formerly homeless, selected from the list of candidates, trulia antonia [sounds like]. i believe the put people in seats they qualify for. >> that is incorrect supervisor kim. the requirement is your home is or formerly homeless in the past three years, have custody of the minor child, seat 1. jenny parrilla is currently under shelter monitoring committee, appointed by the local homeless cording board. >> supervisor kim: oh. i apologize. >> both -- have spoken to ms. parrilla, asked her not to apply, it would be confusing. ms. wong had an older

application. she's already seated by the local homeless cordoning board. >> supervisor kim: how can you be on the rules committee agenda if you are on the committee? >> she applied a while ago as did mr. langford. some of the applications have been held by the clerk's office for some time. >> (off mic) (off mic) >> she is on the shelter monitoring committee; she will not seek reappointment for the local homeless coordinating board. >> (off mic) >> okay, appreciate that clarification. i will reorder the seats.

julia d'antonio [sounds like], seats 1. for seat 2, jenny parrilla. for seat 3, nicholas kimora, having direct services experience. seat 4, to andrew mendez. and seat 5 for isaac langford. >> (off mic) (off mic) >> supervisor kim: i'm not sure it we'll have an applicant for seat 6. >> (off mic) seat 4 is fine.

>> supervisor kim: (laughter) city attorney? >> even though he did not apply to seat 4, you can appoint him to seat 4 as long he has been with that community health services agency. >> supervisor kim: i think that is clear unless colleagues have other suggestions. we will move forward. those five applicants for those five seats; i will entertain a motion to continue seat six to the call of the chair to see we can get applicants of the next rules committee. do we have a motion to move these applicants seats 1-6, with recommendation, and a motion to continue 6 to the

call of the chair. appreciate you being here today and the brevity. i thank you as we mulled through the details of which seat and which applicant. please call item 6. >> (reading) >> supervisor kim: thank you. the clerk of the board is here to present. we will let sit the amendments that we have made to the previous board rules. >> thank you chair, members of the committee. this item is after two weeks. supervisor kim, thank you for accepting the amendments at

the first november meeting. the amendments are uploaded to the packet; should the committee and the board approved this legislation, january 8 is when the document will become effective. also by january we would expect to have finally formatted the document, added a table of contents, the index, and finally at the november 1 meeting i posited that these rules were approximately 150 result; while these rules can be amended at any time by the board i committed to at least four for the next couple of years during the fall to continue to work with the supervisor's office to them and subsequent rules that they felt were necessary. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you. any comments from supervisors? supervisor wiener. >> thank you for your work and your office's work putting this

together; i know this was an enormous task. we are appreciative. i do have two thoughts in terms of amendments to the members of the committee and to ms.- they relate to the process, our committee process. one has to do with the sharing of draft agenda with committee members. if you're not a chair of the committee you learn what is on the agenda for example monday meeting, thursday late in the day. or for a thursday meeting monday late monday. members of the committee should have more of a standard,

heads-up for what will be on the agenda with the understanding that things can and do change from time to time. one amendment is 3.61, that states that upon request of any member of the committee the committee chair shall share the draft agenda with all committee members at least seven days in advance of the committee meeting so that committee members can be fully prepared for the meeting. this makes a lot of sense, understanding that in the intervening days there can be change. it's a little bit too seat of our pants to have a few days. the other is at the rule 3.35, the calendaring of measures, particularly legislation

introduced. it would require that is the author of the measure makes a request in writing to the chair of the committee, schedule a hearing, the committee chair shall schedule a hearing to occur within 30 days of the request unless the author agrees to later hearing. it is not occur within 30 days, the author can at roll call for introduction of the next board meeting request that the matter be agendized for the full board, and that will happen in the following board meeting. those are two thoughts and proposals that i have. the fact is that this is not the united states senate; we have a much more democratic board and i think that if someone wants an agenda item, it should be agendized and we

