and especially the boston red sox staff makes you think of a certain tv show where there is a bar where everyone knows your name. sure enough, it looks quite like cheers. it is no surprise. there from boston and they love their red sox. one word about how we got there -- how we got here today. this area was turned into residential route 1970. the city found this to be a blight to area. the two down most of the historic buildings and put up a very modern residential ones. this became an nonconforming use as a result. it was only supposed to last until 1990. the planning department was supposed to notify the owner of that, and the owners in similar situations, every four years, their termination date was

coming up. they are supposed to indicate that they had a right to extend it to permanently should they wish to. they had to apply for a conditional use prior to the termination date. that notice did not go out. we are here tonight to ask for the conditional use permit that would have been asked for if the honor at a time have gone unnoticed that they have the right to a conditional use permit. initially, we asked the zoning administrator to give us our conditional use permit hearing because of the mistake. it is an honest one, in the planning department has not had the personnel to send out notices to hundreds if not thousands of locations. the planning department initially said to us, we are not going to give you a conditional use permit. if you disagree, go to the board

of supervisors -- i'm sorry, to the board of appeals. the reconsidered, that is quite an effort. i would like to thank the staff for reconsidering, and allowing us to have this opportunity to get a conditional use permit today. i am not going to talk about a lot of subjects. it is getting late. i think kevin has done an excellent job on this. we're very pleased to reach the agreement with the neighbor behind about no more smoking on the deck and closing the deck at earlier hours, 9:00 on weekdays. given the lateness, i have asked the speakers to speak very shortly. the first five may speak a minute or two. i have asked the others to keep it to less than one minute and not to repeat. i want to thank you all for letting us be here tonight. thank you.

commissioner olague: is there anyone in the audience that is opposed to the project? i don't have any speaker cards that indicates any opposition. there were some letters that indicated such. do you all want to stand up and show your support, or do some of you have a burning desire to speak which we won't prohibit. you have a right to speak, it is up to you. ok, thank you. does anyone want to speak? ok. >> i think you have the vote. [laughter] commissioner olague: i don't want to deny you. we will close the public hearing. commissioner borden. commissioner borden: what we try to do with the planning code is

think about a general plan and highlight details about what the city is, how to make a city and town. and even that issue you were listening to, there is a community that even though we are a big city, we are still a small town. all the things that you have done for your neighbors and for your community, i was bawling. there are so many wonderful things you will do to support the community. your willingness to work with the neighbor behind you. clearly, there was a mistake made. this has been a bar that looks sometimes -- one of you did a chronology and it looks like it might have been from 1910 that there was a bar here. there is a bar here at least from the 1960's. i don't understand why we wouldn't continue to let it exist. what we hear is that there is such a strong sense of community

that this establishment brings. it is necessary and desirable, i can't think of a project that is more necessary and desirable. i need to check out this bar. it sounds like an amazing community assets. the owners have done such a great job to create such a space in the community that people could not live without it. i moved to approve. >> the water apparently came up to the other side until 1882. it was at least a restaurant until 1911, and i am sure they had something to drink there, too. commissioner olague: call the question. dodge the motion before you is for approval on that motion. commissioner antonini:aye. commissioner borden: aye.

commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. >> of the motion passes unanimously. [applause] commissioners, you now have general public comment. commissioner olague: is there any general public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed and the meeting is adjourned.

>> good afternoon, welcome to the border supervisors' meeting of july 20, 2010. will you please call the roll? >> supervisor alioto-pier,

present. supervisor avalos, absetn. -- absent. daly present. dufty present. elsbernd present. mar present. mirkarimi present. avalos, present. mr. president, all members are present. president chiu: can you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? [pledge of allegiance] president chiu: colleagues, you should have copies of the

minutes. a motion by supervisor mirkarimi, second by supervisor maxwell. without objection? >> i have no communications, mr. president. president chiu: we have a special order in case the president wishes to appear in front of the board. i see mr. waggoner. are we expecting the mayor today? >> [inaudible] president chiu, do not believe the mayor will be here today. president chiu: that is unfortunate. >> items 1-12 comprise the consent agenda that will be acted on by a single vote unless the member requests discussion of the item. president chiu: would anybody

like to sever any items? can you please call the roll for items 1 - 12. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aye supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: the resolutions are adopted. for items 13, 14, they regard the budget. there are still consultations on going. supervisor avalos, i understand there are conversations that have not been completed yet.

