a working-class person who is just outside of the boundaries, i believe it should have a shot at the work. i do not want to see san francisco residents shut out from the opportunity to work on jobs and other cities as they implement their own local hiring halls. i think we should not add an amendment to commit to lobbying that of a government. >> think you. -- thank you. they're asking for targets on regional, not just in francisco. sari to speak for bright line. -- sorry to speak for bright line. >> i, too, was confused about all the talk of the local and region. i do want to echo the directors word of appreciation for all the work that has been done, and i will second his motion, but i want to add something that i thought was really good when i

saw the incentive to use public transit for future workers to access this. i am very pleased to see that encouragement. supervisor kim: i want to make a couple of comments on my own. i really appreciate the work that you have done reaching out to community and labor groups. i ever heard how great this process is, and i want to commend staff for their work on this. i want to thank transbay team for doing additional work on this. i really appreciate the work into providing a little bit more specificity around of verse -- members and which schools we would be working with. this is a tremendous opportunity for students in san francisco, and i encourage we do this work

with other unified school district as well, but i am glad this work will move forward, and what it is aligning with changes that have happened around including more shop class is in our school. but to see that move forward. i disagree a little bit with director metcalf. this is a regional program, so i think local high your, we're really talking about regional local higher in all of the county's for this project. our think it is important that our workers have a fair shot at this work, and is still a target, not 100%. i think we should have priorities for workers in this area. they should be working on the projects that benefit our residents. i am happy to see for the resolve clauses allowing for at least option, an opportunity to come back to the table and

reopen pla. it there are changes at the federal level, that we can have that discussion to put in specific target, so i will be supporting this today. i want to think the directors for their feedback and comments over the past month as well. any other comments or questions? >> i wanted to thank all of the unions for all of their hard work. we have all 28 of them that signed. that is remarkable and very impressive. thank you for coming here today. ramone and mike, and operating engineers, and the other mike. i should clarify we are targeting regional higher. that is what we've been doing. we have been doing only that because it is a regional project because we of east bay and santa clara as our partners, so we have been doing that in

doing that quite well, and we can continue to do that when we get our updates. thank you. [applause] supervisor kim: one last comment. thank you to the carpenters and laborers for pushing for the harmony letter. it is something that i strongly support. i was educated through that through the treasure island development agreement. is there a motion? motion to move. there is a second. all in favor? any opposed? all right. the motion passes unanimously. [applause] can we please call item no. 8? >> approving a resolution of intention to initiate the process of direct a contract in with the california public employees retirement system to continue providing retirement

benefits to employees of tjpa , and the resolution authorizing the employer pick up of employee contributions. >> we contacted with local government services to provide benefits, medical and retirement benefits, but now that we have grown, we are working to zero we save money and be as cost- effective as possible. we now have the ability to adjust contractor rep we wiconth calpers, and that it does all it really is. we save money now and now have -- the long route to go through a middle person. supervisor kim: any questions on this item? director risk iesiskin: the actl

numbers seem to be somewhere out of line with where the rest of the city and state are headed in terms of generosity, and i do not know if in this action here or affirming or establishing those, and i recognize the difference between existing employees and prospective employees, but 2% of 55 based on a one-year final year compensation and 7% pickup seem to beat very far out of line -- seem to be very far out of line with where this is -- were the city is going. and i do not know if this is the action -- >> the action is allowing us to

enter into an agreement to negotiate various benefits, but we're very unlike any other entity. we are stopped at 13, managing thousands of employees, contractors, consultants, professional service workers. we're very different from other agencies or other state entities in that respect so sara, maybe you can add more to that. >> we're bringing this recommendation to you, largely because we have identified cost savings. once the implementation has taken place, there should be several thousand dollars savings per month. we want this transition to be seamless to the employees, so this is merely taking all of the existing benefits and exactly as they are currently offered, and transferring them over to a new

contract. i certainly understand that the city, hundreds and thousands of employees, there are certainly a large pension obligations and health-care operations for retirees, but we're talking about a staff of 13 people that were hired with the expectation of this benefit. as an employer with less than 100 members, we're going to be in the pool with all look the other employe years with less than 100 employees that offer the same benefit, 2% at 55 pulo. as we're making employer contemplate -- contributions, there is no contemplation. there is no unfunded liability for tgpa.

