findings that the commission made and the procedure that the commission followed. i am proposing to the commissioners that mr. hemblig play that role. i think he is clearly a neutral in this. he has been here for all of it. he drafted large parts of this order and has in large part been following and closely tied to what has been going on here. any other views from my fellow commissioners? yes, mr. wagner? >> i also have some suggested changes to the finding of fact and recommendations. i can address that first. >> sure. >> in general i object to the overall language of the draft findings. i think that the document is very one-sided and doesn't mention for example that the commission unanimously rejected many, if not all of the contested factual allegations made by the mayor. for example, as to misuse of guns as to dissuasion and to page 4 where it says the commission denied the sheriff's request for subpoenas as to collateral issues and describe those issues and the issue was whether or not the major commited perjury and that is why we requested those subpoenas. t

[applause] a very important commission, our immigrant rights commission, who is constantly challenged by the need to reform our immigration policies, but to make sure that when people try to vote this year that they will not be intimidated. we've got to work harder for the rest of the country. we can show the way here. i know the leadership will come from sonia. thank you for stepping up. our state has presented, and our country has presented, a challenge to us for our seniors and the need for long-term care. we're going to be working closely with the long term care coordinating council. thank you, tracy. [applause] thank you for stepping up. and for teaching me how to pronounce your name. our mta newest member to the board of directors and one that i know will be of great value to us as we are challenged with everybody being able to enjoy all the services our mta has. thank you, christina, for stepping up. [applause] as we move into the times when we want more people to come in, we want development to create jobs, we need to make sure we appropriately plan all areas of the city. i wa

what the commission did. he is not going to be the one to tell the board what they should do, i gather. >> is he providing legal advice to the board. he is acting as the board's lawyer, as well as the commission's lawyer. i don't know if that contradicts your statement. he is playing the same role for the board that he played for us. >> why is that? >> because that is what i was asked to do, to provide outside advice both to this commission and the board of supervisors on the process. >> if mr. hemblig is only planning on discussing process questions before the board, then we would withdraw the objection. but my understanding is that mr. hemblig or whoever is going to be representing the commission is -- i would presume -- going to be advocating for the commission's position. >> i guess that was not my understanding. my understanding is that we're going to have a different procedure than is typically occurs at the board. it would be a shorter presentation that would provide for the board what we did, timeline

i am new to this commission. what i know i get from newspapers or reports from people who are watching videos of things that happened. i am concerned because i think that the -- any actions you might contemplate today might should be held off because of the -- i have to jump back to the situation that i think preceded the dismissal of the sunshine task force members. i believe they were dismissed because they criticized the members of the board who were responsible for an action that involved a friend of mine, cathy link. when she spoke out of order at the relevant board of supervisors meeting. she was forcibly removed unjustifiably. she was held out -- she then came back in the room to get her backpack. but that's when she had her arm twisted behind her back. forced out of room. handcuffed and held downstairs here for half an hour. and had the good fortune of being spoken for chair hennessey's assistant. who i can't think of their name now, otherwise would be taken downtown. the persons in charge of that meeting

for consideration at future commission meetings. >> commission chan, i think there's an item we both discussed that we'd like to add chngeddle >> commissioner chan: i wanted to defer to commissioner turman to explain. >> commissioner turman: yes. at the i think two commission meetings ago we discussed -- sorry, the last commission meeting, we discussed firearms review board procedure, and we are currently looking at the dgo's that accompany that particular procedure, as well as we've had some discussion about the commissioners' role in it as well. and in understanding and trying to ferret out exactly the problems we think it would be helpful to have a presentation, not just to the commission but for the public to hear about exactly how that process works. sort of a tutorial on when that process is initiated, and for what reasons, and how the end result. so we'd like to schedule that. we're hopeful we can do it on -- i think october 17, that that time slot is available. and from there, it is not -- >> october 17, commissioner, will be in the district, the community meeting. >> october

