we do not want to be any trouble. we want to be good neighbors. there are neighbors in the neighborhood. we just want to be good neighbors. i didn't get to it yet, but they are pretty much all in support. thanks for your time. president newlin: no, he pretty much covered everything. president newlin: ok. commissioner meko: where is this? >> 500 sacramento street. that is clearly the heart of the financial district.

>> the nearest residential neighbors meet together were six, seven, eight blocks away. president newlin: it is right next to the tavern that we approved. commissioner meko: ok. thank you. commissioner: on this bitmap, where do you plan to have the entertainment? >> towards the end of the bar there, d.c. where the bathrooms are approved you are looking at the doors on the right-hand side, just opposite the bathrooms there. it will not interfere with the exits. there is four or 5 feet back their way from the door.

>> i do not know where they are going to sing. >> it is small. >> you can make a motion, or you in a discussion, or you can do both. president newlin: we probably want to hear from the police department about this change. >> i do not believe the police department has any objection. president newlin: i guess we need a motion to change the hours to seven days a week. >> i do not know if the motion would be to change. you can ask that they submit an amended application so whatever you say to they will be reflected. commissioner: ok. >> we probably might like it to

have seven days a week just carte blanche. i do not know if that is what we would encourage, but we would probably encouraged that flexibility to be open maybe a third or fourth night of the week. obviously thursday, friday, saturday, a special event may be on monday or tuesday. does that make sense? president newlin: yes. >> the suggestion could simply be to allow entertainment any night of the week, but if something is out of the ordinary, you can let the police know or the commission know in advance or send a calendar. you can do any number of those things. >> just let them have it seven days a week. i do not think that is going to impact it. president newlin: ok, a motion

to amend it too allows seven days a week. is that what we need? commissioner miko: i just want to move this permit and strike the three days a week limitation and amended to cover seven days a week, and the police department is not looking for any further conditions on this, so our standard conditions, including good neighbor policy would apply commissioner: i will go ahead and set in that. clerk: same house, same call. president newlin: my grandfather used to say, "you know what i would be if i was not irish?" and then he would say, "ashamed." [laughter]

ok, item number 6, commission's comments and questions. yes? commissioner meko? commissioner meko: koran i have something that might be of interest to anyone it too would be -- i have something that might be of interest. on march 10, and there will be a committee hearing that will consider an adjustment to the pending plan that would require conditional use. the housing developed within 200 feet of a venue.

otherwise, where housing is a permitted use, but within 200 feet of an existing venue, they would be required to go through a conditional-use process, and the task force that is writing the play and is considering findings to be added on, specific to sell the market, so anybody that is interested in either side of this issue or all sides of these issues -- this issue, i encourage you to attend this meeting. it is in room 421 here at city hall. >> item number7, new business request for future agenda items. seeing 9, that will conclude the tuesday, february 22nd meeting of the san francisco entertainment commission.

>> good afternoon and welcome to rules committee for february 3, 2011. my name is supervisor kim and i will chair the meeting today. to my left is supervisor -- i'm sorry, to my right is supervisor elsbernd and to my right, supervisor farrell and we have president chu also in attendance for one of our agenda items today. the clerk is linda wong. we would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgov.tv who record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available. madam clerk, any announcements? clerk wong: the items on our agenda today are intended to be sent to the full board as committee report on february 15 unless otherwise indicated. commissioner kim: if there are no objections, i would like to change the order of the agenda and bring up item no. 2 first. madam clerk? clerk: consider the proposed

initiative ordinance to be considered by four or more supervisors to the voters at the june 7, 2011 election entitled ordinance amending san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code to allow an appointed former mayor to obtain full-time city employment within one year after leaving office. commissioner kim: thank you. any discussion from committee members? president chu? president chiu: thank you, i appreciate the opportunity to consider item no. 2 at this time. this is a hear to consider a proposed initiative ordinance to allow a former appointed mayor to obtain full-time employment with the city within a year after leaving office. our current mayor, ed lee, had been serving as city administrator and intends to be

continuing in -- to serve as administrator after his term ends. this is a hearing we are having in case there is a june ballot and in case this measure goes to the june ballot, as i think you know, this ordinance is proceeding in a parallel track through the ethics commission to come back to the board of supervisors in the coming months. with that, i know we have many co-sponsors on this measure. perhaps unless there are other comments, we can move to any public comment that people may want to make on this issue. commissioner kim: thank you. any further comments from other colleagues? seeing none, i will now up open up for public comment. is there any public comment on this item? thank you, please step up to the milk. >> mic. >> thomas, i am speaking in opposition to the proposed ordinance. obviously, with six sponsors,

