this is about the rent board.rd a lot of people talk about the rent board, but i want to tell you in 1979, the evictions. it is at a time when the jonestown murderers had just started. people had been removed from san francisco. we also had another thing happen to us in this city. we also had aids breaking out. we went on and voted for eviction. you need to change things around, the leaders. do what is right. miss alioto, you come from good stock. we need to thank chris daly for what he did in district 6. for the mayor, we don't know. we want you to have some heart, too. we want you to know we have been there with you fake and then. the rent board should reflect diversity in this city. it is time to make san francisco the beacon on the hill. thank you. >> i am a tenants union counselor. i will agree with everybody who has spoken here that certainly having split appointments between the board and the supervisors, i think any renter will tell you is probably going to be a better deal for renters, especially with the

the rent board definitely needs reform. there are three tenant positions, and one homeowner position, it is just not fair that the homeowner is the deciding vote all the time. the one thing that made me want to come to speak to you, when i heard it that they gave a statistic of 66% in favor, that was their decision, i said this can't be, i did research years ago and i came up with them siding with the tenants only 18% of the time. i have come to find out that they use everything that they do, even things that the rent board does not hear, you should really know that the statistics show that in cases that come up before the rent board, the only side with the tenant 18 percent side of the time according to my research. thank you. >> my name is cindy a citizen. right now, it is difficult to use the rent board as a tool for most tenants, because they feel they always side with the landlord. that is why it is important that the elective process be put on the november ballot. it would be better to change the structure of these ca

that the board of directors comes before the board.t was circumvented because instead of eliminated bus lines they sid an across the board service cut that doesn't require board oversight and we're trying to address that circumvention by changing definition of line -- so that service cuts of a certain level actually require a public process and involved the board of supervisors. there is a creation by the inspector general position that provides an independent audit function for what other agencies and other parts of the country we believe are following. we believe that is a best practice. that is the best practice that should be implemented by this agency and what we recognize and respect the work over the comptrollers office does, we believe there is a need for an independent party that reports directly for the board of directors to provide that function. lastly, we also recognize that there has to be a sharing of the pain if you will in terms of the financial stability and well-being of this agency and we, from a public policy stand

here at the board of supervisors. it is without question, definitely a little gray area and i think that what the mayor is trying to do here is absolutely consent and i think that it is -- i think that he is right to have some concerns about what conversations might be taking place in both places and what types of contributions are going through. i will also say that i had mentioned earlier the number of people who currently sit on both bodies here at the board. i don't think it is inconsent for him to take a seat on the dccc as the lieutenant governor for the state as the democratic nominee as long as there are members of the board who are still holding both of those positions, i don't think it should preclude him from holding both positions because you are playing under the same game rules. and we may agree with something or disagree with something, but once it becomes the law, then we all abide by it and i think it is only fair that it is applied to everyone equllly, regardless of what their opinion might be. so i

the board doesn't have the board to unilaterally line item out or make amendments to the documents. if changes are what the board wants to achieve, then the appropriate approach would be to say to the department or to make a motion that the board will not approve various aspects of the project until the board is assured that other changes are made. those changes may be simple enough that the department, the agency and the project sponsor may be able to have side-bar and simply a degree to those. they could come into the file and be in the file and ready for you by the time you vote on this at second read. the changes could be of the nature that there's so integral to the project that they simply couldn't be approved at the board today or the next few weeks that they would have to go through the departmental process, be reevaluated, perhaps go through planning so there's a spectrum of what can be done here today. we are all here and with everyone familiar with the project and i think that what we'll do is take your proposed changes as they come and try to advise you as best we can to

we have been board -- joined by the board president. staffing and covering the meeting are charles [unintelligible] and bill dillman. are there any announcements, madam clerk? >> please turn off all cell phone devices. please provide a speaker card if you wish to speak. if you are submitting documents, please provide documents for -- copies for the committee. supervisor campos: thank you. we're going to start with item no. 2. >> item #2, charter amendment (first draft) to amend the charter of the cityfrancisco by amending section 16.23-10, to extend thepublic education enrichment fund 2016; amending sections 16.123-2 and 16.123-8, to make conforming changes; 16.123-3, to use any surplus returned from the library preservation fund baseline to disbursements under the pubic education enrichment library programs; amending section 16.123-5, to allow the to pay college tuition and fees for students attending city amending section 16.123-6, to authorize the youth plans submitted by the school five commission, amending section 16.123-8, to requ