commission that it's under the commission's jurisdiction, this would be the time for it. i understand we do have a comment from mr. lee. >> hi, my name is tony lee, i am speaking on behalf of my parents, their property owner to market street, at 16th street. they had a tenant that apparently wasn't paying their water bill, and i guess out of policy, the sfpuc sends a notice of any kind, which is a lien notice five months after bills have already incurred. so the first time that a property owner, my parent's english is very limited. i helped them, so the first time my parents even heard there was a problem was five months on or after usage already occurred. so, we know after my parents heard, they started the eviction process. so 11 months later, my parents who didn't use a drop of the water is having to pay $9,000 plus, so, i understand the concept of making the property owner pay for things, but the question that i have is, why does a notice have to be sent out only five months later? and so i ask this question, i have written a bunch of letters. the first was support to

i think the makeup of this commission is a big part of it. i see commissioner moran who is the president of the commission right now. one of the things that is hard to do sometimes in this role is to admit when you make a mistake. i remember when commissioner moran was first nominated and i voted against his nomination, and i do think that was a mistake. and i think that it's important to recognize the good work that people do. and i think that keeping this team together is really important. but it's not just a commission. i think it's also the staff. and i see that we have our soon-to-be general manager here. and i think that some of the issues that have been raised around outreach to certain communities, diverse communities, i can't think of someone who will do a better job on that than mr. kellie. but i also think that it's not just keeping this commission, but also the talent that ed harrington has been able to build over the years, whether it's the cfo, people like juliet ellis -- fox, you name it. so long as those people continue in tho

emblig present the commission's viewpoint. my view is that the safer, more conservative route would be to have someone other than mr. emblig do it, but we don't believe there is an actual conflict if he does. >> okay. thank you. mr. emblig? >> i just want to make one clarification for the record. i was not retained by the city attorney's office. i have two retention agreements, one with the ethics commission, one with the board of supervisors, both agreements were approved in public sessions by the respective commission and the board. both agreements did point out that i would be advising both the commission and the board. so this is not something new. this has been out there since the very beginning, even before the beginning of these proceedings. >> my concern with mr. sancroix doing the presentation is that he wasn't here for a lot of the hearings. he has many responsibilities, and in light of all of the resources devoted to this effort, could not attend every session. nor do i think he has really been reviewing the transcr

- suspension the commission thinks is appropriate, whether the commission would prefer the chief use of another tool, like reassignment, as part of the discipline. this is an unusual recommendation, but this is an unusual case. the commissioners have any questions, i would be happy will to try to answer them. vice president marshall: where is he assigned? >> he is at southern station. vice president marshall: what station? i am sorry. >> southern station. if i recall, he has a particular specialty at sunland station, having to do with retail theft, if i recall. all investigations relating to retail theft out of southern station, which is a significant number, since it includes the southern side of market street. vice president marshall: for me, with options 3, what other -- i heard sort of general things. but are there any specifics? i heard retraining. chief suhr: my intention would be to give him the maximum i could give, which would be 10 days. his assignment would remain southern station. whatever my final decision would be, i would like to look at a couple of conditions that cou

and have you attended an entertainment commission meeting? >> no. >> chair kim: thank you. >> you're welcome. >> chair kim: i'm sorry, supervisor wiener, did you have a question? >> supervisor wiener: i will speak later on. >> chair kim: next we have mario grillo and naomi akers. >> i am a nativ nate sunset dis. i am not really in the health area but i was, you know, asked to come. so i do -- i'm interested in the position of being an entertainment commissioner. i have some ideas for mid-market, and some ideas about -- i'm a professional musician, so i have ideas about the live music scene, and how to move on from the old standard of the 60's count. so i do have a lot of interest here. i've been who are all my life except when i was in the military, in the navy. i do have supervisory experience there. right now i'm working in the city and i'm vested in the city. i'm a preschool teacher and a professional musician. i've been here a long time. i have a lot of experience, public admin experience -- not a lot, but i've -- i'm vested in the city a

