they would wash it over. that would be about as clean as they would get it. the same for their tools. a good doctor would have something similar to this, a wash basin. the soap they used was not anti-bacterial soap. it was basically homemade lye soap. it was better than nothing. they would wash up if they could and start to do their work, but think about it. there's no x-rays. there's nothing to render you unconscious for surgery. nothing to give you for pain, what we would say were really good painkillers. you take our mannequin here and we'll say he was out breaking horses and he got thrown off a horse and he landed wrong. the unfortunate thing is when he landed he broke his leg. his foot is pointed in the wrong direction, we know it's broken because it's pointed in the wrong direction. we load him up in the wagon. they bring him into the doctor's office, five, seven miles on a rough, bumpy road w him bouncing around in the back of the buck board. they get him to the doctor. the doctor looks at him and gives him his best medical opinion. he goes, "yes, it's

i would think that would be what governs. scott sanchez: in the rc-4 districts, and commercial uses are allowed in the nc-3 zoning district. we thought it was appropriate to have those senate requirements apply as well. that is what we are getting at with rationalizing those patrols. commissioner moore: there are signs in residential that have been advertising the sales of homes in many spaces, advertising building maintenance on signs which were never really approved. there are a bunch of nuisance signs in residential districts, particularly higher density districts. there is hardly any way to enforce them. scott sanchez: those that you mentioned about "for lease" and building maintenance are typically exempt any way. they would be allowed in all zoning districts throughout the city. that is not unique to residential districts. that is generally city-wide. as i understand it, you would like some better visualization of what the difference would be between the current signed controls and the proposed sign controls. commission

it would only have to come up perhaps 5 inches. so it would be four feet shorter down there. commissioner fung: that would put the split sidewalk in front of the two store fronts, 9 and 7 clement. roughly. >> well, actually, i was suggesting its still cover up 11 clement too. it is possible there could be some other compromise. i would have to look at it and discuss it with the department of public works and my client. commissioner fung: actually, you know, i am leaning toward asking you to compromise even further. to have some partial cut into the storefront. maybe not fully. i am willing to accept the compromise there in order to reduce the split sidewalk. president garcia: reduce or eliminate? commissioner fung: i do not think he will be able to eliminate it. president garcia: can there be a combination where a burden is borne within the building to get the walked down to what is accepted by the city. what is it? 5%? commissioner fung: 4.2%. president garcia: i would like to see a combination of you take pain -- you would be paying less. some of the pain would be absorbed

this would score very well. a lot of the community wanted to have their transit in both directions on one street and this would achieve that. also, what this would do, it would create an opportunity for a cycle tracker, a protected bicycle facility, whether it's two-way or one-way, right now, we're still defining it, because there are things that are new from a federal standard guideline that we haven't approved yet. what we're doing with folsom and howard, we're working with the city staff right now. all the city staff to help define this alternative a little bit more. this is the concept that came out from the project report. looking at ways we can include wider sidewalks, one-way cycle tracks so we're actually conforming to our existing comfort of innovation, let's put it that way. and then getting this ready for environmental clearance which is an opportunity we're looking at for these two corridors with the city staff. on folsom street on, transit services, this gave us an opportunity to work with the trans

it would not pump -- would not bump the other. the question of how we are accomplishing that. that is one way of addressing it, but i think there is another question i have which is being an additive discount is a significant one and i want to clarify what that means. if you are a be corp. and get a discount, you are a joint venture or whatever, the discount could go as high as 14% which is substantial. i want to get clarity on that because i'm not sure how that work. >> this part of the complexity of this legislation, but we specifically stripped out the active portion. there were two places where it could happen. we said there was an additive 4% and we have eliminated the latter category. it was confusing and with regard to the other piece, when you actually get the benefit discount, the 8% is now 4% and the language says you only get the 4% if as long as it doesn't adversely impact the award process for nonprofit bidders. >> what was the reason we came to 4%? >> there were a number of people who thought the preference was too h

