions i did before particularly about hours is i've been clear that i don't support landmarking in order of a backdoor way to prevent a development from happening i've mad that clear when i have been asked to landmark a tree at least not wholly but paeshl from stopping a development the tree i look forward a represented a giant sequoia that existence of the tree didn't in way, way undermine the development of housing that was happening on that site so i was comfortable landmarking given it's significance in the neighborhood it is not the question the colloquy we have made clear no plan to do development on this site regardless of what the seeing none, or setback rules it seems to me from the owner were actually having a concrete but some sort of plan to do some development here the tree with undermine that would presumably been in the vacuums and thorough and exhaustive briefing this is legal and feasible and doable and an intent or distinct possibility but it is more of an afterthought as one potential argument why this is a problem and when he pressed the owner on this particular issue it was clear i don't know, there really see any real desire to do that development i don't see this is a situation are where the laboring are undermine the housing and clear to me this doesn't meet for the proponents of landmarking that stopping the development is not their goal there is no goal to develop that lot beyond what is there so i'm comfortable supporting this landmarking and i'll make a motion to for the record that with a positive remedies. >> supervisor peskin i was going to ask to associate myself with the finding made in the ordinance that is before us that was introduced by supervisor farrell and would add a friendly amendment it be sent as a report. >> he said that. >> that concludes my remarks. >> i too represent the southeast part and dealt with landmarking of trees unlike this case i've seen neighbors from moving forward and this is not the spirit of the intent i do believe the neighbors are generously in love with the tree and happy to support the motion that is this committee and madam clerk will be supported unanimously please note it shall come out of committee report without objection this motion passes. >> any other madam clerk, is there any further business before this body? >> there's no further business. >> we're adjourned thank you >> good morning and welcome to government audit and oversight meeting of april 21, 2016. >>supervisor aaron peskin: and joined by supervisor london breed: and we'll be joined by >>supervisor norman yee:. i would like to thank sf govtv for streaming us live. >> madam clerk any announcements? >> yes, please silence and electronic devices. >>supervisor aaron peskin: please read items 1 and 2 together. >> >>clerk: items 150672 home detention electronic monitoring program rules and regulations and program administrators evidence of financial responsibility. >>supervisor aaron peskin: captain paulsen. >> good morning. my name is captain paulsen. i have been asked to make a presentation today with regards to electronic monitoring. the reason for today's presentation is the california penal code requires that the board of supervisors review and approve the data regarding electronic monitoring. currently we have made no changes to the electronic monitoring rules since in the past 2 years. in addition, the contracting agency which provides electronic monitoring service for the department is responsible for approving financial responsibility and that proof has been included in the package. a review of the electronic monitoring program by the san francisco sheriff's department is this was designed to be an alternative to incarceration for low risk offenders. the participating electronic monitoring are reviewed by the court and reviewed by the san francisco sheriff's department. a program reviews each person for electronic monitoring reviewing their criminal history, current charges and the police report. when we put a person on electronic monitoring we provide them a schedule of activities, which is referred to as home detention because they are required to be at their home. we develop inclusion and exclusion zone agenda depending on the crime. for instance, if a person is accused of shoplifting at a location, that is an exclusion zone. they maybe required to be at their residence for some time. the electronic monitoring is a provided as a tool of safety. it also reduces the cost of incarceration by providing a meaningful alternative to securing incarceration and allows the individual who is accused of the crime or who is serving a sentence for the crime to maintain community ties to and many times keep a job, to go to programmatic activity and most important to be with their family during the time that they are serving either serving pretrial or time assigned by a judge. >> we use two different types of electronic monitoring which is most widely used as anklet with gps device to let us know where that person is at all times. the gps tracking device transmits the signal actively which is picked up by us and it is light and does not interfere with any activity that the person is involved in. at times we add a beacon and that amplifies a signal if a person is living for example, in a basement, and improves the signal. the second type of monitoring is monitoring of a person's alcohol level. we do that through 2 devices. the first is a portable breathalyzer, a small device with a camera on it and we require the person participating to breathe into the the device, it takes their picture as they breathe into the device and tells us that person's blood alcohol level. the other device we use is ankle monitoring that measures the blood alcohol level by perspiration level and tells us whether or not that person has consumed alcohol. so, in conclusion, we are presenting this information to the board to state that we require your approval and authorization for the program. we have fundamentally not changed the rules and regulations of the program and the monitoring agency, the contract service provider has provided proof of financial responsibility. >>supervisor aaron peskin: thank you, captain. just out of curiosity, how many individual on