the speaker shall address to the commission as a whole and not to individual commission. under the police commission rules of order during the public comment, commissioners are not to respond to the public or make a right of response. the police and personnel should refrain from entering into discussions during the public comment. please limit your comment to three minutes. >> public comments? >> san francisco, open government. on the overhead, i sent you the copy of the constitution of the united states which i feels compels to bring this to a commission meeting. members of the public who are listening, this is a copy of the current agenda and as you see, there it says as most city agendas do, know your rights under the sunshine ordinance. what we have here is an order of determination, dated march 1, 2011 against the police commission. and i will read it in part. findings of fact (inaudible) law, judging from the testimony and evidence presented (inaudible) comments to the commission constituted criticism protected by 67-15 d. and the commission abridged that in violati

perhaps the entertainment commission costs -- commission's, the amount of sound that would allow to be transmitted to adjacent buildings may be higher than what could be tolerated in this case. vice president wu: i wanted to confirm with staff whether it is the entertainment commission or its is dph that regulates the noise. >> my understanding is that the entertainment commission will be hearing about this. we did add that consistent number 11 that the building be adequately soundproofed and that any noise meets the san francisco noise ordinance. commissioner wu: ok, thank you. commissioner moore: the basic elements of agreement should be in place and spelled out. what surprises me is that this letter of concern is written today. i would assume, if staff would have been involved in this at an appropriate time, it would not be in front of us today. it surprises me, while i fully see the support of the community at large, the technical detail is part of what we need to be sure of. otherwise, those issues which are not addressed. i would have to ask the attorney as to whether we could cr

rather the commission and that is where i ended?> finds that the evidence contained in miss lopez' video was more credible. >> thank you. >> i think my concern with a statement like that is its breadth. where sort of in one sentence making some broad statements about a lot of testimony. not sure that there w the sheriff and miss lopez said about the incident were not credible. and moreover, that is not really a finding of fact. what i think we have here are facts, things that we say happened, that we agreed happened. rather than weighing the credibility of one witness over the other. i think the vagueness of this is problematic to me. i would not for that. welcome to views of other commissioners. >> i agree with commissioner renne. i actually think we had quite a bit of discussion about the video, and i think it is important to understanding our recommendation or at least the recommendation of the majority. i do think it's important to understand why we found what we found and why we found it to be official misconduct and that was a

commission president fong, here. commission wu, here.ommissioner ante, here, commissioner moore, here. commissioner sugaya, here. >> first are items considered proposed for continuous, item 1 proposed for september 20. item 2 at 2750 jackson street request for conditional use authorization is poapped for continuous to september 20, 2012. item 3, case 2012822c for 1863 post street request for conditional use authorization is proposed to continuous to october 25. your calendar states september 20. staff has advised october 25 is the new proposal date. item 4, case no. 2012.08 did 2, request for descreption review is proposed for continuance to october 25, 2012. further on your calendars, commissioner, under your regular calendar, item 13 for case 20111050dd at 2807 is being proposed to continuous for september 20 in order to allow for a settlement. and that is i have. >> president fong: is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue items 1,

but it was my understanding that the commission -- commissioner walker was the president of the commission at the time. she obtained authority from the bic. i don't know if it was formal or it was just the consensus, that she would take the helm in terms of a director search. she worked with i believe three other department heads within the city, the director of public works, the chief administrative officer, and i believe the general manager of the puc. >> controller. >> yes, it was the same person. >> same person, different position, yes. >> so, president walker worked with those three city staff to develop the protocols, the search process. i think you hired or worked with a search firm. sent out solicitations, received qualifications and applications from candidates. and then i believe that group narrowed the field down to half a dozen potential candidates. at that point the building inspection commission met in closed session and interviewed each of the candidates from this narrowed field. the interviews were held off-site. its was properly noticed in accordance with all the various r