that would reduce the cross slope, would it not? >> i think i understand what you are asking. even if we did not have an entrance to a 11 clement st., we would still need to have this worked sidewalk -- warped sidewalk with these slopes. the cross slope is going from the entrances of seven and nine clement, and you go down 4.2% from there and it drops down radically to 14% at nine clement and at 7 clement, i think it is 11% smoke. that is 4 feet from the sidewalk to the curb. commissioner fung: the slightly different alternative, conceptually it may work. at 7 clement you create a split sidewalk and design it so there is a -- there is something that addresses the elevation difference and then warp the sidewalk at the other doors. is that possible? >> i am not sure i follow that. only at seven clement, there would be a split level sidewalk? commissioner fung: that is correct. >> but it would also need to have that at 9 clement. once you start at the curb, you go up towards the building and that is where we are running into problems. we would have to make up about 5 inches from

we would say twice a year they would shed, and not necessarily all year long. but i would not dispute they may have dropped pods at other times. they do not necessarily shed all their pods. they might fall later on. president garcia: i think the worst thing about the trucks -- maybe some of hit the trunk, but i think it mostly has to do with a limb problem. >> i would say those lines are not substantially damaged. that is probably because they have made an effort to clear them. the damage we saw was not substantial. but i may have misunderstood that also trucks had hit trees down the block. if i am wrong about that, i stand corrected. president garcia: i know you are bureau of forestry, not really dpw. it seems aside from these other problems, this should be a no

and would provide a voucher that would, would continue to lose its value over time. so that wealthier and healthier seniors would be protected, but that those who were low-income seniors would find themselves at risk of having very little coverage. it would protect the profit in the health care industry. it would protect stockholders, and it would heap more shift -- shift more and more and more of the costs on to seniors. this is a choice that this budget and the house republicans have made. to really, santorum said is so well last night. to care government out by its roots and throw it out, and have government have nothing to do with protecting in this case seniors. and i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, ranking member and i have to say at the outset that the chairman of the committee said something not too long ago that i think seriously undermines his credibility in this entire document when he said that if he had a dollar for every political consultant that advised him not to introduce it he would pay off the deficit. i didn't realize there were that many

that would be fine with me. president garcia: i would move that we overturn the department and allow these trees to be removed, with the proviso that either three 24's, if there is enough room, replace these trees, or two 26's -- 36's. the final determination of what is best in terms of species and size rests with the department of public works and the bureau of urban forestry. >> a thank you said two 36 -- i think you said two 36's, but it was not certain that would be practical. president garcia: i know. i wanted to give ms. short the opportunity to agree or disagree with that. >> with the department of public works' discretion. could we leave open all three of those options? there could be two 24's? president garcia: yes. and i have to justify why the trees could be removed? is that the glare from the city attorney? the reason is they provide a hazard to the safety of one of the residence in terms of nuts dropped from the tree that make it difficult to work on the street. the present a hazard in terms of the

one of my favorite things was i would love when i would call him, and he would just pick up and startking and having a conversation, and then 10 minutes in he would be like, oh hold on, they just called me on stage. i am giving a speech. i would be like, what? >> tell me -- >> he was sitting in traffic is what i thought. >> i am guilty of this, and if he can hear me he will now know that there were times where i would put the phone down. i would get up and get something to drink and come back and he would be still going. i would just go -- i would go, andrew, recap. what are you trying to say? and then he would summarize everything. >> didn't you at least tell him where you left off? the other thing about andrew is something you guys were saying earlier, and it actually went from a story i read about what he was doing last night. it is so typical is when ever i would go to meet him somewhere i never walked in and found andrew alone. you are never like, meet me at the restaurant. you show up and he is just sitting there and waiting quietly. it was like, can these guys join us? >> exact

loi understand their plight, sot is something and now i said i would support, and i would like to show the weekend and not supported -- when i think we can support it. we have been to the other meetings were it has been cut, but if we can augment some kind of way where we can provide this service to our youth, that would be great, because i would hate to see them impacted because they cannot get to school or their parents cannot make a decision whether to feed them or by a muni pass, so i think we should take a harder look an offer something to the youth. it is something important and something we owe to the community. >> if i could add to that, i have made it very clear that i am not going to support any sane, -- support anything because we run of of money. but if i am going to start a program, i want us to be able to continue. if we are going to provide opportunities for youth to ride our system, and we need to sustain the program so it never goes away. i do not want it started and taken away because we do not have any more money. i want us to be able to provide rides for our youth.