this program. >> on average 53 people per month on the case load. we signed up 187 people in 2015. >> and in terms of what is in the report referred to absent without leave, awol. the leaders have to report to you with how many awols? >> we have been very successful. last year we had 34 people who in one way or another did not comply on a major basis. the advantage is we get reported to us in realtime. the more significant fact is that 93% of the people who complete the program, by our calculation and the numbers we report to the mayor, 93% do not recidivate within 12 months of completion of the program. >> batteries, what about dead batteries? >> we get alerts when a person's battery is dying. so when it goes below a certain percentage, we actually have the ability to buzz the person, which is send a person an alert to say it's time to recharge your battery. >> thank you, supervisor breed, any questions for captain paulsen? >>supervisor london breed: is there more funding needed to put in to more women's programs. based on the program it seems that you have done a good job in putting as many individuals as many as possible. it looks like there might be room to do more. i would like to have a clear understanding about some of the inmates that you have housed if there is a possibility to add more to this program? >> for every single person considered for electronic monitoring we do a risk assessment for them. the court is our partner in the risk assessment. when a court says, this person should be on electronic monitoring, we do our best to defer to the court order about it. currently, with regards to the people who are currently incarcerated, we can do more and we can and have gotten as many people out as have been presented to us. we are currently reviewing the case loads of people in the jail to see whether or not we can get even more people out. >> thank you. >>supervisor aaron peskin: are there any members who would like to testify to items 1 or 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. could we excuse supervisor yee from these votes. >>supervisor london breed: so moved. >> that motion passes. can we send to the full board with positive recommendations? >> so moved. >> we have general manager here who has to go to his recreation and parks committee at 10:00. we wanted him here for a closed session litigation item. i don't want to give the financial report a short trip. what i was going to propose if it's acceptable to supervisor breed is that we take item 4 out of order which will require us to empty this room because that is a closed session litigation item. if that is okay. we will take item four4 out of order. thank you for your cooperation. we'll come get you as soon as we dispose with this item. you can call them all, but we'll go back into closed session to address them. >> yes don't we call items 4, 5, 6 together. >> >>clerk: item no. 4, a settle of lawsuit with lisa owen for $2250,000. and item 5, settlement of lawsuit for ying zhang for $175,000 item 6, kai yuan for 175. >>supervisor aaron peskin: thank you, we will convene in closed session. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on items 4, 5, 6? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, >> >> >> this is that committee and it gives us five tasks. we shall maintain a direct a separate line of communication between the board of supervisors and the city and county's independent auditor. we immediate with the independent auditor and the auditor's financial statement as well as management and compliance. recommend appropriate action be taken by the board for recommendations contained in the audit report and follow the necessary report is implemented. welcome, good morning. mr. rosen field. >> good morning. that was a perfect introduction. i will turn it to our auditors. as you are aware our office each year discloses a financial report and working with the department and you as the board of supervisors retain the audits and retain our work and come back to you regarding our findings and the city's compliance to federal rules. that's what we are here for today. i will turn it to the external auditors from >>supervisor aaron peskin: i understand we will not discuss this current fiscal year? >> correct. we are covering last year. we'll be back for the board of supervisors regarding those. with your permission. we will bring the audit plans back to this committee in a month or so when they are prepared. >> great. we look forward to that. on behalf of macias, gini and o'connel. ms. louie? good morning. presenter: good morning, supervisors. my name is annie louie from gini and o'connel. i bring you the audit results for fiscal year 14-15. first i would like to go over the scope of the audit that is performed by our firm. we cover the city's general financial statements known as the cafr. we report on the single audits and the retirement system and successor agency and the redevelopment agency and the general hospital and required communication. and current year assessment. we did issue an unmodified opinion which is a higher level of assurance you can receive through the audit and the financial reporting as well as over compliance. the second report which is the report to the government audit and oversight commute is to authorize the communication to the board regarding communication on the audit. with that, there are two types of required communications that we report to the board at the beginning of the audit. so we presented in the fiscal year 14-15 audit service plan on our responsibility under u.s. generally accepted editing standards and planned scope and timing of the audit. there were no changes on the planned scope or the timing of the audit. in the report there are a series of items that under government audit and oversight we have to report to you. these are typical items. without going into too much detail. the one i would like to highlight of qualitative aspects. we pointed to the audit themselves and the estimates used and how they were derived. the audit you receive in the financial statement is the implementation of gatsby 68 which is the new standard on pension benefits are being reported in the financial statement. that is one of the biggest changes