that's the intent of the rules of this board. president chiu: my understanding is we can vote on the motion to divide. we can vote on the nondebatable motion. supervisor elsbernd: there's no motion. i've divided the file. there's no motion. the supervisor can unilaterally divide the file. there's no vote to be called. president chiu: so i believe that we can vote on the two halves of those files. if i could ask for the deputy city attorney, if i could clarify for us. >> the board rules provide for division of the question and that once a supervisor requests a question to be divided that the president shall order it divided. it best not -- the question of dividing is not voted on. the rule also says that when divided, each proposition shall then be considered and voted upon separately as if it had been offered alone. president chiu: so at this time, it would be in order to vote on each half of those questions. supervisor elsbernd: does the elections code now require a new publicly noticed hearing on the separate issues? >> it does

, city board of supervisors which the board of supervisors may give -- [inaudible] sole discretion. it should deem approved by the board have supervisors unless the board takes action to reject the proposed change within 60 days following the date that it was submitted to the board. we allow them to move forward completely. if plans substantially change, we ask for recourse of us at least having some response. it's that simple. and if phase one that occurred in this body several years ago does not teach us in order to understand just how empowered this government is, then we'll never learn. just so we know, we're only one of several counties statewide where the board of supervisors is not the redevelopment agency -- or does not have some proxy power. most counties in the state of california have development agency power and i understand that was a decision made many decades ago and i think it's potentially worth revisiting so we at least have, i think, some equalizing level of engagement that could be considered later on. mr. president, i can keep going on amendments now but i thoug

those are shared with the board of directors. because the information speaks to the rates and how those rates are derived and so forth, that information is done in closed session. but he would be willing to share those financial statements with us in the controller's office if there was a need based on that. he is in agreement that a financial review could be performed. it has not come up on our risk management protocols at this point. we do have a risk management analysis that is done. we have an intent and a goal to audit all the functions every six to seven years. there are non-profit contracts and other contracts on that list that have some other risk or some changes, or some unusual growth, or some issues with their boards of directors or the service delivery, that would rise to the top of the audit list. this one we have not heard either from the department or from clients or patients of the hmo that there are any issues. if the board of supervisors believes this is something we should do we can put it on our plan for this

of directors by the mayor and the board of supervisors. supervisor campos: thank you very much. this is an item i am proud to be co offering -- code-offering -- coauthoring with a number of my colleagues. we held extensive hearings of the rules committee and heard a lot of testimony from a number of people, but let me say this. if one thing is clear about the testimony, it is that there are many people who ride muni on a daily basis who are not happy with the service of the system as it currently is three dead -- currently is. the fact is reform of our system is something that has to happen, and those who might be opposed to this item in my view of our people who have to be satisfied with the state of affairs, but if you believe it needs to be reformed, i would respectfully ask you support this item. our transportation system is in need of repair. our transit services instead of reforming to the maximum extent possible. we heard the presentation earlier this year. they indicated even though it accounts for more than 40% of overtime in the

bottom to the july 20 at board of supervisors rules committee. -- welcome to the july 20 board of supervisors will committee. the clerk of the committee is linda wong. covering the meeting for sf tv argonne gardner and kenny alevia. >> please turn off all public -- cellphone and pagers. if you wish to present documents, please provide donna -- copies for the file. >> thank you very much. supervisor campos: please call item no. 1. >> item number one,motion ordering submitted to the voters an ordinance at annovember 2, 2010 establishing the community policing policyprogram and supplanting any city the november 2, 2010 election that bans lying or -- charter amendment (second draft) and county of san 8a.105, 8a.106, repealing section agency (mta) board of directors; allocate a share of property taxtransportation fund; require the if its budget is rejected by the board of of the mta inspector general; and, eliminate formulas governing operator wages andthese matters instead to collective bargaining. supervisor campos: if there is any member of the public that would like to speak, please come forwa