gooit would be very

if you would really like to make my life miserable, you would actually agree with us. the responsibility, i have to come through. just a thought. we will move to agenda item number four, the task force work plan. last week's meeting, we had initial discussions around the final report. one of the major markers of the completion of our work, not only in addition to the mass and the redrawing of the district line by the deadline april 14, but the documentation about the process and how we arrive at the final maps. the draft outline that was afforded, i want to open up for discussions around landing on some benchmarks in some enter and deadlines. i know that the house member have also raised, in addition to the final report, how we developer process where both the report would be compiling the report that doesn't have the necessary wait until the final maps are drawn that we can do those simultaneously. i did get an update from mr. schreiber that he is charged with the topics of the first three topics, and production, criteria, and a process that he would have a draft to t

staff would like to know other changes that would be adopted by the planning commission. i can make hard copies available on request to members of the public. the first is an additional plan unit development modification being requested. in lieu of providing an additional full-size loading space, the sponsor would provide two spaces for smaller service vehicles with an underground garage. this type of substitution is allowed by the district and other more intense districts in the city. the other changes are additional languages that would clarify and emphasize the open spaces within the project will be resumed for publicly open space and pedestrian circulation and that jackson, and specifically will be delegated as right of way for these purposes. to conclude my presentation, i will begin my discussion of shadow issues regarding the park, and we sup will complete this discussion. planning code section 295 requires the planning commission in consultation with the recreation and park review any application. unless it is determined the shadow would not be significant or adve

would i do it? i don't know that i would. i find it very difficult to believe, i'm astonished, really, to hear peter say that. you're a reporter-- granted, you're an american-- but you're a reporter covering combat between north kosan, south kosan, and the ally. i'm a little bit at a loss to understand why because you're an american you would not have covered that story. when we go back to vietnam, there were all kinds of reporters who did indeed go in to hanoi. everybody wanted to go there. why would a reporter say, "i won't cover that because i'm unhappy at what's happening there"? don't you have a higher duty as an american citizen to do all that you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting the fact? no, you don't have the higher duty to-- no, no. you're a reporter. your job is to cover what is going on in that war. people know that americans are getting killed in that war. lord knows it's a hypothetical. i'd get on the horn with peter and say, "what do you mean--" i think he's rig

what would you suggest? >> i think what i would suggest and i don't want to be unresponsive is that you follow the argument through and figure out what in the core of the act falls and i guess my fallback is what is left is a hollowed out shell you could leave that standing. if you want a practical answer you could use off the cuff as a starting point and say title one and a handful of related provisions are very -- the bigger volume in the other hand. you could strike one and leave the other. i'm sorry. >> finish. >> at a certain point i think the better answer might be to say we have struck the heart of this act. let's give congress a clean slate. if it is so easy to have that other big volume get reenacted they can do it in a couple of days and it won't be a big deal. if it is not -- you can laugh at me if you want. i would rather suspect that it won't be easy. i would rather suspect that if you dug into that there would be something that was quite controversial in there and couldn't be passed quickly. >>

i would hate to say we can't -- i would hate to say we would close this office in order to open another office because they're really good people, i don't want to move them, i don't think the commission would want to move them around. but we would do it if you let us do it and again it's up to you, because we would need to do existing reprogramming and we would do it in existing resources. >> if you announce that you're going to open that office in january or february, i know you will have a lot of people that will want to go down. >> and i wasn't choosing atlanta because mr. graves isl. but i'm trying to figure out, if you need this, what can you do without? because the fact of the matter is that we just don't have any money. >> well, i would say between commissioner rush's testimony and from what we heard memrs of subcommittee we might find a way to do it from existing resources and to try to take some of the points we have heard today. >> indulge me for one more quick question. it has to do with all the lease space and it kinds of brings us up to date on the new jersey avenue locatio

