we're already talking about 8 feet beyond the 40 foot limit. i don't see how this meets the height limit. beyond that, i apologize to the board for taking up your time on bringing this matter up at such a late date. again, we are not familiar with the process, we're just average citizens that go to work everyday, try to get to work, take care of our families so when we see these signs, we see them all over the city. and in speaking to the meeting that happen in the store earlier in 2012 one neighbor actually went and i believe that's the one person the project sponsor is speaking about. when he went he said that the owner was there, there were no plans, there were no diagrams and he was told that the store was going to be torn down and

condos were going to be put up. there was nothing beyond that. there were rumors going around that are it would only be four units, not six. i think most of the neighbors were just okay with that, but in addition to that, i think the notification is really a big deal. most of the renters within 150 feet, they claim that all occupants within 150 feet were notified, that's absolutely not true. the renters were not notified. i was watching my own mail during this whole process. the only opportunity i saw in the entire period was an appeal hearing in february to come. i tried to make that meeting, i could not. i came five minutes late and i would not be heard.

i was told outside that sorry, it's a done deal, there's nothing you can do about it. i met this kind of problem every step of the way so you can imagine how the average person feels when faced with this process to try to get something done and they're told there's nothing that can be done. right here i'm hearing nothing can be done. newspaper ad, i've seen the ad. really nobody reads that part of the paper, if anyone reads the paper anymore so i hardly see that as adequate notice. . the sign on the building is a large sign, but again, most people simply drove by, walked by without examining it. supervisor mar can attest that once the neighbors are properly informed that the neighbor wills come together and voice their opinions. we all had neighborhood

meetings, they were well attended and there are many neighbors right now who would like to voice their opinions, but because they can't be here, they can't say anything. thank you. >> thank you. at this time, our public hearing for the appeal of the [inaudible] of 3032 and 3038 through 3040 clement street is now closed. >> i want to thank the neighbors for speaking out for the betterment of the neighborhood and thank you for the appellant for bringing these issues forward. i hope you're not discouraged and hope you continue to raise concerns, but i think this is a fairly routine parcel map approval and i don't find merit in supporting the appeal. my moek motion will be to

amend item 43, the language in the title, striking the word appeal from title and the first line so the first line would read motion of approving public works mixed new construction so i move that we amend item 43. >> all right, supervisor mar has made a motion to correct the title through an amendment seconded by supervisor campos. without objection the amendment stand and -- >> i move that we adopt madam president, item 43 as amended and table items 44 and 45. >> motion made bid supervisor mar and seconded by campos. can we take that same house same call. without objection the motion is approved and the tentative map for 3032 and 3038 through

3040 clement street is upheld. at this time if we can go to our next special order 3:00 pm. . first we need to go to item 43. 63. >> item 63 is a convene [inaudible] at 3:00 pm to hold a public hearing to approve or reject the mayor's reappointment [inaudible] ending february 20, 2019. >> can we take this same house same call. without objection this motion is approved. first we must take public comment on item 63. any members of the public please come to the podium.

>> in government definitely not a matter of good government so we will bring our comments further on this matter at -- when it's considered business the board at a later date, but i just wanted to state that for the record. >> thank you. and for those members who

wish to comment on this item, i want to remind then we will actually proceed to the hearing about the retirement board reappointment so at that time there will be further public comment on that action item. again, if you want to comment on whether we should sit as a community as a whole. >> i think it's very important that the board as a whole take a look at what's happening to the -- i would say systemic problems going on at the pension board in san francisco. as everyone knows, pensions are a serious issue for working people and the 35,000 city employees, whether or not they're going to have a pension. what we learned from 2008 is that the hedge funds and speculators are using these hedge funds to put our money in play, threatening our future as a right to live

from our pension so i think this is a broader issue than just the city employees and even public workers. private pensions are threat and as well. we have to ask why has mayor ed lee appointed a speculator to the pension board in san francisco. city workers should ask that question. why is the mayor appointing a speculator of hedge funds who sells hedge funds to the pension board to the city and county of san francisco. especially when a state agency said they're no longer going to invest in hedge funds. so why are we going in the office of direction which is a largest [inaudible] as a matter of fact in after after, the directors refuse to get in touch with them and ask them why they made that decision so i think the board as a whole needs to take this decision and needs to reject -- first

of all, accept having a full board meeting and reject her appointment. thank you. >> and again, i want to reminds everyone that the public comment we're taking right now on item 63 is board of supervisors should meet such as the ones provided previously must be reserved for items 46 and 47. at this time we're only taking public comment on whether the board should convene as a committee as a whole. >> i hope you do and i hope it's a thor rediscussion. thank you. >> whose marching down the streets of the city