should we postpone those to a later meeting? supervisor avalos: you took the words right out of my mouth. president chiu: without objection, we will continue this item to a later portion of this meeting. >> item 15 is an ordinance adopting and implementing a memorandum of understanding that the firefighters local 798, unit 2. supervisor campos: let me ask clarifying question. the understanding is that this is one of the items that included the language that carved out a provision in the event that a charter amendment was made, i wanted to get that clarification. i don't know if it is the mayor's office. president chiu: can you confirm which of the various mlu's has

the provision that supervisor campos is referring to? >> the language that you are referring to is recorded in the local 798 yen at one and unit two as well as the san francisco police officers association contracts for the rank and file. >supervisor campos: no. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: no. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. >> there are nine ayes and two no's.

the next item is a memorandum of understanding with the police officers association. president chiu: can we do same house same call? the vote will be 9 - 2. >> item 17 is an ordinance adopted in implementing amendment no. 2 to the memorandum of understanding with the police officers association. president chiu: same house, call? this ordinance is finally passed with a vote of 9 - 2. >> the memorandum of understanding with the municipal organization. president chiu: same house, same call? this ordinance is finally passed --

>> it was supervisors mirkarimi and -- president chiu: roll call vote item 18. supervisor campos: no. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: no. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor supervisor mirkarimi: no. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. >> there are 8 ayes and three no's. president chiu: in motion by supervisor elsbernd seconded by supervisor maxwell. she will be recused.

can we get a roll call vote? >> i have not yet call this item. it is an ordinance adopted amendment no. 3 to the 200712-12 understanding. president chiu: we just recused supervisor chu, can we still -- >> yes. >> it wasn't clear with the same provision with reference to the other mlu's included in this item. i just wanted to make sure. >> the same language would apply. president chiu: roll-call vote

please? supervisor campos: no. president chiu: aye. supervisor daly: no. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. >> there are 8 ayes and two no's. president chiu: item 20. >> it establishes a yearly base line of our preparation to create the sentences, affordable housing fund. supervisor daly: thank you, president and colleagues. the issue of affordable housing or lack thereof to be more specific is one of the toughest

issues within san francisco. over the course of nine and a half years here at the board of supervisors, it has been an emphasis issue for my office over the entire time. but the lack of affordable housing has been one of the top three issues in san francisco for decades, and will likely continue to be one of the top issues facing san francisco in the decades to come. there have been many efforts to institute an ongoing source of funds to deliver affordable housing, and i would say the good news is that we have a very professional and very competent host of entities that can deliver affordable housing.

and on model of housing, that is necessarily a component to deal with things like the homeless crisis in san francisco. it is incredibly important for seniors and working-class families with in san francisco to continue to make san francisco their home. in 1996, i was just the house and organizer. i remember walking the precincts for prop a. it nearly did pass. the only successful effort to deliver much-needed funds for affordable housing in for a san francisco or anywhere else -- in

san francisco or anywhere else for the purposes of delivering affordable housing. there have been several efforts that have come up short over the years to authorize a new affordable housing bond to amend the charter and deliver a reference that also came up short. in terms of the item before us, i think it is clear that the 2/3 threshold for the obligation bond is not really doable in the current climate at about -- at the ballot. especially with the opposition and the campaigns that are out there. i think that we should prioritize affordable housing

within our appropriations process, and it is the correct way to move forward. taking a look at the 2008 measure, it failed to pass on that ballot. i think there were strong arguments against the measure that carry today. the campaign would nearly double in terms of dollars spent. that is to be expected and that can be overcome. the formula to set aside a percentage of the property tax would have been a strain on last year or this year's budget. i think it would have made the discussion that is not yet complete here at city hall, it

would have been worth it anyway. clearly, it would have been causing some additional pain in terms of the competing and other priorities within the budget including ongoing obligations. in terms of taking that argument out of the picture, what the measure in front of us would do would be to lie on the nine month report that would base most of the budget deliberations here on the board of supervisors. and projecting a budget surplus, it includes the increased cost of doing business which the comptroller is more often than not conservative on in terms of revenue projections.