what would you suggest? >> well, suggest, justice, that you sort of follow the argument through and figure out what in the core of the act falls, and then i guess my fallback if what's ndint a hollowed out shell you if you want a sort of practical answer i do think you could just use justice breyer's off the cuff as a start and say title 1 and a handful of related provisions that are very closely related to that are really the heart of the act, the -- >> you could strike one and leave the other. but at a certain point -- i'm sorry. >> in theish. >> at a certain point i think the better answer might be to say we've struck the heart of this act, let's just give congress a clean slate. if it's so easy to have that other big volume get re-enacted they can do it in a couple of days, it won't be a big deal. if it's not because it's -- but i mean you can laugh at me if you want. but the point is i'd rather suspect it won't be easy because i spupt if you dug into that there would be something that was quite controve

>> we would have to the hearing next week. the dr requester would have the ability to present its arguments, but it does have to present that case to the commission, and in order for changes to happen they would have to take discretionary review and recommend specific changes. what we are most concerned about are the windows on the facades of the face of public rights of way, so those are really what is at question here, but we have reviewed that and found it to be compliant with our guidelines. gooaxe is there a procedural problem in the of the planning department has issued a suspension? it would not be cured by any action from this board? >> that is correct. if you were to take action tonight government are suspension would still be in place. we would release that based on the outcome of next week. if the commission chooses not to take discretionary review, then we would release the suspension and they could move forward. guerdofax would that be appeala? >> that is correct. it would be the determination of the zoning admini

to me, it seems premature and i would -- i would want to know a little bit more about actual facts as they came to pass before granting a waiver because, to me, if we did this based on -- if we granted a waiver even limited to just this department or that department, it's still, to me, seems like it's based on hypothetical or speculation so to me that would be tantamount to saying this post-employment ban doesn't apply to a legislative aide or doesn't apply to a legislative aide who has worked for 10 months and i'm not sure that i'm prepared to do that, just to write it out, unless, you know, miss ing, a question for you is the actual -- is there a question as to whether this applies to legislative aides? is that an open question at all? >> the one-year ban on communications with a former department, as far as it applies to -- i mean, for legislative aides, it applies to communications with all city departments, all city commissions, all city employees, all city officers. that is in the law itself. with respect to most other employees of other departments, for instance, employee with

if the commission would be happy from -- happy to hear from them, i would be happy to get them? . >> i know there were several options and i thought we were going to use option 3 throughout the whole site, but if there are hot spots, why are we using a combination? if we're going to the residential, other than assuming someone will not grow something actually bring it to a standard where they can grow something on a small piece? i am wondering why we're doing the same thing throughout the site but not making necessary -- >> right. 'the first thing about hot spots, we did not identify a hot spot for the investigation we did, but that does mean there is not something out there on a smaller scale that we were looking that might be encountered during future development. so the risk management plan will address the potential that one might encounter unforeseen conditions during construction and will establish management measures and response actions to be taken in the event there is a hot spot and something identified, potentially an unknown underground storage tanks or concentrated

i don't know if you would like to begin with a presentation from them or if you would like to take that during public comment? president adams: we can take it. >> ok. we have a representative, allen lowe. >> good evening, commission e-s allen lowe from the law firm of nixon and peabodyy, attorney for of the owners of 555 9th street. the prong is about 150 square foot retail center. it has tenants ranging from bed bath and beyond. nordstrom's rack, trader joes, peer one imports and a wells fargo a.t.m. as well as publico urban tacoria. they are formal retail tenants who have been there over 10 years. it has produced many dollars in sales revenues and employs over 400 people. it has been existing as i said over 10 years, well before the formula retail legislation and well before the eastern districts. what this legislation is really intended to do is just ratify what currently exists. there is no proposed change in use. there is no proposed alteration to any aspect of the center. it's just to keep what currently exists at the site. there has been some concern that this is really designed