with that i'm going into the audit and recommendations. the first one relates to information technology governance. this is from information we have from the previous audit and policies and procedures related to government it for the city as a whole. the reason why this is still in continuing comment because we believe the condition has not been fully corrected mainly due to the turnover at the department of technology. the second comment that we have relates to the year-end closing process. during the year-end closing process each department has to make estimates ora cruel of their liabilities. we found that certain departments did not have their own fiscal staff. they rely on the agency to record those transactions and the communication can be improved to account for the transaction in that period. >>supervisor aaron peskin: ms. louis, give me an example of those? >> i cannot remember off the top of my head. let me go back into detail. >> good morning, deputy county administrator. these are facilities in treasure island. there are three other departments that rely on the department. >> there is ti and other facilities use gsa? >> right. conventional facilities is their management agreement so they have their own internal financial staff and review the material and statements. treasure island, completely relies on gsa for all of their accounting back in process and po's. >> treasure island was a subdivision of the state of california until recently, right? it was not a city agency per say, it was kind of a second redevelopment agency until -- >> it did have a separate status, yes, now it falls under the umbrella of the city administrators office under the gsa. with that we fall under the gsa and accountable for all the finances. >> thank you. >> if you would like the details of the transactions that we have found and corrected is on page 10 of the report. >> so moving on, there are two informational type comments. these are not deficiencies in the financial reporting process but we believe have significant changes or impact on the financial statement or for the city as a whole. the first item related to the uniform guidance for federal awards. what happened in the office of management and budget issued new requirements for all federal awards and it became effective december 26, 2016. , -- 2014. that will impact how the city manages oversee any funding received including cost procurement monitoring. this will be the significant change in the effecting of awards. >> the second comment relates to the new accounting standards issued for other employment benefits o opeb for short. one of the most significant change is the presentation of an opeb liability on the financial statements. so you will have basically it will hit your bottom line. currently the information is measure differently and also only disclosed in the note for the financial statement. the implementation year is 15-17-18 for the city. going forward the findings for the year for compliance awards. the first one related to the procurement for the port security grant program. that program was administered by the port of san francisco. during our test of procurement procedures we found that proper documentation was not maintained for one of the contracts. we found the department to be in compliance based on other types of testing, but we believe that document retention is important. in terms of management response, you will see the response in the report but it was addressed august 2015 to address the issue. >>supervisor aaron peskin: what's the difference between a significant deficiency and material deficiency? >> okay. there are basically three types of deficiencies you can have in internal control and the most familiar is the material witness which will be a likely chance to lead to the material of the financial statement or material non-compliance in terms of federal awards. that will be a material weakness in control. that doesn't mean you have to have a material misstatement or non-compliance, but one would be such a finding. the next level is is the deficiency in the process that we warrant to management as well as the board. the lowest level would be a control of deficiency that may not raise to the level of significant deficiency. >> thank you. >> the second and last finding of this audit is the program. as part of the claiming process reimbursement for the program will be to do time studies for the workers time. we found that during the time study process sick leave and vacations were not classified properly and we have the information for the department to visit that process and corrected. in terms of a management response, the full response is in the report itself, but they are communicating. we are emphasizing the proper time of the hours and looking into enhancing the process. >> the last section of this presentation i would like to go over the prior year of the recommendations we have for the single audit. we have three findings in the slide and they were corrected by year 14-15. with that, i will take any questions you may have. >>supervisor aaron peskin: colleagues, any questions from ms. louie? >> no. can we hear from kpmg? >> good morning, supervisors, my name is lisa avis with kpmg. i will here to discuss the three departments we audit. the san francisco international airport which is included the single audit. we audit mta, and we audit hsf and puc for water, wastewater, hetch hetchy water. the financial statements resulted in an unmodified opinion. that's the clean bill of health. basically the financial statements did properly state their financial health at the end of the year. single audit we had no findings. all received unmodified opinions. when we were here last year and frd audit results we did report a material witness for the san francisco international airport in the process of capitalizing their fixed assets. there was an approximate $45 million audit adjustment to be booked and there was a material issue. happy to report it was reminded in that t -- reimmediated that finding and took the appropriate steps to remediate that finding. they have a clean bill of health. no reports this year. management did well in that result and no management issues to report in