>> a roll-call vote by this item. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> this order and it is passed on the first reading. item 24. >> item 24 is in motion directing the budget and legislative analyst to conduct three audits for fiscal year 2011 and setting the priorities.

>> i would like to start buying banking supervisor -- by thanking the supervisor mar for supporting this. i have a couple questions for the budget analysts. first, the on indigent defense, we just approved a $80 million supplemental. can you discuss the proposal? >> good afternoon. the proposal that we had submitted to the members of the board was to look get to the indigent defense program and look at alternatives recognizing that each year we have a fairly significant supplemental appropriation. this has not been audited by the city since it was established in

the early 2000's. mostly this would look at alternatives. we figured it would be about seven her 50 to 1000. >> thank you. >> i wanted to ask about the affordable housing request. it seems that if it resulted in housing. can you talk briefly about the scope? >> the scope on that project was to look at the interdepartmental process. in a recent project that we did, we discovered that each entity maintains a list and coordinated with -- and it is

not coordinated. this would be a project not unlike some other projects that we would have done which would have each department developed a the way that it is monitored. >> thank you. would you be able to complete these under the current funding before the end of the year? >> in fiscal year 2010-2011, there would be announced within our budget. >> i would like to ask the chair if it would be comfortable with adding these to the schedule i like to see if this is something that the board is comfortable with. if this is something that is supported in the time and in the budget, we should be looking at our affordable housing and the

indigent cents. >> ms. campbell, let me just ask, we spent several meetings prioritizing the number of items and we prioritize kind of the big ones that are based on revenue-generating ideas and efficiency creation. those are the ones that appear on the list. i know that supervisor tissue, maxwell, and i sat through those meetings. -- i know that supervisor chu. we looked at several others. if there was more time available, you would come back to the gao the meeting and the three members would work with a budget analyst to see what kind of ours were available and what kind of scope of the projects we could work on. i would urge my colleagues to try to respect the process. the you have any thoughts on

this? >> let me first recognize supervisor elsbernd. >> thank you. obviously, if the board is not comfortable, then that is fine. i want to add that as a past member of the government audits and oversights, we go through all of the audits scheduled and there is nothing else available. i don't want this to be taken as an insult that the committee has not done their job properly. i think that this is something that we should probably be

playing a more pro-active role is -- an active role in. >> just to address some of the processes that we took, at the committee we did talk with the budget analysts over the level of hours that they might have to complete work. what we did was to take a look at the big list of proposed ideas that the analysts have put together and what can we do within the amount of time that we have had. this is not meant at all to preclude any members from performing additional work. this is really to finish off the rest of this current calendar year. given the information, we really tried to prioritize the projects that might have a revenue impact. we have scaled down the level of ours that we thought would be

required for the analysis because we knew that given the bargaining units, some of it would not have been useful to find out but this is something that we could continue. some of the other issues with the assessor's office was something that we thought would be interesting as we enter into a budget year that will be difficult. this will get us through the rest of this year given a list of alternatives. we did. the schedule because this is not as much as you would think. if we're able to have additional hours in the coming months, we would be sure to entertain that. >> i wonder if we could add one subsection, i guess it is numberinky, the potential audit of the provisions. if we could also ask the budget

analyst to look at the long term financial impact. that was a point recommended by the grand jury. we're very fearful that this will get swept under the rug. this is a very minor piece. can the budget analyst look at the impact of the provisions on the employer contribution? as we amend line 7 at page 3 and add subsection e to say "and the long-term effect of mou provisions." >> i want to clarify that in the

process of the goa, the scope was significantly narrowed to look at some specific forms a premium pay. they would be looking at standby pay, supervisory pay. what came out of the last meeting it was a narrowing of the scope. we could certainly add to that the valuation. >> i am just reading the motion that is in front of us. this is very broad and it says that a financial impact with the benefit or pay increases. did this get narrowed? >> yes, i believe it did. what would have come out of the last meeting would have been looking at number day which is

page three, line four. this had been very specific to premium types of pay which might not be relevant. >> i will respectfully disagree in that case. i think the party for the city should not be looking at special fiscal provisions, we should be looking at the impact of -- on the employer provisions. that is crushing our deficit. we have to move forward, i will not be supportive. >> any additional conversation?