that would give me the sunlight the roof rail would cut out. this is a north facing back, so sunlight is very important. the deckhouse right now blocks a big part of the sunlight we get on the deck. we are really concerned about adding more features that would block the sun. i think that is asolution. it does not really reduce the size of their deck much, and it is cheaper than reconfiguring it at the location it was, because that is within a 5 foot fire zone and would have to be safety glass. second concern involves a skylight on the south side. that a concerned their privacy is disturbed. the bedroom is right there at the top of the third floor, right there in their building. the roof deck -- people on the roof deck can look at the dressing room. the bedroom is on one side. there is a bathroom there. they are concerned about privacy. the plan shows the barbecue up against the light will. they are not sure they want to smell the barbecue sauce and so forth while they are in their house. that will also affect anybody else on that. it is going t

that would go away. those dollars, that cost, would then be shifted back to seniors. is that correct? >> assumptions are the savings from affordable care act in the medicare area should not have gone to expansions in other entightmetlement programs. >> that's the same program. >> devoted to the savings in medicare should not use subsidies in medicaid and so forth. they should be devoted to medicare and deficit reducts. the budget assumes the expansions in the affordable care act are repealed. how that is implemented beyond that will be up to the ways and means and energy and commerce committees. >> they can decide they will find money elsewhere in the budget that would meet the additional f coverage for medicare country, three very specific expansions as you call it under medicare. one was that the donut hole was going to be os real benefits. additional expansion as you call them benefits for, from, prescription drug coverage. they no longer have to pay the 20% co-pay for preventative and that you consider an expansion and goes away. the attention to primary care, pat

she would have to do in the context of a public hearing. >> it would come back to this board and we would discuss with the staff of the entertainment commission with the applicant and our folks and we report back to president garcia and the board and you can take a boat. >> she can take it to her board and gets it codified or something that her board is willing to go along with with that kind of settlement agreements put in place. there would be more process behind this. everything is clear on what would take place? >> some of the terms or to ask the entertainment commission to hold a hearing, that could be something that she could take back to her commission. anything affecting this person has to be decided by this body. >> it would be. you would act and we would discuss with the entertainment commission, with the property owner and we would take all steps necessary and it could do it that way. you would retain jurisdiction on the appeal and we would settle within two weeks. >> if we vote up or down to overturn this permit. it is in the interest of the permit holder for us to continue an

i would expect the owner who would always be a neighbor, the d.r. requestor will always be a neighbor, to work it out with each other. if the architect was in the week before, -- in the way before, this is the moment to encourage them to take another look and come to a mutually softened position on the subject. >> it can require the -- you can require the rubber members and that would encourage the private sponsor and the d.r. requestor to work together to address the sheer wall and light and being able to see this guy but that is -- the sky but that is not part of the motion. on the motion. thank you. the motion passes. you're now on item 13. >> good afternoon. this proposal is for revision to previously approved permit application to reduce the height of the rich of the gabled roof by approximately 6.5 inches. it will not be visible from behind an existing front parapet and to read -- revise the framing. no other enlargement of the building will occur. this property is located in the rh2 district. residential area. the original permit it -- dates

>> well, i think it would depend little bit on how would was formulated, but my concern would be -- the constitutional concern would be that it would just be a disguised in permissible direct tax. and i do think -- i don't want to suggest we get to the taxing power to soon, but i do think it is worth a realizing that the taxing power is limited in the ability to impose direct taxes. and one thing i think the framers would clearly identified as a direct tax attacks on not having something. i mean, of the framing generation was divided over whether a tax on carriages was a direct tax are not. hamilton thought it was an indirect tax, madison thought was a direct tax. i have little doubt that both would agree that a tax on not having a carriage would clearly have been a direct tax. i also think it would have thought it clearly wasn't a valid regulation of the market in carriages. and i know, if you look at help in against the united states -- >> let me ask the -- can i go back for a step, because i don't want to get into a discussion of whether this is a good bill would not. some people thi