garcia, and it appears the board understands that the situation mr. hollis was in was he provided an extra $6.50 to his drivers per shift since they paid that much less an gate fees. that translated to $400 a month, the same amount m.t.a. wants to collect as a fine. fines between $16,000 and $45,000 would ensure that mr. hollis loses his 10-year-old business. second, m.t.a. has not shown why this wildly disproportionate penalty should now apply to mr. hollis. nothing like this amount has ever been levied against any taxi company, large or small, for any offense. third, and despite your admonition, s.f.m.t.a. has not addressed how its policies have changed to create a fair system of investigation and progressive discipline that would apply uniformly to all taxi companies. instead, the department has unfairly muddied the waters. it has been uncooperative, unprofessional, sensationalist, disrespectful and even contemptuous of the process in a mean-spirited campaign to put mr. hollis out of business. to recap, m.t.a. disrartded the direction to examine it

this is not reviewed by the board of supervisors and then picked by the board of supervisors in order to enforce that cooperation which has not happened before in these kind of split commission appointments. in this particular construct, the person would be jointly pecked by the board president and the mayor. i think that would work very well. it would answer some of the concerns that have been ongoing and chronic. no matter what the fate is of this particular charter amendment, no matter what the fate is of any of these charter amendments, i would have to say coming out of the budgetary discussions that i am reminded that there must be a reestablishment of a bright line that must be attached to a certain principle that the fundamental integrity of our legislative process cannot be auctioned off and cannot be traded as part of a larger negotiable strategy. being able to reconcile and rectify our budgetary process. that is a hard thing to do, especially when it is driven by those who hold purse strings. in this particular case, it is critical that we pull back and no matter how high of

unfortunately, i have noticed attending certain board meetings, not necessarily this board, but others, that people don't seem to understand the first amendment of the constitution, which basically allows you and guarantees your right to petition the government for redress of grievances and freedom of speech. from my position, what that means is whenever i appeal any thing or appear before a board or commission, i have a certain given amount of time. in this case, three minutes. that is invaluable. however i approach to address the board, what i choose to say is protected fully under the fact i am speaking to a government body and i am doing so under my rights of freedom of speech. i think every single person who appears before you should be treated with that same respect, as you would expect that same respect shown to you. interfering with someone in the middle of their speaking is inappropriate. if you feel a person is speaking on a matter they should not be speaking on, you should wait until the end and then inform them you feel they have violated rules. the reason i say that is bec

, ordinances and charter trump our board rules. the election code makes clear -- the election code overrides our board rules and the election code mandates that there be additional notice and an additional public hearing when there are separate ballot questions that have not received public notice. the ordinance, the code trumps the board rules. president chiu: supervisor david campos. supervisor campos: i will respectfully disagree with sean elsbernd and the statement by the city attorney's office. i think that the interpretation that has been provided is inconsistent with the letter of the spirit of the board rules and i think that the president is the ultimate person who decides what happens here and i think that consistent with the intent of the rules, i think that there should be a separate vote on each divided item but i don't think it's consistent with the rules to say that one supervisor can keep something from the ballot by simply dividing the file. i'm not saying you're making a motion. you're dividing it. but i don't thi

i think the board has been very supportive of muni and of transit funding and i think the board is goingto be involved in transit funding, has been involved in transit funding and this just makes it explicit which is better government than having a circumspective than it has been over the last several years. i think it is a special agency. if i can just finish sentence. the appointments are actually appropriate for m.t.a. i had misgivings about it but because it is a special agency i think it is appropriate at this forum. >> thank you. any other members of the public? sing to us, walter. >> thank you. >> ♪ you can cause a munirumpus but don't lose the compass but don't appoint some commissioners appoint some commissioners and get me home and drive me on the bus on time ♪ >> any other members of the public that wish to speak on this committee of a whole regarding the m.t.a. chatter amendment. seeing none, this hearing has been held in close. items 55 and 56 with r-in the hands of the board. >> thank you very much. mr. president and thank you to the members to have public who waited to spe

the board office is located, 1650 mission street. the meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgtv, cable channel 78. thank you for your attention. at this point, we will conduct our swearing in. if you intend to testify, please stand, raise your right hand and say "i do," after you have been sworn in or firm. -- or affirmed. do you solemnly swear that this will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> thank you. >> we have one housekeeping item this evening which has to do with item number6, p.o. number 10-058. this matter has been rescheduled to september 8th, 2010, and will not be heard this evening. notices have gone out and no action is needed by the board. we go to item number one, public comment. is there a member of the public of like to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? if so, please step forward. >> good afternoon, commissioners. getting a permit to is at a fraction of the cost of the organized activity. our firsthand experience is that they claim and prove that they

