impressed with both applicants. with respect to the application of miss fransiz, i actually think that the work that she has done with fair trade u.s.a. where she led in the development of standards around fair trade and making sure that you have -- that you ensure that you're buying purchases from companies that are not exploiting workers, to me that's the kind of background that you want and not just the recent work there but also with other companies so i think it's precisely the kind of individual that you want to see working on these issues, and with respect to mr. maroquin, i think that his presentation speaks for itself. i'm more proud to see that we have that level of caliber in our community and that we have someone who is interested in these issues. the fact that nickey is here speaks highly of him and it means that you're extremely highly recommended and, you know, i say this completely objectively. i'm not surprised that two amazing candidates have this connection to the mission district. makes sense tha

we will keep this application -- we will see this application return in about 30 days, assuming there is no d.r. requestor. >> move to continue. >> second. brecht's same house, -- >> same house, call? >> do we need public comment? >> yes, you do. sorry. gregg's any public comment? -- >> any public comment? seeing none, will continue. >> same house, same call. >> got it. item number d, england, james, a goldstar bar, 1520 california, place of entertainment permit. >> this has a whole different back story that is not really important other than to tell you that this was an application posted and then a c requirements -- a cu requirement was unearthed. at this time, the applicant has been notified that the cu requirement has been in place. this is also an application for a billiard establishment. we are asking the commission to continue the place of entertainment permit to the call of the chair. it will reappear if the applicant does see you for entertainment. and you will see the billiard parlors -- parlor come back to you at the next meeting in two weeks. >> any public comment? seeing

10 new applicants. we made the decision to extend the application time frame through the end of march, and it read you again some of our outreach, which resulted in additionally -- an additional five applicants. and we are bringing to you today list of applicants. five would be returning candidates, who all have one term of service on the cac. one of them is one of our inaugural members of the cac. the other of four have a single term of service. and we have three new applicants to the cac. i can answer any questions you may have. >> we have a question from director ortiz. >> i see it is not required to put down ethnicity. would you say that it is a very representative -- and i know it is difficult to try to attract applicants. >> it is a challenge. of the 15 applicants that we received, i believe all of them did indicate their ethnicity. there would be 10 caucasian applicants, three hispanic, one african-american, and one who indicated mixed ethnicity. >> i have some comments. first, thank you for spen

take about 40 hours to process these applications. we think that number will be significantly reduced by having a standard based contract in these established deadlines that will hopefully provide more predictability for homeowners on when they need to get all the materials in place. we do acknowledge that a lot of the information in our current application needs to be augmented to make this more clear to property owners so they know exactly what they're getting into and exactly what the timelines our milestones will be in relation to the program. we have already met with the assessor's office a couple times and we are working on collaborating in providing better application and outreach materials once this legislation moves forward. that concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon. i did not plan to talk about this, but i had personal experience with this since i drafted the first version of the mills act ordinance with the lat

i was very impressed with the application. he is already serving on their commission on aging advisory council as well. we are looking forward to seeing him at the next rules committee. we do have a special rules committee meeting next thursday. we have a motion to continue. we can do that without opposition. thank you. >> item #2, hearing to consider appointing five members, up four terms to be determined, to the balboa park station community advisory committee. supervisor kim: i know we do have four of the five applicants here today. i will be calling you in the order that you are listed on the agenda. i apologize if i did not get your name correct. the first name is robert muehlbauer. >> honorable members of the rules committee. i'm robert. i live in the ingleside neighborhood with my wife and two daughters. i've lived in san francisco since 1974, graduated from san francisco statement have a degree in urban studies and social work vocation. i've been a homeowner since 1979 in inglewood. my public career has spanned 30 year