i would ask myself if i would get caught. in california, half of the people who commit murder are not caught. we need to catch the people committing murder. this is what she means when punishment must be firm, if people get away with murder, they learn that they can and the community learns that they can. this is really the fundamental problem. we can do much better job if we were actually to replace the death penalty to life without parole and invest the money saved in solving homicides. every victim's family should have some justice. >> i wanted to ask you to perhaps tell the audience about the controversy related to the death qualified jury. many people did not realize that when we select a jury for the death penalty case, this is comprised of different members of the city. >> people look to california as we continue to send a lot of people to death row every year, with the highest number of new death sentences. people look at the state and they see how many people in california are moving away from the death penalty, who

i would like to say, i pointed out the other things would advance congress' goal. the point here is that the package of three things would be contrary, would run contrary to congress' goal if you took out minimum coverage provision and here's why, and this is reflected in the findings. if you take out minimum coverage but leave in the guaranteed issue in community rating you will make matters worse. rates will go up and people will be -- there will you fewer people covered in the individual market. >> if that is true, what is the difference between guaranteed issue and community rating provisions on the one hand and other provisions that increase cost substantially for insurance companies? for example, the tax on high-cost health plans, which the economists in the brief said will cost $217 billion over ten years? >> those are -- what congress -- congress did not think of those things as balancing insurance companies. insurance companies are participants in the market for medicaid and other things. >> you're saying we have -- we have the expertise to make the inquir

italians would call their noodle pasta, and china meese would cal it a noodle. it is very distinct. this is easy for me to decide the department got it wrong. >> two points. i would have agreed, but i was curious in asking about a photo, because it would have shown me what kind of advertisement would be on there. the question has been brought up now. this is the sale of products that are not consumable a. it really appears this is under a different ordinance verses the food cart ordinance. at this point it does not appear unless i could see further evidence on how she intends to market this, why would uphold the department. >> i guess what concerns me is this is a nightmarish story, and we have people, the nightmare was not created about fisherman's wharf. i would not accused dpw of having created a nightmare. this is a new ordinance, but it seems as though no one would suggest this. the appellant thought she fully describe the product she was going to sell. i think it is problematical. i do not think what she is selling is edible food. it seems as though she may require a permit fr

it would be within -- the discussion would be within this framework. we would talk about the objectives of disposition of land, how it meets the three criteria. and this overall framework. it helps from our future discussions as well. -- frame our future discussions as well. >> could i have a motion? >> so moved. seconded. >> we do have some public comment. mr. caen. >> good afternoon. i want to commend and thank you all for dressing this issue. the framework is something that is helpful to the public. if it is confusing on these properties and to you is confusing to us. this is helpful in understanding the direction of this. thank you for addressing the san francisco reservoir. removing their roof is a positive step and is welcomed by the community. i did want to mention a couple of things. the framework could use classification in trying to categorize all these properties, the resolution and the body of the document rex them into categories. number one is sfpuc land. everything under sfpuc jurisdiction. and everything within the disposition of sfpuc

these would be substantive amendments and the item would be to be continued. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? we have one card and if there is anyone else who like to speak, please come forward. >> i am with the universal paragon corp., the developer of the project. we are very happy to hear about the amendments that have been proposed today. the fee would have added additional financial burden on a project that is no longer having access to the redevelopment funds which were eliminated earlier this month. we support the amendment and look forward to working with the city on funds for the project and letting the public benefit with this project to be earlier -- to be realized earlier rather than later. supervisor mar: next speaker. >> which districts are you planning to expand to? >> south of market. it just commercial, 25,000 square feet. >> district 10 would not be included? >> district 10 would not be included. supervisor mar: is there anyone else who would like to speak? seeing none , public co