the addition was appealed.his board. the board overturned the denial and upheld the permit and allowed the permit to be issued. this is without any section 311 neighborhood notification. the direction of the board was to make sure that the project complied with the residential design guidelines. the project was approved in december of 2006. sometimes in 2007, apparently work beyond the scope of what was authorized by this board occurred, and a revision permit was submitted in april of 2007 to correct what had happened here. in january of 2008, a section 311 noives went out -- notice went out. this was the first notice neighbors had received of this project, which was already under construction. there was a discretionary request review filed. that was heard by the planning commission in january of 2009. and yes, as the appellant noteded, the department did have a recommendation to approve the project as it is, but the commission, which has the ultimate decision power on this, made the decision that it needed to have the p

the board could take advantage of that opportunity and to decide to move money elsewhere. it is a limited duration measure, 15 fiscal years the this project would happen. i think the housing prices is more than likely to let that happen four times as long as that. that is a criteria that i feel comfortable and it is safe to assume that affordable housing will continue in san francisco for at least the next 15 years. let me point to the release, and the relief valve of the majority of board members if the situation calls for it. i think in terms of unfinished business, which has been a theme for me, wheat delivered a long term and a sustainable revenue stream for affordable housing, not for lack of effort, but i would like to see us on do this. it and hopefully if the economy turns around and but its turnaround, we could part with some of the surplus to affordable housing and to build what we know how to do, that is decent and a new affordable housing where citizens can make a go at it in terms of their lives in the city. it is much more of a struggle. we appreciate your su

board. we are very proud, i know probably 90% of you hear from shirley. we want to thank you for your support of her and thank you to shirley for her support of our city and i think will be an out standing addition to h.r.c. which is an extraordinary commission with a great leader who is running that department who we are very proud of. immigrant rights. sonia and art. this is an interesting body and you are in the midst -- sonia, you are in trouble, a lot of work in front of you. art is familiar with a lot of this as well. it is a split body. 15 members. eight have to be immigrants. seems appropriate on immigrant rights. i'm very proud. sonia from ireland -- excuse me, russia. that will be self-evident when you hear from her -- who is an old friend and sonia is a small business woman and someone who is very engaged and engaging and has a lot of opinions and she will be amply expressing them on the immigrant rights commission. and art as well. art is an up and coming leader of the city and i really am honored that art is going to get involved in the polit

we are here to risk west that the board the 90 request because it -- that the board denied the request because we legally notified everyone. even if this board determines that the jury of the occasion was correct but -- could not have known about letter because of the notice situation, we still feel that it would be on sale -- unfair to grant the jurisdiction request because the appeal was not timely filed after there was notification of the existence of the letter or the store being planned. given the circumstances, it would be unfair if you grant the jurisdiction request because we think that there are other and more corporate forms for this to be considered, for example the planning commission. -- appropriate places for this to be considered. the planning commission has tried authority to discuss the appropriateness of land uses. also amendments to the planning code, if there's a decision or a letter of the termination or the definition of formula retail is not appropriate. turning to the record, as was indicated, the letter of the termination was issued on april 8th. at that point,

good afternoon, president peterson, members of the board. scott sanchez, planning department's staff. the department respectfully request the board denied this rehearing request. there is no new information presented this evening that is not available at the time of the previous hearing. also, the letter of determination holders, there is no manifest injustice. they have the right to go through and fulfill the use, at which they work properly entitled for. i respectfully suggest the discussion at a previous hearing and the decision was largely based upon the two issues of whether or not it was actually entitled properly in the first place. i think we thought it was not properly entitled and we did not have the permit and not unlawful mcd. the second issue, that they abandon the use by converting it and making significant efforts to convert it into another use. we believe the board properly heard that matter and we request you uphold the action and denied rehearing request. i'm available for any questions. thank you. president peterson: thank

there was a 2003 financial audit done and presented to the board of supervisors. i'm still wondering why there is still opposition on the board level to doing a review to see whether those recommendations are carried out. doing something like that, i think, is far more helpful to the poor and disabled in san francisco who depend on the hospital's services rather than doing it on an agency, according to my research, that has not really had any problems. i have not seen any reports lately saying that there were problems with that agency. for the record, i did speak with supervisor alioto-pier regarding an audit of general hospital back in 2007, and she politely refused to support that idea, so i agree with supervisor daly that maybe her thinking is a little off on this matter. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. there is a motion to amend this that has been moved without objection, and then we are going to move this forward to the full board without recommendations, without o