should have more time to know what the tentative draft agenda is so the members of the committee can be as prepared as possible. >> supervisor kim: a question to the city attorney. of these amendments substantive? >> you can act on these today and forward to the board. >> supervisor avalos. >> i'm fine with the new rule, 3.61. i have a question for the clerk on that one. it seems like as a legislative aide who work on the developing of agendas they are readily shared in advance. i have not been a part of how these agendas come up; has there been an issue where board members requested an advance copy of the agenda and was not able to get that? that seems to be to be pretty standard practice to get

agendas out when requested. >> supervisor avalos, from time to time there have been problems with supervisor requesting the chair to provide them with versions of the agenda perhaps before it is finalized so they could know what is on that document to be prepared for the items that could come up. it is i think the new rules, 3.61, the supervisor indicated that he realizes it would not be a binding agenda. traditionally we don't approve our agendas until approximately 4 days before the hearings to make ready for the posting and publishing deadlines. seven days advanced that could be a significant change from what you see on day seven to the actual hearing. the order of the items, the items themselves. supervisor is aware of that.

from time to time supervisors, members of the committee want to know what is on the draft agenda. it is the chairs authority currently not to share that but working with the members, many supervisors have. >> thank you. on the second rule, i'm not necessarily comfortable with approving that now. i could support the second one on the page, 3.6.1 i am not comfortable right now supporting rule 3.3.5 >> supervisor kim: i like to ask a question to the clerk. is the author request that the

item be heard, what is the process? >> it is required that the 30 day rule be applied on an item in an ordinance. that 30 days has to toll before the 3.3.5 rule kicks in. this is not changing substantively what we are currently doing; you are just verifying what the current process is. >> right now my understanding is that it is two consecutive 30 day periods, several months before you could even do instruction of the board to pull something out that has not been heard. this would tighten that up. >> to the original 30 day rule? >> yeah.

>> the original 30 day rule, meaning 30 days goes by, and then at the request of the author it can be scheduled as a full board. >> right now as i understand the rules, this is for no hearing having occurred as opposed to something sitting in the committee having been heard, if there are no hearings scheduled, it has to be heard at the full board. if it has not been heard the next 30 days, this would change it to - and i'm not trying to violate the 30 day rule - if you make a request say a week or two after the introduction saying that this be calendared

within 30 days unless you agree to a longer period. if they don't do so the author has the option to instruct that it be pulled to the full board. tightens up the time period. >> madam chair? >> yes? >> the only issue i see with that is that the chair would not have the authority the schedule it during that first 30 days because it is under the 30 day rule. the supervisor would want to chair to schedule it right away, meaning when they could start scheduling it. it does minimize the chair's authority to schedule items in their time frame, and the consideration of al l they have going on. >> supervisor kim: i don't think that it is political to do so, is out of

logistical issues. for example land-use has a lot of items; sometimes i like to spread out over time. i would not like to take that discretion away. i would like to know that after the 30 day hold, the author of a measure can they request if they feel that it is not being heard. we never want items to never get scheduled for those reasons. and have to support 3.6.1 as well; supervisor avalos, i don't think it hurts to share draft agendas 7 days in advance.

>> i'm happy to go 1 for 2. >> i like to open this for comment at this time. >> i might need 3 minutes, i need to cover 4 items. i have not seen the proposed amendments. are they available to the public? from the discussion that you just had on the proposed rule, 3.6.1, this draft agenda shared with all committee members that makes it a public record and subject to disclosure upon request. i don't know that changes your thinking about the role. right now it is as much a problem for members of the public what may be an agenda as well as for other members of the board. of the members of the public don't get agendas until friday afternoon for the following week.

if you don't know what is coming up at land-use, or rules, or budget, you don't know. i appreciate the discussion on rule 3.3.5 the board's rules are complicated and trying to understand the relationship between 3.3.5 and 3.3.2 is important. i appreciate the discussion you had about that. those comments on proposed rule 4.1.9 and i believe you spoke to that at the last hearing, if you could turn to that, that is the order of presentations before the board. i would like to see the order change to the person supporting the appellant, second bullet would become the fourth bullet and that they would have the opportunity to speak after the agency representative and the leader of the opposition

granting the appeals of the members of the public might be informed as to their testimony by the agency presentation and the leader of the opposition as it were. i think that is a change that you can make today. >> supervisor kim: you had one more point? >> yes. i have reviewed the rules extensively; i was not prepared to share this with you today. i have been with conversation with angela and kay. i hope that the next time there is a rule revision there are substantive changes. the language is archaic. there are a few inconsistencies. when you look at the city and schools district committee prior to march 1, 2013, will have another opportunity to take serious times in the rules. i may be the only one but i think the rules of the board actually matter. >> supervisor kim: appreciate your being here. always.