would you be able to set that back? would you be able to set that back? i do not know if we can do that. they need the space for egress. commissioner fung: we can ask the building department. i am not sure i agree with her interpretation, to see that as the required egress. >> i did hear that comment. the the 6 inches, when we are talking clear with -- 36 inches seems narrow. 36 inches, in this case, is usually ok. that is from what i remember. i would go between the post and the corner wall. it looks like it has got plenty of room, if that is what we are talking about. commissioner fung: if the door shifts, it probably improves that. >> we do not need the double leaf. i do see one other issue with regards to it. the door swings over the step. that would not be allowed. there some issues there that i could talk to the architect about later. commissioner fung: the deck will have a landing? >> it will need one. that is right. president garcia: please do not do that. if you need to address the board or mr. duffy -- >> i can speak to the architect myself. i j

have to unless there was a political solution to on force assad off, it would be -- we would have to organize a force and that would take many, many months, is that a -- >> that is the -- that's the current state of on our thinking about how we may do this. if you think of two recent experiences, libya we had tribal forces on the east and west collapsing on the center essentially, we had the northern alliance center. there's no geographic density of opposition to collapse anywhere, they are all intermingled and it's 70% sunni and 30% other groups and those three have been in, you know, the alawites have been in control and protect today the others, on so there's that -- and protected the oth s others. >> you discussed briefly withayn syri syria, i have a article, the title is russia boosts arms sales to syria despite world pressure, i would and that is made part of the record. >> it rerd. i'm grateful to you for that. it suggests that russia is continuing to supply a variety of weapons to syria, through an arms exporter by the name of rosoboron export. and could you, i guess, general

what the effect would be if we would hear this? and the board of supervisors were to hear it also? if the city attorney determines it was timely, what would happen to our process? >> if the city attorney determines it is timely and the board of supervisors here is the appeal and decides the underlying and our mental evaluation is faulty, then any decision that this board makes would be moot. president garcia: not mooted by the board of supervisors taking jurisdiction, only if there were to decide that the cat x is invalid. >> correct. president garcia: thank you. any comments? >> i would be inclined to hear the matter. i do not think we need to wait. i would be inclined to hear the case. commissioner hurtado: i would be inclined to continue it. commissioner fung: perhaps i am too much a traditionalist. this board has always preferred when there was a potential cat x appeal. president garcia: i guess i could make a difference. we need three votes in order to continue. my feeling is that, i know it is not a city policy, but the cat x

would a country do that. north korea was nearing completion of a plutonium production reactor in syria. the consequences, as best i know, for that behavior was that israelis executed their version of a nonproliferation policy. [laughter] >> but nothing that i know of and i may not know it because i was not in government still not in government. was said or done to north korea for that and i think that was a mistake. >> and i think the message needs to go that that is a principled concern of ours and the rest of the international community and it's a nonacceptable act. so i'd put that out there. and finally, final point and then i'll go to iran, i believe having noted that i think it is a good thing that the american administration is prepared to engage in these talks even in an election season. election seasons have also been called a silly season in the united states and there's a reason for that. some of you may have noticed. and so i hope that we can avoid, though, i don't expect necessarily to avoid refer

i would find my brother, i would comfort him, i would share his fate. when she saw the sister's grief, when anana saw the grief of gestana, she spoke to him gently. dimusi is no more. i would take you to him, but i do not know the place. then a fly appeared. the holy fly circled the air above anana's head and spoke, if i tell you where dimusi is, what are you give me? anana said, if you tell me, i will let you frequent the beer houses and taverns. i will let you dwell among the talk of the wise ones. i will let you dwell among the songs of the minstrals. the fly spoke. lift your eyes to the edges of the steppe. lift your eyes to arali. there you will find gestanana's brother. there you will find the shepherd, dimusi. anana and gestanana went to the steppe. they found dimusi weeping. anana took his and and said, you will go to the underworld for half of the year. your sister, since she asked, will go the other half. on the day gestanana is called, that day you will be set free. anana set dimusi's hand in the and of the holy, great is your renoun, holy ar