attached to the mills act application. it is currently $9,000. it is to the tune of $20,000 for residential property. i was at the historic preservation commission yesterday. there is a potential -- a proposed historic district that is moving forward in my district north of the boros part. -- dubose palk -- park. one of the things that they say is bad -- is that if you subject ourselves to additional scrutiny, we will get additional taxes. but we know that is illusory because there is very little mills act accessibility in san francisco. we are trying to make it real. so that when people decide whether they want to support creation of an historic district or landmark a building, they will actually know that they can have a access to the mills act if appropriate. i will leave the details to mr. fry, but i would be honored to have support for europe -- your support for the legislation. i worked very closely with staff. they have proposed some amendments in a letter. we're evaluating those. they seem like they're probably find. but we will need time

currently they reside in the application. if a property exceeds $3 million, residential property, in terms of the assessors of value, then certain criteria have to be met for the building to be considered by the board of supervisors. that information

this time, we submitted application to continue. vice chair joseph: do you have a permit to operate afterhours? >> no, we do not. >> on september 11, 2011, you were cited for operating after- hours. >> yes. on that night, we were not doing business. all of the clients were gone. we sat down but we did not lock the door. we were talking over the night and how the business was going on. vice chair joseph: were you drinking alcohol during the meeting? >> yes. vice chair joseph: did you know that was illegal? and you do not operate afterhours, your telling me? >> we know the guidelines right now. we do not. we never do after-hours for business. vice chair joseph: do you feel that one security guard is enough to handle your establishment? >> 1 security at the front door and three other owners who are monitoring. if you guys require, we will have additional -- we hire professional security. >> can you tell me a little more about your neighborhood outreach? >> it is a restaurant and bar, which is similar to us with karaoke, a late-night re

there are two seats and two applicants. supervisor kim: thank you, and i do believe that both applicants are here today. i will call up first heather. >> good afternoon. my name is heather and i'm a proud resident of the mission district. i was invited to apply by current members of the procurement advisory committee. i have over 20 to 10 years of experience with a supply chain of various products, including manufactured and artisan goods. i spent a lot of times in factories in the united states as well as overseas in seeing the factory conditions. i'm doing what i can to improve the working conditions. this will be my first involvement in local government but i did serve the country as a peace corps volunteer in west africa early in my career. in terms of public experience for this particular seat requires experience with public goods. when i was working in the private sector, i was responsible for working conditions for the purchase of university licensed goods from public universities. sports wear, and then in my most re

currently they reside in the application. if a property exceeds $3 million, residential property, in terms of the assessors of value, then certain criteria have to be met for the building to be considered by the board of supervisors. that information is just forward it to the board and to the hbc for them to consider when making their decision. there's nothing prohibiting the supervisors from granting any mills act application. this is just additional information for them to consider, and one of the things is the value of the property. through this, there would be some codification of those limitations, which the hpc thinks looks like a visual barrier to participation, at least on paper, and thinks it would discourage people. that is what they were requesting that it be removed from the code. >> you're saying that any property at any value could apply for this but the value is set to the board of supervisors at a certain level. >> correct. anyone who applies for the mills act application, we would have to take that through th

i want to get back to how the wiretap application is approved in the process that it is. you said that basically whoever it was just reads the summary, determines whether there's probable cause, and if there is probable cause, then they send it off to get approval by the courts. is that basically what you're saying the process is? >> yeah, line lawyers in the office of enforcement operations look at the affidavits, prepare a summary that's reviewed by by deputy assistant attorney general -- >> the deputy assistance is only looking for probable cause, is that what you're stating? >> right, to make sure there's a probable cause basis. >> how is that true? because under extensive requirements for federal eavesdropping law, the justice department officials have a duty, a duty to evaluate the law enforcement tactics that have been used in the investigation. why they aren't going to actually make it so we can have a further investigation, and why you need to have wiretapping put into place. we have title 18, section 28158 1-c says the application needs a full and complete state

applicant, both of which mr. kennedy attended, it became clear that no compromise was achievable and mr. kennedy to contact with them. after a review of the d.r. application, we feel it should be denied and the permit process be allowed to proceed in a normal manner for the following reasons. if the d.r. applicants were not aware of the likelihood of the 264 dore street development when they purchased their units, mr. kennedy should noten penalty liesed for the lack of proper and timely disclosure of this issue on the part of the stagehouse couple association, the listing realtors, or the former unit owners. we feel the d.r. applicants' list and concerns concerning the affects are somewhat overstated and they are actually much less impactful than almost any other likely development scenario. live work unit owner should be aware they have not purchased a property in a normally residentially zoned area, but rather a mixed use service light industrial area which serves many needs. lowered property values, there is n

