in our board rules -- as we are faced -- as the board prepares to appoint a successor mayor. last week, the body directed the clerk to outline a process so as to determine what if any rules may need to be supplemented and to create a process to appoint a successor mayor. i have done so under the excellent guidance of the santa clara county council. i came in developing this draft process was to provide a simple and clear set of integrated parliamentary and legal processes based upon our board rules, and when silent, robert's rules of order pursuant to the restrictions contained in state and local laws. as you will see in the annotated version, there are various controlling authority is at play, and i believe it is in order to bring them together so each member can review them and ask questions to ensure there are protections against ambiguity and a firm basis for resolving questions of procedure that may arise. if you will, please turn your attention to exhibit a in your packet. for the board to appoint a successor meier, the board has to provide for five actions and at least

to our board president to our board clerk, i hope that in subsequent board meetings, we can prioritize this discussion so that it appears on our calendars so that we can provide a higher level of certainty for members of the public that wish to engage in this process. i would like to welcome those people that are still here, finally, the first real input. and what really is the ultimate insider deal, an internal discussion of leadership or in this case, the appointment to a vacancy. colleagues, we cannot forget that the first rule of order of this board of supervisors, rule 1.1 states that the policy of the city and county of san francisco and of the board of supervisors is to encourage public testimony before legislative action is taken by the board. it is our first rule of water here in the board chambers. public participation. and i am probably as guilty as anyone of the 11 of us who are fortunate enough to be here right now on the board of supervisors because the truth of the matter is that conversation about a world transition has been happening and sometimes it is just a pull of

a board member may not nominate him or herself. a board member may nominate only one person. there may not be of more than 11 nominations on the floor at any time. if nominations are reopened, board members who have not yet made a nomination may do so. board members who previously had made a nomination may withdraw the nomination and make another nomination in its place. a nominee does not have to except a nomination and can withdraw his or her name while nominations are still open or reopen after a vote. if a board member withdraw his or her nomination, then the nominators may nominate another. a board member who has been nominated may not participate in the discussion or vote on competitor nominees. if the nomination of a board member nominee has been withdrawn, the board member may not have a conflict and could return to the room to participate. once he or she participates in the process, he or she could no longer be considered for the position of successor mayor. as you will hear the outside counsel discuss in a moment, these principles result in the nomination procedures

once the board received a nomination, the board shall only consider one nomination at a time, and robert's rules, if denomination does not receive six votes, that nomination is automatically withdrawn. supervisor daly: you are saying we will revert to your language? madam clerk: that is correct. supervisor daly: could you read what that would be? madam clerk: there will be a nomination from each board member. they will bring this back to the board members for nomination. supervisor daly, is that correct? president chiu: madam clerk, do you want to go to the next item? madam clerk: supervisor daly on page one has scratched out item three, which allows for it on the floor in any time. scrunching up the language then will allow for -- president chuiuiu: you are sayig it is fine? supervisor daly: i deleted it. if it is in robert's rules, it will speak. president chiu: i think that makes sense. it can remain. madam clerk: through the chair, page two, nomination procedures, nominations require a second. number one, supervisor elsbernd, the nominations do not require a second. president chiu: so

is there a way for anything under the current rules of the board that would preclude this board from electing an interim mayor under the existing rules that we have? >> there is nothing in your roles which are precluded from selecting an interim mayor. you have to wait until there is an actual vacancy. >> is there a way that this board not can make this election understanding that this has to occur before becomes effective? this anyway that precludes the board for making their selection without having to amend the rules? does the amendment requirement? >> we would have to look at the rules. under the current rules, all appointments to ability to go to the rules committee. -- typically go to the rules committee. you have a set of rules for which your responsible for interpreting. the president or supervisors can send the legislation to committee. those are about the only roles that you have. everything else is by your own rules. >> for me, the point have been making is that we need to have an open and transparent process. i don't read this as requiring an amendment of the rules. i wou

i sat on that board for years before i was appointed to this board. i did not hear this case, and my history on that board will not affect my decision on this case. president peterson: thank you, vice president. i tend to agree with commissioners garcia and fung, and that the issue will be addressed in the other permit. what we could do is perhaps move the merits and address that. now -- and address that permit now, move that up the calendar and here it presently and decide on the jurisdiction. commissioner garcia: that makes great sense. >> you want to hold this item open while we call the next item? president peterson: correct. >> calling item 10. >> calling item 10, appeal number 10-101, john and catherine soto, against the department of building inspection, 10 lundys lane. it is the protesting the issuance on august 27, 2010, to sam ball, a permit to alter a building -- revision to building permit application, cost savings, revise plans to show rear walls, demolished and rebuilt in kind, upon exposing structure the walls were found to be on salvag