there is a creek, and it would be replaced by a very large and expensive mansions and would also kick of a working-class people who live at 89 belgrade've. i am opposed to this project. >> thank you. if i have called your name. >> good evening, commissioners. i hope you get the idea. a live 114aat 114 belgrave ave, and i hope you support our appeal. upoi believe we could impress un you how you meet this area is. i would like to show you some pictures. you can see how very necessary is -- how varied this area is. this is not an ordinary street. this is a picture of the two proposed project. the project sponsor put these up for us, and we appreciate it. it shows the massing that will ocurcur and how a significant amount of green space will be taken away. here is another picture showing the frontage of the building. it does not show the reader elevation, -- rear elevation, but it does indicate how much will be lost forever. i would like to talk about how belgrave has been unusual. in many ways it has been frozen in time. because of the unique cacography, it has retained its green, specio

it would break our psyche to think we would went to a business notify a black person.then something is going on. we are forced no way a black person should own a quality business. it has gotten so bad week expect the role to support hong white businesses. we cannot conceive of the reality to see a black car restorer, dry cleaners. we cannot conceive of the possibility. >> host: how do interrupt that thinking? not just african-americans hispanic americans also to push the adn terms of supporting the black owned businesses in the community. >> guest: we think if we focus what is going on in the community those statistics, the wealth $1 trillion how little goes back and directly correlated to the social crisis. to bring those role models back. with the correlation between black businesses and black jobs, role models in the community come of funding schools, converting tax burdens those are deals that everyone can get behind. when i talk about the experiment buying black, no different than by eight american not because we hate mexico or canada. the said that because we are

it would max out at 2 to 1, and there would be no match above the cap. while it is impossible to predict how many candidates will run, i think intuitively this scheme as we are amending it will result in fewer public dollars spent on public financing. there are two amendments i am going to propose today. one is to eliminate the increase to the cap for the mayoral race, although the case has been made to increase the super fossorial -- supervisorial cap. i am willing to live with $250,000. for the mayoral cap, i do not think the case has been made for the increase, based on past track record. we would remove that increase. we would recalculate the mayoral match to max out at the 2 to 1. it is detailed in the amendment that has been distributed to everyone. in addition, an issue that i have raised repeatedly, and raised in the budget season last year, was my belief that we are systematically over funding the public financing fund, and effectively hoarding money there and depriving the general fund of money we could use for road resurfacing, muni, police ac

we would have to rerotate the furloughs to lessen the impact. we would have to repore tiez. i it would set us back to where we were many years ago and the impact of that sequestration would be felt for many years in the future. >> i have a whole set of questions related to cyber, which i will defer to our classified meeting. but in terms of accountability, i want to ask you about sentinel, keeping it within a budgetary framework. as you know, we've been at the sentinel program, which was initiate add long time ago to provide the fbi with essentially virtual case files to make them more effective, more productive in the old lingo of post-9/11, connect the dots. could you tell us are we getting sentinel connected while we're trying to figure out how to connect the dots? >> well, as you are aware, congress -- the contract was entered into a number of years ago. we had phase one that was produced. phase 2 in our -- from our prospective was not adequate, so we restructured the contrast to bring inhouse much of the software development. we had anticipated that we hopefully would b

the source would be the event authority reimbursing us, or it would be deport revenue capacity supportingt $2 million, so there will be a source. he is just because the negotiations are continuing, and we're going to look for a revised plan. we are not certain of the sources. chair chu: in terms of the balance of the 7.2, with a 3.4, that is still available in the fund balance, and you are saying this is necessary at this moment in terms of cash flow issues. >> yes, what we issued in 2010. chair chu: ok, and then in terms of the remaining balance, the over $5 million, do you have any update on this? i know you were in agreement with a budget analyst to come back with a report to provide us with information about how they will get to balance. do you have an update at this moment? >> at this moment, there is actually somewhat in flux. we have been looking at a potential source, so we are continuing to explore that as source for the phase two project. i am actually going to flip to a slide that shows the different ways that we are looking to finance this, the 6.9 at this point, although it h