gulf of mexico welcome to our rule committee meeting for thursday, march 20th, 2014. i am supervisor nor nan man yee and i will be chairing this meeting. i am joined by supervisor david campos and supervisor katy tang and also supervisor wiener will be joining the committee today. the clerk today is alisa miller. the committee would also like to acknowledge the staff sfgtv, jesse larson and john ross who record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available

to the public online. madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the april 1st board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> okay. thank you. so, madam clerk, i would like to call an item out of order. can you please call item number 7? >> item number 7 is a resolution referring the initiative measure known as the waterfront height limit initiative. [speaker not understood] potential impacts if passed. >> okay. so, we have supervisor wiener here today and he's the author of this resolution. i would like to turn it over to him. ~ >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for calling this out of order. colleagues, i recently introduced this resolution seeking analysis from various city departments about a number

of questions or potential impacts of this measure if it were to pass as authorized by the state elections code, but also as authorized generally [speaker not understood] from the city attorney's office, this type of analysis is permissible and we are able to request it. so, that resolution is before us today. i have been informed by the mayor's office that mayor lee will be issuing a directive to the departments to engage in the requested analysis as a result, i believe this resolution is now moot and i intend to withdraw it. i request that the committe table it. >> okay, thank you, supervisor wiener. any comments? supervisor campos. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for putting this item

on the agenda. and i just had a quick question in terms of the mayor's office. do you know if -- what the analysis will focus on? is it exactly the language that's in the resolution? through the chair. >> that is my understanding, but mr. elliott from the mayor's office is here and i don't want to speak for the mayor. >> thank you, jason from the mayor's office, mr. chairman, supervisors. the mayor is working with the department heads to perform analysis, whatever analysis will be relevant. i have already asked the city attorney and will intend to ask the city attorney again to recirculate a memo entitled political activity by city officers and employees dated september 3rd, 2013. if i may just read one sentence because i think it serves as a helpful reminder. city this is on page 3. city officers and employees may lawfully use city resources

[speaker not understood] potential impact of a ballot measure on city operations. the analysis must be made available to the public. so, i think that's a helpful reminder to city departments it will be performing this analysis. >> if i may. some of the questions that were included in this request were drafted by people that had taken a position against the measure. and will there be an opportunity for people who may have a different perspective to, you know, request that perhaps other information be considered? >> most certainly, i think requests for information are always, always helpful. and the more information, the better. again, we will be leaving this to the impacted or subject area departments to scope that analysis and to perform it in a way that conforms with this political activities memo, not making the case one way or

another, because facts can be malleable, but in fact presenting the most impartial -- presenting the most impartial case possible. >> what i would say is, you know, i appreciate that and i think i would encourage anyone who feels that there are specific issues or questions that should be looked into, that they contact the mayor's office. and i appreciate supervisor wiener withdrawing this item. i have to say that i still have questions about the item in the sense that i don't know if this is necessarily the best precedent in terms of, you know, using city resources for this purpose, whether it's for or against something. and, you know, that is not really going to be voted on so it doesn't really matter, but i do have that concern because i think that the way in which to,

you know, campaign for or against something is to use, you know, private resources to make that happen. and i just have a concern about using city resources for that purpose, and i'm not sure that's necessarily a good precedent, but, you know, that's something that could be done. so, thank you. >> mr. chairman, may i? >> sure. supervisor wiener. >> so, thank you, mr. elliott, and to supervisor campos, for those comments. just a couple things. first of all, from what i understand, the mayor's request will be along the lines of this resolution, and similar in other ways as well. first, as i stated at the last -- at the board meeting when i introduced it, i publicly invited anyone who had additional questions if they wanted included to put them forward. and is as i indicated at that

board meeting, that i had no problem adding additional questions because the more information, the better. i have not received any, and i presume that additional questions could be forwarded to the mayor as well. when it comes to posing questions, the more the morier, and the more questions, the more information we get. ~ merrier. and we made clear in the resolution, and i know the mayor made clear the same thing, that this is to be done in a -- an analytical way in terms of producing information that the departments are not to take a position or suggest amendments to the ballot measure. and that was in the resolution, and the mayor has reiterated that. in terms of a precedent -- and i did talk about this when i introduced it -- that in 1996 then supervisor ammiano made a request about the then pending

giants stadium measure and actually held a hearing on it i believe a month before that election. that request by then supervisor ammiano was totally appropriate and it was a good idea, and it appears to have produced very useful information for the public. and, so, it's good that he did it, but this does not set any precedent. this is something that has been done in san francisco for a long time ~ and it is completely and entirely appropriate. and then in terms of the drafting of this, this resolution has my name on it and we submitted this resolution and, supervisor campos, i'm sure you, as do we all, we work with various people in preparing legislation, preparing resolutions, and that is exactly what legislators should be doing. we don't live kilos at thereded in a tower. we work from folks all over the community to put things