>> seeing no other members of the public. now for the rest of the board, if we can take a roll call vote. >> on item 63, supervisor wiener. i didn't hear that. >> i. >> avalos. >> i. >> breed . >> i. >> campos. >> i. >> cohen. >> i. >> farrell. >> i. >> kim. >> i. >> supervisor mar. >> i. >> supervisor tang. >> i. >> there are 9 is. >> this motion is now

approved unanimously and now with can go to items 46 and 47. >> items 46 and 47 comprise the board of supervisors sitting as a whole. we're here to consider the motion to the retirement board for a four year term ending february 20, 2019. >> thank youp. at this time i'd like to invite supervisor avalos to provide comment. >> thank you madam president. colleagues, i've been troubled by this appointment mostly because i don't feel like i have enough information to understand whether approving the appointment of wendy jordan is going to be an approval that has cleared her from all the investigations that are going on related to complaints have been made about her position on the retirement board. there have been two stories that have come out just

recently last friday or saturday and yesterday. i did have a conversation with commissioner jordan on friday and what she had to say to me sounded reasonable, but at someone who's not well versed in the rules, even though i see language for the rules for how [inaudible] is conducted i'm not sure how it measures up to ethics laws and i'm not clear there's a real investigation underway and what's the result of the investigation that have been conducted and then sent out. it's not clear. even talking to ms. jordan it wasn't clear either so for me i feel best that -- i wasn't really sure how the process -- if it was going to have the right process for the appointment. i know that she had been

sworn in about maybe a month ago, i don't recall the exact date, and at that point there was a notification that was made to the board of supervisors. when she was sworn in it wasn't a swearing in. what i'm hearing from the city attorney that when she was sworn in it was more expressing the intent she was going to be appointed. later on december 8 we received the clerk of the board received a letter from the mayor saying that he would like to appoint her to the retirement board. the only issue with that is that on december 8 the mayor wasn't in town, it was -- supervisor cohen was acting mayor at the time. we talked to the city attorney and the city attorney told us that because the mayor had sworn her in even though he hadn't done proper noticing

that that was considered a notification of some sort and the intent notified the board was don prior to the memo that came and was signed and dated december 8 when the mayor wasn't here so we have to accept it as a proper notification, but it doesn't strike me as one. what i'm concerned is we don't have time to review the actual complaint that's been made of jordan. if she is cleared i would feel comfortable to move her forward, but i'm not sure if she's been cleared or not from these complaints. not to say she's on the same level or would be on the same level as murphy, but we just recently had the experience of approving to the port commission, murphy, when we knew for sure that he had actually not been working in accordance with building code

policy, that he at one time he had been responsible for overseeing and then we've seen there have been issues with mr. murphy on port commission for not following building code procedures, which i think is not what we want to put our name behind for making appointments for important position for the port commission or in this case with ms. jordan for the retirement board. these are questions that i remain unanswered for me and i think it's important that either the mayor rescinds the notification an reissues a new one so we can actually have mrr more time to weigh in with information on our appointment or we can see what questions with can answer today and possibly end up rejecting her appointment because we don't have enough

information to know whether she's been cleared or not. i have some questions for the city attorney or other people about what she's at in the process. so i'm not sure who we have here present to be able to respond from the retirement board or -- >> at this time, i'd like to invite the mayor's office or someone from the retirement board to speak to this item. >> executive deputy to the chair. >> thank you. so i guess -- the ethics commission did receive a letter from the retirement board suggesting she's been cleared of anything related to the complaints that have come forward, but sounded like there hadn't been determination. can you respond to that in any way. >> i believe you're referred to the letter dating november

28, 20140. my understanding is the letter to the ethics commission was stating the retirement system's position with respect to the positions. the position [inaudible] of the compatible activities to my knowledge the ethics commission has not made any response in reference to that letter. >> has not made a determination. >> one of the things i'm concerned about is the gmo investments, there is a threshold for people to make investments, which is about $10 million and that she has, through her firm, had a relationship with gmo through mutual funds but hadn't done her own private investment

with them until later. i was told she was granted a waiver fwr the $10 million threshold many years ago but she didn't take the waiver until after she was on the retirement board and the retirement board oversees $388 million in investments in gmo and i've been told -- the question is whether receiving -- taking advantage of that waiver after she's been on the retirement board has the investments in gmo, is that something the retirement board would feel comfortable with with a member receiving such a benefit. to me that is not something that i feel comfortable with moving forward with her appointment based on that relationship. i talked to ms. jordan about it. show said it seemed -- from

her point of view everything was fine because the intent to do the waiver was given before. show had the opportunity to do it whenever she wanted to it. didn't matter that she was appointed to the retirement boshd. board. to me it doesn't seem quite right that way. i know i've talked to other people in the industry and feel that's not something that's a standard practice either. i wonder what your thoughts are. >> i think i would defer to [inaudible] and did talk to commissioner jordan, but i'll say that the section in the statement of income activities you're talking about as interpreted by the retirement system when they drafted it, they believe that this particular item related to opportunities that were available to you because of your position on the retirement board or during

your time on the retirement board and since ms. jordan obtained the opportunity and accepted the opportunity well before her time on the board, it's my understanding that mr. hue determined that this particular statement and compatible activities section didn't apply. . >> okay. but that was something that still could be taken up by the ethics commission wlg whether it would apply or not. it's not the director's decision. >> absolutely. i believe the absolute decision is going to the ethics commission. >> and we haven't heard from them. >> we have not. >> i'm not sure i feel comfortable going further into asking questions. . i don't feel we've had the proper time to understand where things are with her