you already have the four supervisors to put this on the ballot. but i think both the rules committee and the full board of supervisors needs to be sensitive to the issue of identity politics. with the new composition on the board and the new mayor, again, i think the board needs to be sensitive to the issues surrounding identity politics. this is ordinance is a bad precedent and it will not end with either the interim mayor or perhaps other positions besides a mayoral position. thank you. commissioner kim: thank you. seeing no further public

comment, public comment is now closed for this item. without objection, if are there no further comments from colleagues, i'd like to consider this hearing held and filed. thank you so much president chiu for joining us. president chiu: thank you. clerk wong: item no. 1, charter amendment to amend the charter of the city to increase the compensation for members of the board of education from a monthly stipend -- in amount sufficient to pay the member salary and the state repay for any redistributions. commissioner kim: we made amendments at our rules committee last week so this is a hearing on those amendments. any comments or discussion from colleagues before i open it for public comment? why don't we open up public comment first? please step up to the mic.

>> i am in a. commissioner kim: if you could state your name and if you have a position on this issue, it would help us greatly. >> o.k., my name is nancy cross, i'm from district 6. and i read what was available in the clerk's office maybe a week ago but i don't know what kind of amendment you might be proposing so my comments, whether they're relevant or not, i'll tell you what i was going to comment on and if you would tell me whether the amendments you have in mind impact that, it will be helpful to me to be relevant to your present situation. the comments relate to the indication that people's salary could be conditioned on spending 10 hours a year in i guess certain educational programs

that would be put before new members. and do you still have that in your proposed amendment? proposed changes? i think that in the world today, the position of competitiveness of this nation as well as the goals of job creation maybe to a certain degree antagonistic and we need to continue to consider the possibility that what seems to be job creation or raising the general standards of things can be deteriorating our competitiveness in the sense that people come to an office, say there are 10 prospective new members -- members of the board of education, they're all told at a need to take a certain course but there's no elves --

evaluation of what they come to the office with, a placement test, for example. you could have people spending time simply to be congenial and to get their salaries. increase their use of time to raise up the standards and i would like to have, if you couldn't put it in the charter, especially, some evaluation of the relevance of everybody attending the same course from different dimensions. commissioner kim: thank you, ms. cross. >> good afternoon. i'm jill winds, a member of the san francisco board of education and i have been for 18 years and i'm here in support of putting this on the ballot. this is something that, frankly, we, as supervisor kim knows, we have been talking about in my experience for about 15 years. i view the -- this action that

the board of supervisors is being asked to take to put this charter amendment on the ballot in the nature of a professional courtesy because the charter of the city and county has presumed for over 40 years to set the compensation, which is a very small stipend and would continue to be a small stipend, at a third of what it would have allowed to have been for those 40 years and by the way has not only been not changed in the charter but not changed in the ed code and there's general agreements that those limits, three times what we currently get, are far too low. that's first thing, and then second, i'm asking that the -- what was one of your amendments which was to remove the provision for lifetime health benefits, be returned to the charter provision that you are considering. i would be fine with lowering -- actually, i've done some investigation.

i found that many school districts across the country provide lifetime health benefits for school board members and their standard is after 12 years of service. changing the original proposal for 20 years to service to 16 years, say, after four terms, as an incentive for people to continue to serve i think would be fair. and then last, which i think you should all probably are going to welcome, i want you to know that the superintendent and the current board is very open to the idea that we remove the provision that the city pay for the compensation until the prop 98 shortfall is paid. while we always believe that in order to have a better funded school system, it's a good idea for the city to contribute, in this specific area, philosophically, we believe this is something that should be paid for by the school district. we've all agreed to that and that's an additional amendment we would welcome which ought to

help the members of the board of supervisors to be supportive. if you have any questions, i'd be happy to answer them. commissioner kim: thank you so much, commissioner wind, for coming. do you have any further comments? >> i do want to say that it's my belief that the purpose of this and this has been, you know, supported by previous supervisors, i would like to say that, you know, as supervisor kim knows, we have done a long-term, more than decade-long multiple local funding strategy for the school district. this has been on the plate, the idea of raising the stipend to something beyond the pittance it is now, even though it's still a very small amount, and we have always agreed that we would come last, that after we did the tax for teachers, the bond issues, to set aside other things to address local funding, that the school board would come last and that's where we are today.