they would have 33% of that surplus dedicated into this affordable housing fund. it would be identical to proposition be from 2008 -- proposition b from 2008. most likely, the next several years when there is a budget deficit, it would move toward the cause of affordable housing. if we had a bumper crop year and had a budget surplus going in at 33%, it would be written into affordable housing. what the budget committee came up with back when we did have better than anticipated revenue at the end of the fiscal year, we are able to make an

appropriation through the year over supplemental -- that was supplemental in nature. that is good in terms of moving this item for for affordable housing. the major priorities we had, we had money we could send out the door. one of the things to note is that there is a safety valve, a release mechanism that would allow eight members of the board of supervisors to vote to suspend this appropriation. i think that is a safety valve that is important in case there is some major unforeseen event or circumstance where the money that would otherwise be pushed to affordable housing would really be needed elsewhere. the board could take advantage of that opportunity and to

decide to move money elsewhere. it is a limited duration measure, 15 fiscal years the this project would happen. i think the housing prices is more than likely to let that happen four times as long as that. that is a criteria that i feel comfortable and it is safe to assume that affordable housing will continue in san francisco for at least the next 15 years. let me point to the release, and the relief valve of the majority of board members if the situation calls for it. i think in terms of unfinished business, which has been a theme for me, wheat delivered a long

term and a sustainable revenue stream for affordable housing, not for lack of effort, but i would like to see us on do this. it and hopefully if the economy turns around and but its turnaround, we could part with some of the surplus to affordable housing and to build what we know how to do, that is decent and a new affordable housing where citizens can make a go at it in terms of their lives in the city. it is much more of a struggle. we appreciate your support on this item. supervisor elsbernd: i rise in objection to this charter amendment. supervisor daly has done a better job in drafting this than

he did his last one. color it in any way you want, but it remains a set-aside. hyou very well could have a general surplus at the end of the year. if this passes, you need eight supervisors to adjust the budget to help fix those future budget deficits. if we want to find affordable housing in the manner that supervisor daly has proposed, we can do that any year. this is just going to make it that much more difficult for us in future years to manage our finances. this is a laudable goal, but it handcuffed our ability to handle the other goals that anybody could name as a top priority. i caution you to think about the future and think about this measure, what it will do to

future boards of supervisors in their ability to address in the city's future concern. supervisor avalos: just a question for the controller's office, it also includes an effort of baseline? and if we have a value for the effort, how much is that? i think it is starting with the allocations for this current fiscal year. >> to supervisor avalos, based on the statement, based on our analysis, the base line amount is $135.6 million. that would be the base line for the current fiscal year. >> do we have a sense of how

that baseline may have changed over the years? i know every year there are many of these services that are identified in the baseline that get cut. a lot of them get restored. if we were to look at previous years, how is the baseline fluctuated? >> the baseline has fluctuated largely in those years where there have been some funds were the board and the mayor have chosen to appropriate those funds for housing, low income housing. the services affiliated with a lot of housing programs have grown in the past number of years as their additional housing units are put on line, services are required that increase the cost of the overall baseline amount. i think that you would see a gradual increase over the last number of years.

>> if the board were to take any action actually allocate the surplus, they would need a majority vote. do we have any authority over the baseline with this charter amendment? >> the way the charter amendment is written, the rainy-day reserve would not come into play with this appropriation. what we do when we calculate the baseline, we look at the total aggregate discretionary revenue that the city has, and we calculate the baseline requirements to the children's fund, the mta, library, and so forth. that residual amount is what goes into a fund balance