poim. appointment. i'm not necessarily opposed to appointing her if she's cleared by if ethics commission, but i don't think the way the notifications happened and we don't have a meeting until -- our first meeting is january 8 of next year, which is a swearing in ceremony. we actually have our first official meeting the tuesday after that. we could have a special meeting on january 7, which i think would be the 30 day rule -- 30 day s from the notice that the maize your had given us, but i'm not sure we want to schedule a special meeting before we have our special swearing in ceremony or we have the mayor rescind it and come back with another one, but those are my recommendations on how to move forward. i don't know if we have enough information to feel that we fell perfect ly well about

making this appointment moving forward. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you madam president. let me say that i have been treating calls with this individual with ms. jordan and i know that she has been willing to have a conversation with me and i know that she could not be here today and so i don't want to prejudge anything or jump to any conclusions, especially if the individual is unable to be be here. just a couple questions for the city attorney in terms of how much time the board has to act on this item. my understanding is that there was an actual physical swearing in of this individual by the mayor and whether or not that swearing in is legally appropriate. >> deputy city attorney job

gibner. >> the appointment is subject to charter section 3.100, which means the mayor can make an appointment and the appointment is effective as soon as the mayor makes the appointment and sends the notice to the board of supervisors. then the board of supervisors has 30 days of receiving the notice to vote to reject the nominee or the appointee business eight votes. here the mayor, i don't recall the dates, indicated his intent to reappointment ms. jordan to the retirement board and swore her in, but he swore her in before sending the notice of appointment to the board, so that swearing in was premature. she didn't start her term that day. the mayor then, i understand instructed his staff to take the appropriate steps to

complete the appointment and the mayor and staff sent the notice of appointment to the clerk's office, which the clerk received on december 8, so that is the day that the 30 day clause for the board of supervisors started to tick. i understand that the commissioner was later sworn in again because her first swearing in was too early and the mayor's office is nodding that yes, she was sworn in again after the mayor gave the notice to the board. where things stand for right now with you is you can reject it before january 7. if you don't act by january 7, the appointment stand. >> as a matter of law, given that he has once notification happens the board has 30 days depending on the appointment to act, when does the term

begin? i mean, is that typical that the mayor would swear someone in even before the 30a that the board has to act expires? >> the charter is written in a way that makes it appropriate. basically the appointment become effective when the mayor appoints and provides notice to the board. the person can be sworn in then and the clock starts ticking and if the board rejects it the appointee loses the seat. it understand it doesn't -- it's counterintuitive, but that's the way the charter raze. reads. >> in this case the special meeting on january 7, but that would be your last day. >> now, there have a number of allegations made in terms of

non compliance with ethical requirements and we heard free the retirement board, sort of their -- at least the executive director's view as to the question of incompatible activities. . does the city attorney's office have an opinion as to whether or not this individual has complied with all the ethical requirements under state law? >> i can only speak to what i know based on the public filings and conversation with ms. jordan . as supervisor avalos mentioned, the executive director of the retirement board received a complaint that ms. jordan had accepted an investment while a member

of the retirement board where the company had granted her the ability to invest even though her amount was below the threshold. the statement of incompatible activities is a local law adopted by the ethics commission for each individual city department and commission and the retirement board's statement of incompatible activities has a statement which is that no officer or ploy yeez may directly or indirectly cyst or accept a business opportunity, personal loan, favor or anything of value from any public or private entity. this company gmo is doing because with so did ms. jordan accept a business opportunity. there is -- as use can hear,

the language of the statement of incompatible activity is open to interpretation. mr. huish has interpreted it in a way that he believes most appropriate. there is currently a complaint that's been forwarded of the ethics commission and they e would forward that as an enforcement p matter. the question is, did she accept the business opportunity, the advantage before she was a retirement board member and then just later exercised that opportunity, or did she hold on to it from before and then decide to accept it once she was on the board in 2011? i don't think there's a black and white answer to that that i can give you today. it's a question of interpretation of the statement of incompatible activities based on the facts and as supervisor avalos said, i think ultimately the ethics commission in this case will

resolve it. there are a couple different ways the ethics commission resolves issues like this. one is a person can ask for advice, a public request for advice from the ethics commission. they then draft a public resfons saying here's what your statement of incompatible activities means. that's a public process. when mr. huish forwarded the complaint to the ethics commission he instigated a confidential process of ethic enforcement action. i don't know how long that process may take, but at this point it's confidential so i don't know where it stand and i understand the board -- >> it is possible that the ethics commission could decide either way depending on their interpretation of that.

>> that's right. there's an matter of ethics. they could dismiss it, preach a settlement where she could pay monetary penalties, or hold a public hearing leading to a determination. >> what is the amount of the penalties here? >> under the charter and local ethics law, the ethics commission has the ability to impose fines for up to $5000 for each violation. it takes into account all sorts of factors in determining the penalty they apply. >> besides the specific ethical requirements that apply to this agency, are there any other sections of the government code or common law that would apply to a determination of whether or not there