commissioner kim: thank you, commissioner wind. seeing no further public comment, -- >> thomas piccarello, speaking against the charter amendment. we all agree that board members are underpaid. they should receive more than a $500 stipend but theosh this -- issue on this agenda is who is to pay the salaries and what amounts. the civil service commission regulates your salaries, they set your salaries every five years. it seems to me a better proposal would be to have the civil service commission establish pay scales for school board members rather than board of supervisors. so, with that said, i am speak

ing against the proposed charter amendment. thank you. mr. armentrout, would you like to make comments on behalf of the school board? thank you very much for being here. >> i'm chris armentraut, director of relations for local government relations start school district. right now, the school district staff has not taken a position on this measure. superintendent garcia wants me to reiterate the separation of this from proposition h with the understanding that when prop h was passed, the intent of the voters was not for this particular strand of support so while that doesn't affect the district's position, the district is staying neutral on the ballot as a whole, but on that one issue, we wanted to

make sure the committee was aware. thank you. commissioner kim: thank you. is there any more public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. so this hearing is just a hearing on the amendments that were made at the last rules committee. the intention is to send this as a committee report to our board of supervisors' hearing next tuesday. i do plan to introduce some amendments on tuesday around this. one actually is, this was a suggestion from supervisor elsbernd, was to change the salary language to say that the school district could determine the salary, but i did hear from some school district members and school board members that they'd like it to still be set up to a ceiling of one half of a first-year teacher's salary as a

way to message to voters so they don't think the school district will set any salary for school board members and the second is potentially taking out subsection b and that's something we're still in discussion about but the school district has mentioned an interest in actually funding the salaries for board of education members themselves. they do not want this tied to the public enrichment fund or rainy day fund as they're worried that voters would not appreciate funding used in that way, coming from the city. but if that amendment is not made, the other amendment was another suggestion from supervisor elsbernd which was to put a sunset date potentially for 10 years so after prop 98 is back filled by the state, and/or 10 years, whichever comes sooner. any discussion or comments from my colleagues? supervisor farrell?

commissioner farrell: just so we're having our hearing right now, given the amendments for next week, maybe tell me what we plan to do today in terms of voting or not going or going forward here. commissioner kim: at this time i'd be looking for a motion to move this forward to the board of supervisors as a committee report. commissioner farrell: let me just -- this is an issue i've struggled with and i appreciate everyone coming to my office and talking with people on the phone. i understand the commitment from the members of the board of education. i have no doubt you spend way more time than people ever would imagine in your job. at the end of the day, though, i think there are a few things where i still can't get there. first of all, the fact that we are going to be putting resources towards this and i think i just received something from the controller that it would be over $227,000 a year.

that, to me, i struggle with in these times. and that we're adding to our budget right now. and it's also a slippery slope for me that other commission members or boards here in san francisco are going to be talking that they spend an inordinate number of hours in their service and should we be compensating them, as well. and that's a fair discussion and i think opening that door is a pandora's box here in san francisco in our city government. i appreciate the time and effort. if there's anything we should be spending money on, in my opinion, it's our children's education. i'm a proud parent of two young kids and i believe that more than anything else. this to me is something different. it's not something i supported this time but from my perspective, it's not something i'm going to hold up, either, as well, in this committee.

commissioner kim: [inaudible] [inaudible] commissioner farrell: this is not something i supported this time but if that's something that's important right now that's going to go to the full board for a vote, that's o.k. with me, as well. >> what we're sending forward is a document saying you don't support either. [inaudible] commissioner kim: thank you. just to address some of your concerns, supervisor farrell, one of the amendments that will probably be made is taking out subsection b so this would not be a part of our city budget but part of the school district budget so that's something they

would determine on their own as well as the salary rate for that. so hopefully that will address one of the concerns in terms of the budget we are facing but i understand the concerns that my colleagues have brought up. we have a motion to move forward with this item without recommendation on to the tuesday board of supervisors hearing as a committee report. without any objections, we'll move this item forward. thank you so much for coming up to hear on this item. we look forward to seeing you on tuesday. for the sake of holding quorum, in case supervisor farrell has to leave early, although i don't think that will be an issue anymore, i was going to move up item no. 6. should we just move through in order?

[inaudible] commissioner kim: i'm going to recuse myself. madam clerk, would you call item no. 3. clerk wong: motion appointing supervisor jane kim to the transbay joint powers authority. commissioner kim: colleagues, i would like to recuse myself from this item? motion to recuse? supervisor elsbernd, would you chair this? supervisor elsbernd: any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment closed. motion on the item? commissioner farrell: i make a motion. commissioner kim: thank you, supervisor elsbernd. madam clerk, please call item no. 4. clerk wong: motion appointing supervisor eric mar, term ending december 31, 2012, to the urban

counties caucus. commissioner kim: seeing no public comment, without objection, i'd like to forward with recommendation as committee report. you can please call item no. 5? clerk wong: motion appointing supervisor john avalos to the bay area air quality management district board of directors. commissioner kim: without objection, i'd like to send forward with the recommendation of the committee report. madam clerk, please call item no. 6. clerk wong: motion appointing sawn elsbernd, charmen chu, david damps and eric mar, terms ending january 31, 2013, to the board of directors. commissioner kim: may we have a motion to recuse supervisor sneble. >> i'll make the motion.

commissioner kim: i second. any discussion? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objection, i'd like to move forward with positive recommendation as a committee report. all right. seeing no further items, the meeting is adjourned.