together. and, so, thank you very much. ~ cloistered. >> is that it? >> i can i think we should get input from people in the community. the difference is the extent you're asking for a political analysis of a political measure. i think the same level of input should be provided to each side. and i don't know that that necessarily happened here. >> my comment along this, if there are advocates out there or individuals that would like to have more information, when i heard the representative [speaker not understood] jason elliott said they're welcome to row vied that. i would also appreciate if there are people that want additional information and requesting the mayor to do so ~ they would give me some notice also so i could keep track of

it. ~ provide since this -- the author is withdrawing, i still need to take public comment. public comments, i have two people. ellen book en and pat valentino. you have two minutes. two minutes? minutes? >> yes. >> okay, eileen boken, district resident, [speaker not understood], committee is tabling it. [speaker not understood] by hans christian anderson. and i will quote from that. many years ago the emperor so exceedingly fond of his clothes that he spent all his money on being well dressed. in a great city where he lived [speaker not understood] many strangers came and one day there were two swindlers. [speaker not understood], but the clothes made of this cloth made a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone

who was unfit for office unusually stewvth it. ~ stoup it. ~ stupid. he said he wanted them. when the emperor went to see the cloth for himself, he he said, what is this, i can't see anything. i'm a fool, unfit to be an emperor. what has happened to all the people? with his whole receipt knew, he said everything was wonderful ~, he agreed and he went on procession through the town. and everyone in the town said the street -- the clothes were wonderful. nobody could confess that they couldn't see him because they would be proven unfit for office or a fool. but he hadn't done anything wrong, a little child said. did he hear that innocent [speaker not understood] the father said? the one person whispered to another what the child had said. he hasn't done anything wrong. the child, says he hasn't anything on. but he hasn't got anything on.

the whole town cried at last, unquote, the emperor has no clothes. if this would be an objective analysis, i personally am skeptical of that. the mayor has a certain position of it. these are his own staff. these are paid by him. this is going to be an objective [inaudible]. >> thank you. i have two other speaker cards. henry [speaker not understood]. and dennis marscopian. hi, my name is pat valentino, i live in the south beach neighborhood here as a community volunteer supporting the resolution to study this measure further. i'm very concerned. i read the port's analysis, 23

acres of open space last 00 affordable housing units delayed lost. 4700 potential loss of rental housing without displacement. i'm very confused. why can't we go to the departments in the city that understand the effects, get information from them, and disclose that to the public? i'm very confused as to why this is being held up. i think it needs to move forward very quickly. this is extremely important. we're in the middle of a housing affordability crisis. we have people saying there's views -- that they don't get enough views of the bay. these are parks along the waterfront that will be developed under some of the proposed developments. we know there's been some political wrangling. i think it's extremely urgent and necessary to get this information out to the public. i'm very confused why this would be delayed or held up. let's get this done. i support the resolution to have this different department study the initiative and disclose the information to the public so we can all understand

what prop b is all about. thank you very much. [speaker not understood]. i think if we don't do that, that's another [speaker not understood] providing housing for people and providing more jobs. we have 23 acres. if nothing is going to happen, it's get to sit and get blighted. it would be a great thing for us to be able to develop this. i really urge you to do the analysis and do the right thing so people can really know what's going on. that being said, i hope you will proceed with that and thank you, supervisor wiener, for bringing this forward. thank you, supervisors.

hi, supervisors, my name is denis marscopian. i'll be before you in a few minutes for another matter. i just wanted to comment that generally i think most people understand that during the b and c campaign this last election where the mayor's office stood, where the planning department stood, where the port stood, and where most of the agencies listed in the resolution stood. i don't think it's any different today. so, it strikes me that -- and based on the testimony of the last two speakers, it really is pretty clear that the point of this is to try and come up with something, enough to dissuade enough voters to say, let's develop -- let's allow developers to exceed the height limits along the waterfront. i don't have any problem with developing along the waterfront as long as it abides with what we have politically agreed to and publicly agreed to, height limits, bulk limits, whatever they are. but this is a different kind of matter and the voter were very clear last year. 2 to 1 they said, no, no, no,

don't exceed the height limits, particularly since the bulk of the building is luxury condo stuff. and that luxury condo stuff matches the 153% of market rate housing that exceeds the need of market rate housing in san francisco and doesn't match the need for affordable housing. so, i think the argument that somehow or another b will impact affordable housing while we allow people to -- developers to exceed the height limits at will that have already been approved by planning suggests, in fact, that this is really about the ability to develop those -- continue to develop luxury housing. and i think we really need to focus on stuff that's affordable to working class and middle class people in san francisco. thank you. >> okay, any other public comments on this matter? this is item 7. you're up. thank you. sorry.