i caution you to think about the future and think about this measure, what it will do to future boards of supervisors in their ability to address in the city's future concern. supervisor avalos: just a question for the controller's office, it also includes an effort of baseline? and if we have a value for the effort, how much is that? i think it is starting with the allocations for this current fiscal year. >> to supervisor avalos, based on the statement, based on our analysis, the base line amount is $135.6 million. that would be the base line for the current fiscal year. >> do we have a sense of how that baseline may have changed over the years? i know every year there are many of these services that are identified in the baseline that get cut. a lot of them get restored. if we were to look at previous years, how is the baseline fluctuated? >> the baseline has fluctuated largely in those years where there have been some funds were the board and the mayor have chosen to appropriate those funds for housing, low income housing. the services affiliated with a lot of housing programs have

i have co-sponsored this measure and i think it's a good thing for the board to pursue. currently, a major portion of our jail population is comprised of individuals with serious mental illness and as the supervisor indicated, this is not the route that we want people to go through to access help. the reality is that being in jail exposes an individual to greater risks, deepening their illness or exposing them to behaviors or potential criminal behavior that they could take with them that only creates a more difficult cycle of homelessness and mental illness to break. when the measure came before us, i voted against it. i felt like it wasn't a meaningful tool. i didn't feel like it would add anything. i didn't feel like it would change anybody. i honestly believe that despite the doctor's reservations about this that san francisco could chart our own path in implementing this approach and utilizing these tools in our tool box and have a more meaningful impact and demonstrate to the public we recognize that we could do better. we can be better prepared to address the need

the board could move to say, if the appellant had ex-number of days, then the appellate board would not support this. if it was a failure to pay the fees -- >> or in this case, we would have to renotice the new owner. perfect. >> just for the record, i will make that payment today so that we do not drag this out. >> 15 days? >> that is what staff requested and this sound like a resolvable situation. that would be my motion. >> before we take a vote, does anyone want to say anything? inspector green? ok, sorry. >> that would be my motion to support staff recommendation that we pulled --upho uphold --y don't you read it to me. >> [inaudible] >> okay, great. that is the motion. >> second. do we need a roll-call vote? >> [roll call] the vote is unanimous. >> thank you. we can now move on to item d. this is public comment relating to the abatement appeals board. >> are there any public members that would like to say something to the abatement appeals board now? >> seeing none can i have a motion for adjournment? we are now adjourned. we will take a short recess and be back with the regular m

if you disagree, go to the board of supervisors -- i'm sorry, to the board of appeals. the reconsidered, that is quite an effort. i would like to thank the staff for reconsidering, and allowing us to have this opportunity to get a conditional use permit today. i am not going to talk about a lot of subjects. it is getting late. i think kevin has done an excellent job on this. we're very pleased to reach the agreement with the neighbor behind about no more smoking on the deck and closing the deck at earlier hours, 9:00 on weekdays. given the lateness, i have asked the speakers to speak very shortly. the first five may speak a minute or two. i have asked the others to keep it to less than one minute and not to repeat. i want to thank you all for letting us be here tonight. thank you. commissioner olague: is there anyone in the audience that is opposed to the project? i don't have any speaker cards that indicates any opposition. there were some letters that indicated such. do you all want to stand up and show your support, or do some of you have a burning desire to speak wh

i would say it would be an impossible task to get through the board of supervisors but for this board of building trades, and they have been a terrific part in our effort. with that, i would like to invite a representative from the developer of rincon tower 2, slated for this make inside right next to its outdoor power no the -- right next to this outdoor patio. >> thank you. i am a principal at emerald fund, we are san francisco housing developers. we acted as development consultants on 1 rincon. as many of you know, the developers of this tower behind us and hopefully that on over there are working hard to try to figure out a way to get the second tower built. this legislation that mayor newsom is going to sign today will help advance that, will help bring forward the time when the second tower can start and other residential projects can start. currently, development projects do not pencil. what this means is that to get construction started, you either have a pro forma as a project margin -- this project margin needs to be sufficient so that lenders land and equity investors inves