let me once again begin by thanking the applicants. i appreciate anytime someone wants to serve in any capacity. as was noted by one of the speakers, my office has spent a lot of time on the issue of health care, and i am imprest with all the qualifications of each applicant. i think they have a lot to offer, and i do believe there are times when residency waivers are appropriate. that said, i do have a concern about the entirety of the applications requiring residency waivers. my implication, -- - danny, unless i'm tilt -- my understanding is the individual serving in the six continue to serve in that capacity. in light of that, i think it would be appropriate for us to continue the item to provide an opportunity for current residents of the city to apply for any of these seats. again, this is not about the individual qualifications of any of the people who are before us. each of them is exceptional and has a lot to offer, but i do think that on something like health, it is important to have the perspective of someone who not only wor

i want to say i support this application. it filled a significant vacant space. i want to be able to confirm for you eventually that the community had adequate opportunity to come in and discuss the application, and i do not think that happen in this case. sharon and her staff did their job. and i especially no cop -- i especially know, sharon being as prompt and she is in return my calls. and mr. mirada, he did what was required. however, they had a quarterly meeting and no one showed. this and other businesses in japan can do not have the experience at this and they need help and education. i consider that one of japantown's task force quiros. -- key roles. i do not want these things come out in the issue, particularly in the case of this business. it was about to happen today. i am pleased with mr. mirada's sincerity in wanting to make sure that the meeting is held and the input proper on his application. i think it is a great solution. i will work with mr. mirada to organize that community meeting. lastly, i want to mention there are three other applications

the applicants would like that live music, including deejays as well as karaoke. the staff received no communication of concerns from the public. we have received letters of support from neighboring restaurants, security staff for the japan center mall, and one member of the public. sfpd no. station is recommending the commission denied this permit application based on inspection and calls for service by sfpd and the entertainment commission inspector. more information is detailed in the recommendation you have. the grounds for their recommendation are in 1060.5f4, which say that it is in violation of that section of the code. that provides that the security plan must provide for the safety of all persons and property and the orderly dispersal of people. if the commission prefers to issue a permit over the objection of sfpd, they have proposed attaching additional conditions. the security plan provide for more than one security guard and that security staff should be able to manage both of the exits, monitor the perimeter, staff the door, manage patrons as they en

. >> the keyword there is applicable. applicable international rules and standards. if we haven't signed it, it's not applicable to us. >> i would greatly disagree with that reading of it. it doesn't say that at all. if it did say that he, you'd say that in plain english. what they mean by the word applicable is applicable rules to the situation at hand. >> i understand you're reading the plain text of it. it's difficult to read as all of us have pointed out language like this. i agree with you. that's why it took us in the bush administration a considerable amount of time to work our way through these. all i can tell you is you raise a legitimate concern, but the long standing view the bush administration and of the new administration is to say applicable international rule means it has to apply to you. treaties that have been negotiated by other people to whom we are not matter don't apply with us. there are lots of international human rights rules that people said we ought to abide by that we were not party to. we would say those are not applicable to us because w

it had approved an application for port property. in fact, dpw did not ask the clients to file a new application, and none was made. what are the implications? even though we all admit that there was a technical failure for dpw to send out a written notice that it sends out to 300 feet, in that, and not only is there not a mistake, but it caused the lack of notice, and i have always maintained that it is the party claiming the lack of notice, it if it got notice on its own are could never easily got a notice on its own, then you cannot say that it was the city that resulted in the failure to make the appeal, and our position is that there are two factors that indicate they have either had actual notice, actually saw a truck out there, or they had constructive notice, and by constructive notice, the city did publish in its proper place, the proper location, and its publication was available to everyone in the neighborhood, and they did correctly notice in that publication the correct site. dpw does it by mail notice, but it also doesn