they have what they call a side fund, which is the equivalent of a planned unfunded liability. they have the option of paying that out in a lump sum one-time payment. it is projected to be under $3,500. so we certainly would pay that off in a 1-1 some benefit. that would make the employer rate cut down by a couple hundreds of a percent from 10.3 to 10.2 something. and so again, i certainly understand the concerns and issues that bombards your agency with thousands of employees and looking at future obligations are going through, but i would hope that in making a recommendation as management for an opportunity to save money that we would not be asking employees to reduce their

benefits that they expected to receive when there were hired. >> if an entity have less than 100 employees, you would be a part of the same pool that we are part of. it is because we only have 13 people. that is the difference. it's an francisco have 100 or less, they would be part of the sample. >> just to clarify, i did try to distinguish between existing and prospective employees. there are rights that the current employes have for that reason alone that maybe something that we would want to contemplate a dressing, although it is being done at somewhat for city employees. and but i want to understand how this pool works. because we are part of this pool, we have no ability to do other than 2% at 55 or cinko and final year compensation with the

employer picking up the 7%? >> you would be part of another pool offering a different level of benefit. >> does such a pull exist? there are pulls at 2% at 60, but you cannot be partly in the 2% at 55 pool for your career employee and 2% at 60 pool for future employees. all employees are required to have five years to end test. >> we do not anticipate having more than one or two more employees. we have been operating with less than 13 cents 2003. we are now it 2011. we would potentially bring on one or two more people and a construction manager, and that is it. we do not anticipate bringing on anymore. >> wouldn't the reforms that are

being offered plan for members for future employees apply to future employees? >> we will be members of the system. >> anything they do would apply to us. >> is there any other questions or comments? >> i made a motion. supervisor kim: there has been a motion in the second. we have a motion on the floor, and that has been seconded. all in favor? any opposed? cnn, at this motion passes. -- seeing none, this motion passes. can we get an update on that next month? how long to you anticipate the negotiation to last? to go there is actually a formal

laid out process. the next step will be after this meeting. we will have you signed the resolution of contention that just passed. we send that to calpers. there is an election to join the system, even though they are already in it. and then there is a final resolution we will bring to you in december when we will also bring the required program resolution. >> thank you. item #9. >> item #9 is the annual review of for policy and a price " -- approval of minor changes to the policy in conformance with california state government code. >> i work for policy for investments was originally approved -- reoriginally approvd in 2006. we did the review back and they come up the state's commission

on debt and investments, they are little behind in getting their annual updates up, so by adopting their annual update for 2011 at this time, and then getting ourselves on their annual schedule for 2012, we will look at the investment policy again next fall. that will line up better with their schedules. the updates they released in 2011 are fairly minor in nature. they change their ratings of different investments you are allowed to invest in as a public agency. they also took away some of the previous restrictions they have in place on percentage of portfolio. that is the reason why i wanted to incorporate the june -- the changes sooner rather than later. the main restriction they had was limiting 10% of your portfolio to being held in a bank account. that often required a lot of

transferring back and forth. this offers more flexibility and a little bit of more cash flow flexibility. i can answer any more questions. supervisor kim: can you talk in more detail about the portfolio? >> we keep the cash we need for short-term obligations and -- in our checking account, and the ballots in the city and county school. we do not invest ourselves in any other instruments at this time. when we need a transfer, we work with the comptroller's office on taking it out of the pooled account. we do have trust the accounts set up for the time when we start collecting tax increment proceeds and when there are land sale proceeds. we direct the trustee to invest per the permitted investments, because safety and liquidity are the primary objectives. we're currently instructing them to invest in treasuries, and i

foresee that will probably be our instruction for quite some time, unless the market drastically changes. supervisor kim: any questions or comments? is there a motion needed for this item? second by director ortiz. all in favor? any opposed? this motion passes. >> item 10 is approving the minutes of the october 13 meeting. supervisor kim: any amendments needed for the minutes? >> motion to approve. supervisor kim: all in favor? the motion passes.

and any other announcements? >> that does conclude your agenda for the day. supervisor kim: any other announcements? seeing none, we are adjourned. >> good evening, and welcome to the meeting of the board of appeals.