this is not before the board. i will make sure that after we finalize this document that it will be made available to each of your offices and to the public. >> if i might note a couple of things. i don't think that the motion that president shoe has introduced with the motion, the supervisor avalos has introduced, there is a way that we can find a middle ground that actually gets to this. up to the extent that we can all be on the same page, that is to the benefit of this process. the one concern that i have some, this is to counsel, is that i understand that would council was doing through some of what i've seen in terms of the proposed process seized or rules is trying to make sure that in the process of making the selection that we don't run foul of the legal requirements that we have to comply with. it is important to be mindful. at the same time, compliance with those legal requirements this not necessarily require that the process or rules be followed but that in fact there are different ways in which compl

it would still be three separate determinations by the board and the board could act on any of these determinations. supervisor chu: that seems to indicate the point i think supervisor elsbernd was making which is any one of the items, any one of the appeals, could be the basis for approving or not approving a project. so if the intention was not to create an additional appeals process but to incorporate it, we could hold off the amendment and before we take a vote and make sure this is the language that we really want. president chiu: supervisor chu, is that a motion on this item? okay. is there a second on that motion to continue? seconded by supervisor elsbernd. supervisor campos. supervisor campos: i will vehemently oppose that motion and ask the board to act upon this. this is something we've been acting on for the last seven months. this has been subjected to a number of hearings at the health commission, a number of hearings at the planning commission, the item has been heard at land use. it was continued at land use. one thing i would say about where we are is that i think th

with respect to the new board or the old board as legal counsel indicated, the board has the legal authority to act. the sooner we make a decision, the better it is. the better it is not only for the individual that is selected in terms of putting together a transition team and putting together plans for that transition, but the better it is for the city in terms of creating and providing some certainty, some clarity, and for making sure that the business of the board continues. if it is the case that a vote is taken and whether it is this board or the next board that cannot come to an agreement, at least we will know that. it provides some sense of clarity of where we are or where we are not. it is that reason that i am supporting the motion that supervisor avalos has introduced. we have an obligation to see if we can come to a resolution sooner rather than later. supervisor mirkarimi: supervisor maxwell, then we will go to public comemnt. -- comment. supervisor maxwell: there is a relief that i feel as my colleagues think that it should be open and that the public should be a part of this

the appeals process section 342.6 has an appeal either to the board of supervisors if the board of supervisors has authority over the entitlement, or if the board of supervisors does not have authority, it would go to the board of appeals. >> "authority over entitlement" means potential use permit needs to be approved? >> i think the entitlement refers to the actual approval, like a conditional use permit legislation. the ceqa process is a separate process not directly addressed in this legislation. >> to appeal something with conditional use, there is one standard to appeal the environmental determination. what is the standard to appeal this consistency determination? four signatures? one signature? how do you get it to board? >> it is within 30 days of the issuance or denial of the consistency. any person may file an appeal. it may be one person. >> it mirrors the ceqa appeal route instead of the conditional use route, which means a certain percentage of the people within a radius, correct? >> that is correct. it is more like the ceqa appeal process where one person could appeal within that

therefore, the parliamentary for the board is the board rules, and in my opinion, mr. president and members of the board, that would be external to the board roles -- rules and roberts rules of order, and you may consider that. president chiu: further discussion on this item? supervisor daly? supervisor daly: there are some board rules that they are not silent about. the proposal is laid out in front of us. would that not also require the supermajority threshold? sean and i, colleagues, we have been around awhile, and we can go back and forth on procedural points. i n some of them, and he wins some of them, but the question here is not a detail of the board rules or robert's rules. it is about moving forward to hopefully have a discussion. we can either have sean and i go back and forth and pick apart proposals, or we can try to come up, the eight of us, with rules that make the most sense to come up with the best possible results. president chiu: further discussion? supervisor elsbernd: i would very much like to discuss this, but i think it is important that we unders

the board rules as stated, correct? >> right. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president. well, first of all thank you u to everyone that tried to come up with something that we could all live with. i still believe that that the prior ruling that -- that the proposal by supervisor daly required a vote -- a vote was mistaken. i don't think that's consistent -- with the rules of the board and i don't think that is consistent with -- with not only the letter of what the rules provide but also the spirit of what we're trying to do. i think that the process of -- that's currently written is a process that -- that ultimately is not an ideal process. along the hines of what council indicated, i don't think it is the only way that we could actually meet our legal requirements and -- and provide an expedited resolution of these issues. i think that we have missed an opportunity to do that. irrespective of what the outcome is. i think that having something that is simple and that gets to a result of -- that reflects the ch