>> they read summaries of the applications. that is a process that has been used by this administration and by all previous administrations. it is the way in which the office of enforcement -- >> and are you aware that federal -- are federal judges -- >> can i answer my question? the question -- >> no, you've given me a sufficient answer considering the amount of questions i have and the amount of time i have. are you -- you're okay with that practice? you've already answered that. so would you agree senior officials are responsible for documents they signed? i would assume the answer is yes. so now let me ask you the question. jason weinstein, is he responsible for what is in these wiretaps? >> is he responsible? >> he's a responsible officer under statute. is he responsible for them even if he only read a summary? >> he did not create those affidav affidavits. he did not create the material. he would have been a person, as a deputy assistant attorney general -- >> when congress writes a statute requiring certain individuals b

, the phrase international applicable rules. if there's an ambiguity there, wouldn't that suggest that an international arbitration panel, perhaps one convened pursuant to annex8 under the treaty could, also conclude that there is an ambiguity there, and they could decide that issue one way or the other? >> i guess i say on that, senator, i would think not. i mean, i think it's a good question for someone who is reading that provision, but i can tell you as someone who has spent a lot of time reading treaties, particularly ones that were allegedly applicable -- i mean, honestly. this was my job for four years as legal advisers to defend against other countries that claimed that certain things were applicable to the united states, and -- and applicable means that we are legally bound by it. >> if we get a good arbitration panel, if we get at least three who are well-trained, who are doing it right, doing it the way we'd like it to be done, your position is that they are going to reach the right conclusion? >> i think it's certain

are you the applicant? >> i am. >> there you go. she is here to speak to any questions. >> the first question, and the obvious one, would you be willing to work with a loudspeaker permit until midnight? >> absolutely. gregg's ok, easy. -- >> ok, easy. gregg's are you using any part of the venue as well? >> yes, that is the main event. correct and you are using the outside for overflow and smoking? >> that is right. like a patio area. and just so you know, on the saturday before pride, is traditional for there to be women's party. gregg's a women's or lady's party? >> -- >> a wynns or lady's party? [laughter] ] >> i ain't no lady, let me tell you. there is a tradition for there to be a women's party. and i know it is held right next door to this open-air space. >> and you have that venue as well. gregg's right. -- >> right. there are as many as two thousand people that could show up through the course of the evening. i do believe it is justified to have a -- an overflow space to accommodate them. to deny the permit would limit this o

you could look under the applications on their individual merits. aau has not been able to bring this before you because of an environmental impact report that has to be completed and that is to beef finish before all the applications we are talking about -- to be finished before all the applications we're talking about are completed. this is the same date of the legislation we are workigng on. i should also note there has been concerned about -- concern about displacements. the president of the university indicates that no tenants have been displaced in order to make space for the students and their existing housing. it would not displace them in the future. the are -- commissioner moore: you are very hard to understand. i could not h ear -- hear you. >> the university has not displace any tenants in any of the buildings that they have been taken -- they have taken control of for student housing. they also would not displace any tenants in the future. i might note -- they have indicated they do need additional student [inaudible] and it would try t

>> they read summaries of the applications. that is a process that has been us

there is a written description of the permit application. until you see the actual plan and do the proper plan review, we have a, schedule that we need to follow and that will be the review. i do not know with the early discussions with the entire scope of work has reflected in this discussion. >> when you said considerably low, i know you're not giving a specific number. >> it will be a square footage basis and we have a cost schedule that is very detailed and how much concrete might be removed. i would say that this is certainly -- at least $150,000. but taking the entire scope of the work, that is what we would look at. >> this issue about the transferability of the permit, can you address that? >> one second. under the building code, under section one of 6.4 0.1 0.1, transfer of permit. permits are transferable without payment of fees when the new owners of mets a letter to the department of agreeing to all conditions of approval, stipulations, and agreements. that is pretty typical. on the particular documents, violations, those issues