[inaudible]. >> speak into the -- >> since you just walked into the room, the author had withdrawn the proposal. good afternoon, supervisor. my name is toby levine and i'm a resident of mission bay. and i'm very concerned about the fact that questions have been asked about this particular proposition and the ramifications of what will happen. so, i've written -- and i should say i'm also very involved with mission bay and have been active in that neighborhood since i moved there. so, i put together some questions that i'd like to see all of you come up with answers. for instance, i'd like to know

-- i'd like you to know what the current condition is of peer 70, one of my important interests. and the kinds of funds that will be necessary to bring it into some kind of good order ~. the port doesn't have the money to bring pier 70 up to snuff, so to speak. i'd like to know how much you think an election campaign to defend pier 70 would cost if we in fact had to do that. i've asked that question and i found that the people have been talking about 2 million to $3 million. that's a lot of money just to spend on an election that is only considering the issue of heights, not the issue -- that's it? >> 30 seconds. all right. if you'll look through the rest of the questions, you'll see what my idea is.

and i think that the supervisors have a lot of responsibility in that you need to dig deep because this is very serious. the port could be destroyed by the results of this proposition. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comments on item number 7? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, is there a motion to file this item? >> motion to file the item. >> any objections? seeing none, motion passes. [ gavel] >> thank you, colleagues. >> madam clerk, can you please go back and call item number 1? >> yes. item number 1 is a hearing ~ hearing to consider appointing one member, term ending june 5, 2017, to the treasure island oversight committee. there is one vacancy and one applicant. >> okay.

so, i believe -- hi. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is greg [speaker not understood], i'm with the office of treasurer and tax collector. before you today is the treasurer's nomination of mr. ronald gerhardt from the city college of san francisco ~. he is the chancellor's designee for a seat on the treasury oversight committee. chairman yee, you will recall last year when we filled some of the other seats that this is a committee that is charged with assisting the treasurer in advising him on the investment of the pool of funds that holds both the city's revenues as well as other bond revenues from both the puc and then the school district's money as well as the city college's money. the purpose of the oversight committee is to involve the

depositors in the oversight of these funds and, so, under the administrative code the city college does have a name seat. and, so, that is why the treasurer is nominating mr. gerhardt today who is here to speak on his qualifications and answer any questions that you may have. >> okay. mr. gerhardt, would you like to make some comments? >> yes, good afternoon. i was asked to i guess give you the thumbnail version of my bio, my resume. i've been with city college approximately five months now. i'm currently serving the college as the vice chancellor of finance administration. prior to city college i served a similar position over in the east bay in [speaker not understood] community college district. and prior to to* that was serving a few colleges down in southern california ~. prior to joining education i worked for a public accounting firm for a number of years conducting audits of community

colleges. and, so, that's kind of my background, i guess, a brief history of my background. i have served in or a number of nonprofits in a board or advisory capacity. the nonprofits including foundations for scholarship for students. i also served on boards -- board of a credit union, nonprofit credit union in an unpaid status. so, that's the summary. i'd be happy to address or answer any questions you may have. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. thank you very much, sir, for being here, mr. gerhardt. i had a question for staff, actually, if i may. in the past, who made the appointment on behalf of city college? >> it has either been the chancellor or the chancellor may make a designation. >> was there any involvement by the board of trustees in making appointments before? >> no, it was either the

chancellor or the previous term it was the person who was in mr. gerhardt's position now, the chief financial officer. it was designated by the chancellor. >> but in the past the chancellor at that point was reporting to the elected board of directors, not the board of trustees? >> it was the chancellor who is named in the administrative code, and then they also had the option to designate someone. >> so, maybe if i may ask, mr. gerhardt, so, were you appointed by the special trustee to your position? >> by the previous chancellor, donald [speaker not understood], and basically approved, yes, by the current special trustee. >> i mean, i have to say that, you know, it's nothing personal against you. i think you have the qualifications, but i do have a concern about city college

right now, that there is no accountability to the people of san francisco and to the students and to the faculty of that institution. and, so, you know, i will be voting against his appointment not because it is any personal animosity towards you, but because i do think that we need to send a very clear message that we need to restore democracy and accountability back to city college. >> any other comments? thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comments on this matter? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> i appreciate supervisor campos's view on this. there are issues at city college, as we all know. and in this casey will kind of disagree that i think your

qualification, mr. gerhardt, is clear to me you're qualified. and i would like to see somebody of your caliber be on that committee. and, so, i'm more than willing to move you forward with positive recommendation. supervisor cohen? >> thank you, supervisor yee. i'm also happy to move forward mr. gerhardt to this position. i think that i do want to acknowledge supervisor campos' concerns with city college we all share, but in terms of today's purposes and your qualifications, of over 13 years in experience in higher education, i do think that you would be fit for this position, especially since you were designated or selected by the former chancellor and then reconfirmed by this new one. so, with that i would just like to make a motion to appoint mr. gerhardt to the treasury oversight subcommittee for seat 1. >> okay. roll call, please. >> on the motion as stated, supervisor campos? >> no. >> campos no. stackv? supervisor tackv? >> aye.