glad some of the other things that we were looking at, the reasons that we focus is that we thought that they would be looked at in other areas. we did not want to duplicate services because we only had some in the hours and that is why we narrowed it down. and i understand that you will not be voting for this but that is the reason why we narrowed it down so much. >> just to follow up on supervisor maxwell's comments. if the comptroller is looking at the potential liability for retiree benefits. be >> each year, we do projections on a couple of friends. one is under an accounting rule and this is required every year to complete the 30-year projection of what our unfunded

health-care liability is. this is one of those years that we will be completing that report. we are nearing completion. secondly, as each of you know and bergius to seeing in our three-year budget projections, we have prepared a three-year look of our expectations for our employer contributions to the pension fund. >> we will be doing it again next spring. >> does any of this include recommendations that we may take? >> both of those are projections. no, neither one includes on their face recommendations for changes. i think it is time for us to consult with different board members on possibilities and we would be prepared to do that in the future. >> i think a lot of good points

were made. there are many issues we are looking at. i will support the work of the committee and that is a recommendation that came out and to my colleagues look at the possibilities. we will be doing that today. thank you. chiu: any additional conversation? if we could take a roll-call vote on this item. >> item 24, campos aye. chiu aye. chu aye. daly no. dufty aye. elsbernd no. mar. aye. maxwell aye. mirkarimi aye. alioto-pier no. avalos aye. there are seven -- 8 ayes and three nos. supervisor chiu: this motion is

approved. >> item 25 is an ordinance amendment that five of the general plan for the downtown plan to change the height and vote classification of the west corner for property located at 222 second street. item 26 is an ordinance amending the zoning map 1ht to change the height and bulk declassification of the west corner. on items 25 and 26, campos aye. chiu aye. chu aye. daly aye. dufty aye. elsbernd aye. mar aye. maxwell aye. mirkarimi aye. alioto-pier aye. avalos aye. there are 11 aye. supervisor avalos: -- supervisor chiu: these ordinances are

passed on the first reading. >> item 27 is an ordinance designating 1890 chestnut street as a landmark under article 10 of the san francisco planning code. supervisor chiu: this ordinance is passed on the first reading. item 28. >> item 28 is from the land use and economic committee with a recommendation of do not pass with an ordinance designating the north beach branch library located at 2000 mason street as a landmark under article 10 of the san francisco planning code. supervisor chiu: colleagues, this is an item that came out of our land use committee with a "do not pass" recommendation, and i would like to ask for your no vote on this measure. the specific issue before us is whether we should designate as a landmark the north beach branch library. the historic preservation commission debated the potential

landmarking of this library at eight meetings between july 2009 and september 2010. they voted three times on it. deadlocked once. it twice passed with a one-vote margin. there has been a legitimate question if the north beach library deserves landmarking. we have received numerous feedback from prominent architects, architectural historians, neighborhood historians, and those from the preservation community against the landmarking. they point out that of the seven libraries that have been designated by appleton and woolford, the north beach library is the least representative and most lacking architectural characteristics of that style. as i'm sure all of you here support preservation when merited, our city has to date renovated and preserved 18 public libraries. we have also preserved a six libraries from the sperm for future generations, and i

certainly support that preservation, but i do not think that including buildings that black architectural merit -- i think that cheapens the historic landmark designation for other buildings that do have merit, and this is why, colleagues, the land use committee decided what we did and why i would ask for your note on this item today. -- for your no vote on this item today. supervisor campos: colleagues, can we get a roll call on this? same house/colorado? no, roll call? >> campos no. chiu no. chu no. daly aye. dufty no. elsbernd no. mar no. maxwell no. mirkarimi no.

alioto-pier no. avalos no. there is one aye and 10 nos. supervisor campos: this ordinance is not passed on his reading and fails. supervisor chiu: we have a number of committee reports. why don't we start with item 29? >> item 29, motion approving the mayors of women of clotting -- the mayor's reappointment of claudine cheng to the treasure island development authority board. supervisor chiu: colleagues, if we could call item 30, 31, and 32 together. >> item 30 is a motion approving the mayor's reappointment of john elberling to the treasure island development authority board. item 31 is a motion approving

the mayor's reappointment of linda richardson to the treasure island development authority board of directors. item 32 is a motion approving the mayor's reappointment of jean-paul samaha to the treasure island development authority board of directors. supervisor daly: thank you, mr. president and colleagues. let me say there is at least one director here who i have supported several times, who has done excellent work on tida and who deserves to be reappointed, and i think that there is some merit to some of the other appointments as well, but representing treasure island here on the board of supervisors, having in the rules committee gone to some lengths

to block commission appointment in order to get actual representation from residents of treasure island on to the treasure island development authority at this 11th hour, not just of the appointing authority's tenure as mayor of san francisco, but also the 11th hour of this supervisor's tenure here on the board of supervisors and my role on tida. i think that these appointments, especially in addition with the two other appointments considered in committee of the two weary -- larry appointments are a slap in the face of the residents of treasure island and more specifically, a slap in the face of the current share -- chair of tida and treasure