maybe the city attorney john gibner, if you could respond to the first question. if it is shared with all three members, is it a public record that could be open for discussion? >> i am not sure that that is the answer, or what the status is between the clerk's office and the individuals. >> i don't know what the answer is. if this is a public document i would imagine that the draft going back and forth between the committee and the clerk would be a public document and perhaps the draft agenda sitting on an aide's desk to be

a public document. i do know that this would change this. it either is or not. >> i can't think of any reason why those documents are not public. i can't think of any off the top of my head. >> supervisor kim: thank you. any other comments? we had a motion to amend, 3.6.1, already read into the record, allows the committee member to request that a committee chaired share a draft agenda at least seven days in advance of the committee meeting. we can take that motion to amend without opposition. (gavel). motion to move this item forward. >> so moved. with recommendations. >> supervisor kim: we can do that again without opposition. (gavel)

>> i want to commend the clerk of the board for your covering this and bring in your language to our rules and i look forward to january 8 we can begin implement them. thanks. >> supervisor kim: ditto. i appreciate the legislative aide engaged in this process as well. at this time may i entertain a motion before that, is there any public comment on item 7? >> on item 7, david -- i have reviewed the proposed settlement agreement among other things. i am now the chair of the water subcommittee of the pucac, we had a few presentations back.

it settles the matter between the city and the club to the extent that it allows for and contemplate environmental remediation of the area that the club has been using now and in the future. c that is to the good. it appears to settle the legal issues that i am more concerned about environmental remediation i'm hoping that you will discuss in close session how those provisions work in the access to the club's liability coverage. this appears to be a fair settlement between the parties. with appreciation to -- [indiscernible] and others who worked heavily on this. thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you mr. topel [sounds like]. >> my name is steve morton, involved with [indiscernible]

for 12-14 years, it seems like a lifetime. it seemed significant progress, the ability to free up 12-14 acres in the city for broad forms of recreation and habitat restoration. we haven't had access to the property for generations now. the puc does have a watershed report that they commissioned with broad public comment. i would like to have the supervisors ask mr. richie whether they concur with the operation to bring forward a stakeholders in this project's report, which has been broadly reviewed in the community, and apply under the tutelage of the

puc the 2 million dollars in the recently adopted bond. i think it is appropriate that the puc as the land owner be the lead agency for the expenditure of that money on the recreation programs and habitat programs that could be, that are in the puc's report. they are the active operators. the recreation department has been largely absent for decades. so, i think is a puc is the owner, the rightful group, they should be responsible to apply the 2 million dollars.

>> supervisor kim: the public comment is closed. i like to entertain a motion to convene to close session. i would l >> we have that motion that we can do that without opposition. madam clerk, do we have any other announcement? seeing none. the meeting is adjourned. thank you.

. >> are you guys ready? okay. >> roll call. commissioner. >> present. >> commissioner. >> here. >> commissioner. >> here. >> commissioner. >> here. >> item two approval of minutes for october 23, 2012 meeting with a minor correction on the

first page commissioner brandon was present. >> so moved. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> number three, public comment on executive session. sue hester. >> sue hester. i didn't identify myself on there, but i have attended all of the public workshops for input on pier 30, 32, and i would ask this commission and the staff to direct everyone who is a negotiating party to when they attend these public meetings to shut up and identify themselves. there was a lot of furor at my

table at the latest est session which was quality of life because one of the negotiators of the warriors sat at our table and had input and was very vocal and didn't identify herself with the warriors until the entire thing was over, and people freaked out. i request that there be a rule and enforced on all negotiations, particularly the golden state warriors that in the case the port, owd and particularly the warriors not participate as members of the public, and wear big badges saying who they are because people hide behind anonymity and i know because i of around the block oweb -- i