that timeline. any questions? >>supervisor aaron peskin: colleagues? thank you, ms. avis. and now we may hear from the a fore mentioned significant deficiencies. maybe we start with someone from the department of technology. i don't see mr. -- here. >> i'm the new securities information officer. boya. we concur with the findings. this is something that's been known for a while and we are working on solutions for that. there is an established architectural policy review board in place which is currently working on five separate policies. the one addressing this main issue around privilege access to management policy. i cochair with my colleague out at the airport, tom borden. we are working on that standard now to be able to codify a centralized password identity management program for the city and county. >> hopefully you will stay here for a while so they don't find this as a turnover. >> i hope so. >> controller? >> briefly, i wanted to add that joe's presence in itself and description of his job is one that is repeated. joe is filling the job that is the scope for security citywide. as we had a chief security officer responsible for this, joe's scope is larger. so we are looking for and pushing through this finding. >> great, we would love to see it go away in its currently fiscal year. >> if you want to reiterate what gsa is with communicating with treasure island and convention facilities and anybody else about this significant issue is stressing. >> thank you. deputy city administrator. we've already started implementation and recommendation in terms of increasing the level of communications with both of those two organizations convention facilities as well as treasure island development authority. we have instituted monthly meetings with our budget and finance staff with the staff members for the organizations. we've also increased regular meetings with the controllers office and we are working with the controllers office to establish the year-end close timeline working with the departments to identify any of those similar kind of issues early in the process. >> thank you. any questions? >> who do we have here on behalf of the port of san francisco. good morning, mr. wu. >> good morning, john wu, office of port of san francisco. as to port security grant program, i guess the good news is there are no cost and our contractor was in fact not suspended or debarked. as to the procedural matter, this came up as part of a monitoring report as to compliance and we turned around immediately in august 2015, documented new procedures to make sure that we followed the steps of documenting a review for obtaining certification for regulation that we document and report that procedure. that is now clear in our internal procedures and we'll be in compliance from this point on. >> excellent. thank you, mr. wu. any questions for mr. wu? seeing none. who do we have here from juvenile probation? >> good morning, very new to the scene. just a month and 2 weeks. >> tell us your name. >> my name is eric gribde. >> i understand there are changes to rectify our recording mechanism. so i think it's three fold at this point. so there is retraining of probation supervisors. also the second piece is changing the procedures. i think our procedures are to be enhanced further and i think for me the key to all this is open up the channel of communication between all stakeholders. so i think with all three being implemented, i won't be repeating this and i won't be in front of the members. >> it's all good and this is the lowest level of deficiencies. we wish you all the best in remediating that problem and the coming fiscal year. mr. rosenfeld, is there anything you would like to snad >> we appreciate the work and appreciate the process between the audit committee and we are pleased they are relieved the material deficiency and we will work with the departments today to be sure that is not repeated next year. >> not bad for a project of these millions of dollars. thank you, ms. avis, supervisor. >>supervisor norman yee: i was going to say for the things of our budget. that is a positive mark for the city. >> are there any members of the public who would like to testify on the consolidated annual financial report. public speaker: hello. it's great to see you back here at city hall. it is a time to have new balance. what i'm here for seems that this was the oversight committee. here i'm here celebrating years of working as an advocate in the western edition. as i'm here before queen bee. none of this is reflected on her because we were both little kids. i was much older than her. i'm requesting as the fillmore corridor ambassador. it was granted back when ambassador was here. the planning commission, the departments that are related to the western edition. currently i know you are about the addition efforts, the western edition to fillmore and redevelopment had nothing to do with it. no departments. here all of a sudden there is bankruptcies and the city owes the state millions of dollars. i want an audit to show corruption, miss guidance and all the things that i don't have time to say. i will do it respectively. i know > >> i'm thinking of sending them around again when they usually we have issues -- for the full board. thinking about sending them again to the full board. a month, 3 months later. >> >>supervisor aaron peskin: we will reconvene in open session. deputy city attorney gibner. city attorney: 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 to the board for full recommendation and items 7 to be tabled and 10 to the full board. >>supervisor aaron peskin: we need a motion not to disclose, second by supervisor yee without objection. seeing no more business before this body, we are adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> >> good afternoon and welcome to public safety committee and neighborhood service of san francisco boferd supervisors. i'm john avalos the vice chair. the chair is supervisor kim and will arrive shortly and david compose and joins by supervisor aaron peskin. our committee clerk is erica major. could you share announcements please? >> silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards and documents included should be submit thood