island resident owen stephens. when these appointments surfaced and when chair stephens was not reappointed by the mayor, residents, the folks who are active on treasure island -- i believe unanimously -- weighed in in opposition, and this is difficult because these are technically redevelopment appointments that are effective if we do not act by 2/3 vote right now to reject. but the past -- teh ask -- the ask from treasure island is to reject these appointments, including director elberling, whom i'm close to, until we get a sound slate of potential directors to us, whether it be

from the current mayor of san francisco or the next mayor of san francisco. it is my understanding that if we do reject these appointments, that the existing directors will continue to serve, so there will not be a lapse in the work program at tida, but these are lame-duck appointments in more ways than one. to not allow the next district supervisor, who will have to work with these directors, the opportunity to weigh in is incorrect. to allow the outgoing mayor, and i think there may be some patronage involved in some of the particular appointments -- to allow the outgoing mayor to do that, i think, is incorrect. it is not a slight of me because

i ain't going to be at this desk, but it is a slight of several thousand san franciscan s who deserve to have representation on the body that deals with day-to-day issues and day-to-day management of the island and what is happening and the conditions of the buildings and the condition of the fields and the conditions of the playgrounds and of the streets. these are day to day issues, and there is no representation in front of us. the mayor, when there was pushed back, said that they would take applications from island residents in the other seat -- when there was push-back. as far as we can tell, the mayor did not require these appointments to make applications. he did not open up all the seats

to applications, and for the life of me, i did not know why -- i do not know why chair stephens is not back here. he is not a close friend or ally of mine, but he has done a good job on tida. he is the current share. and douglas, the one who spent two hours with me on the affordable housing provisions of the term sheet we discussed earlier this year -- he did not even realize that he was not appointed back into his seat on tida. he is in the administration, and the only thing i can come up with is what we have here is some bottom of the barrel appointments. i encourage you to reject them, to demand better, and if we do not get better, wait for the next mayor to come along who

hopefully will do better. supervisor chiu: i have a question -- could you go through these appointees, which of them are continue -- continuing on with their service and which are new appointees? supervisor campos: sure. the rules committee considered these appointments, and the reason why we forwarded the item as a committee report is because we have a deadline that requires that we act at this board meeting either to reject or to approve. with respect to the various appointments, my understanding is that commissioners cheng, elberling and samaha have been serving on the tida board, and with respect to commissioner richardson -- she is serving

right now, but she was recently appointed to that position. there were two additional appointments made to the tida board. those appointments were not forwarded to this meeting because the timeline to act for those appointments is actually different. in terms of what transpired at the rules committee, there was a motion to move this forward without a recommendation. i can only speak for myself to say that my preference was to continue these items because of the concerns that were raised by residents of treasure island, who were very worried about the fact that there is no island resident that has been nominated and that the one person who lives on the island who is currently serving on the tida board was not renominated.

when asked about that, the mayor's office indicated they would open an application and have requested applications from residents of the island. it should be noted, though, that currently, there is no vacancy, and that doug shoemaker is serving on the board, and we were informed that he would be asked to step down so that the resident of the island could fill that vacancy. what i have indicated and what i continue to believe is that it is very unfortunate that representation of island residents is something that came up after the fact, that it -- if indeed it was important to us to have a representative from the island, why would that not be considered before the entire set of nominations was forwarded to the rules committee? i want to underscore that the

specific things that each of these candidates brings to the table -- and i think that, certainly, the commissioners who have been working on the tida board for quite some time have been confirmed very recently by this body and continue to do a good job, but the question remains for me is -- is this process the right process? i do have a question for the city attorney's office in terms of what happens to those commissioners who certainly sit on the board, if the board were to reject the nominations, the appointments. what would happen to those commissioners? supervisor chiu: mr. deputy city attorney. >> supervisor, i'm afraid i do not have the information readily available to me. it would depend on when the

current directors were initially appointed to their seats. perhaps someone from the mayor's office can provide you with some more information. >> thank you. supervisor campos, i believe they would remain as the mayor's appointments. they serve at the pleasure of the mayor. supervisor campos: the reason i ask that is because i do think we have a process problem here. irrespective of the marriage of appointing these individuals, there is a larger issue of whether or not we should have a different process. given that even if rejection happens, there will continue to be worked on by these commissioners, that is something that i am certainly considering because i do think that we need to get a better process for those residents. i do think that we owe it to them to make s