chris wong will be absent this evening. to my left is the deputy city attorney. she will provide needed legal advice this evening. i am the executive director. we are joined our representatives of the planning department. we are joined by joseph dufty, the senior building inspector. at this time if you would conduct the swearing-in process. but the board requests you turn off cellphone and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. representatives have seven minutes to present their cases

and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must complete their presentation which in seven minutes. replies have three minutes. to assist the board, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker cards or a business card to the staff when you come tuesday. -- come to speak. the board welcomes suggestions. their survey forms on the left of the podium as well. if you have questions about the hearing, please speak to the board staff after the meeting or call the office tomorrow morning. the board office is located at 1650 mission street. this meeting is to broadcast

live on government television, and the visa of this meeting are available for purchased directly from sfgtv. thank you for your attention. if you intend to testify at any of the hearings and wish to have the board give your testimony wait, please stand, raise your right hand, and say i do. please note that any member of the public may speak pursuant to the code. thank you. do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

>> starting with public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? seeing none, we will move to number two, which is commissioner questions and comments. >> i have a conflict on december 7, so i will be absent from that meeting. >> any other commissioner comments? any public comment on this item. we will move to item no. 3, the adoption of minister before you for discussion -- of minutes before you for discussion. >> i move for adoption. >> is there public comment on the minutes? seeing none, call the roll. no blacks on that motion to adopt the minutes, and -- >> on that motion to adopt the minutes --

[caling votes] >> those minutes are adopted. >> we move to the jurisdiction request. we received a motion asking that the board take jurisdiction over a building permit. the appeal time ended on july 1, and it was received at the board on august 19. the permit holder is for altering a gabled roof and replacing windows with french doors and converting an attic. the matter was continued to allow time for a permit to be issued, and no additional briefing was allowed.

the original permit was issued and appealed common and and that is scheduled to be heard in december. this is separate from that, because it is a jurisdiction request, and if granted, both appeals would be heard at the same time. we can give each party another three minutes. >> this is on the original permit. >> i have a photo of the deck in question. thank you for a hearing us again. this was constructed in an deceitful manner while we were on vacation behind a screen.

i asked the owner if they were going to construct a debt when they first purchase this, and he assured means they were not. they approached us after the last meeting and told us they wanted to talk about revising the deck. they said they would contact us. they believed they were in compliance with their own laws, but when they felt they were in a dominant position, they refused to talk to us. not to appeal to your sense of fairness, this bears down on us.

the deck is actually bigger than the permit allows. that is why we appealed. we would like the deck gone, but we would like it gone with due process and a non-deceitful manner. all of their actions have been deceitful. we just want fairness. >> what is the difference between what you think would be allowed under the current laws and what they have built, >> now they have built in excess of 30 feet of what the permit allows.

if they could make it so it does not bear down on our private living space, and that is what they alluded to. they felt they were in a dominant position. everything has been deceitful and dishonest. >> are there other departments the have the same vantage point of your patio? >> no. >> would you like to see a picture of my patio? >> i thought part of the discussion last time was that they were going to raise the height of the fence. they were not going to be able to view the patio. >> yes, and also cutting back

the perimeter by about 3 feet so it would not bear down so much. the architect approached us as soon as we love and told us he was contacting of the and we again. -- contacting us that weekend. they never did. >> roxanne you repeal the revision? >> correct. i think this issue is they have always been very deceitful and tried to get away with what they can. when they feel they are in a less than dominant position, they feel approachable. they do what they can -- what

they want. >> thank you but we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, commissioners. i think we are here because of the revision permits and the interest fictional the -- the jurisdiction does not make sense. i spoke to the appellant after the hearing for about 20 minutes last time we were here. i said, let's sit down and talk about it. please call me. three years -- three days later, i got a call.

i left my business card. i find it reprehensible someone would lie and say we did not approach him three times in five days. i think the time to approach this is on the calendar for the revision permits that codifies everything missed on this herman, and it corrects all the things. we also asked about adding a privacy wall. we never got a response. the permit the asked us to finally pay for it. that is what we did. we could not get any response from the appellant. >> why am i under the impression i have seen pictures of other people having a vantage point of this patio? >> that is correct. there are seven different decks that looked down into the appellant and property.