at the september meeting of the board, the board chose of every year. while anticipating a complicated month in september, scheduling board and committee meetings, i figured that i would bring this to you now so that we would comply with the deadline. the last board meeting was the 15th. this seems like a timely moment to consider this. what i brought you, in the spirit of full disclosure, normally this is taken up in the same meeting where you evaluate my performance. but because there was a change requested by the board in the time line for making the determination, you already have done my performance evaluation on june 29. at this time the committee gave a score of 4.5, which is between good and outstanding in our rankings system. at the time the committee chose to defer action compensation given that the budget was still going on. so, it really is not my intent, and i do not think it would be appropriate, to rehash the poor performance evaluation memo, but there were a number of things that happened this year that were of great significance. betwee

it would be made by members of the board, so any contact with boards would be problematic, but if the mayor's office does not want to cooperate -- supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. president chiu: colleagues, any further discussion? colleagues, why do we not take a vote on what was it. amendment by supervisor daly on what was presented by the clerk? madam clerk: [roll call] there are six ayes. president chiu: it passes. colleagues, any discussion on this as amended? a roll call vote on the underlying proposed process of amendment. madam clerk: supervisor avalos? president chiu: it is an eight-vote situation because we need to change it. madam clerk: [roll call] there are sixayes. -- there are six ayes. president chiu: seeing that it requires eight votes, and there were not, it does not pass. supervisor elsbernd: i'd like to move that go back. president chiu: supervisor elsbernd as a motion to move it back. supervisor daly: perhaps counsel can help me? >> i believe that would be called before the clerk. a parliamentary question. president chiu: it has been claimed to be parliamentary, s

the board's legal assistant is the boards except to director. >> the board requests to turn off all cell phones, beepers, and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, and department respondents each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for but a. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven and three minutes. those who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes to address the board, with no rebuttal. to assist in proportion of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to staff when you come up to the lectern. speaker cards and pans are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcome your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction service cards on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please speak to staff during a break or after the meeting, or call the office tomorrow morning.

>> it would be in the board rules. if you adopt the process today, it is six votes, because it outlines the existing board rules and the roberts rules of order. supervisor daly: what about the other? >> there is an opportunity for the board as a committee as a whole -- supervisor daly: which is 11 members. >> 11 members. president chiu: it will require six votes, but after that, as supervisor elsbernd noted, we would be changing the roberts rules of order. for discussion? supervisor campuos? supervisor campos: i guess my two cents is i do not know if there is consistent application of the rules going on. the whole point of 5.2 to is that the committee can adopt processes and procedures -- the whole point of 5.22, and i do not understand how in the spirit and intent of the rule that is being decided that notwithstanding the six-vote threshold of 5.22 that there is still an eight-vote threshold. i do not really think that is consistent with the spirit of the rule. i would respectfully state that that is a misreading. pre

the board could approve a process with six boats and subsequently conclude the board rules.t concludes my presentation. in legal counsel are available to answer your questions. supervisor chiu: thank you. is there any initial discussion before we proceed to public comment? supervisor daly: find you, mr. president. first, let me thank our clerk for the work she has done over the last weeks. with that said, let me say that the process that is laid out in front of us, colleagues, i find a bit cumbersome. it is interesting. if you look at two very recent posts on the "the san francisco bay guardian," "the san francisco weekly," it seems they agree on this point. one author writes that it makes it difficult for one of the progressives to wind up winning the job. over at the "san francisco weekly," they say david chiu, ross mirkarimi, and david campos, none of them and the voting in the final go around, meaning eight supervisors will have to come up with six votes for one candidate, and since that is not going to happen, you can bet that no one is going to descend from the board -

or even if you are no longer on the board. as a san francisco resident, i think this is a san francisco project that everybody needs to be on board because at the end of the day, this is one of the five joules of development. lastly, on the sustainability aspect, you should be pleased that not only did i work on the plan, i was the co-author of the environmental justice section. this document is invaluable for guidance of development in our history, and it is also a model for the rest of the country. i'm very knowledgeable about that. i worked on that, and i was also commissioner on the conservation of development. my expertise and all i have been doing the last 15 years, in handy for this job as treasure island development, so i would be honored to be considered for that appointment. supervisor campos: thank you very much, commissioner. we will now hear from commissioner jean-paul sama. -- samaha. good morning. welcome back. >> good morning. i'm honored to be here today for reappointment. feels like i was just here. it was ab

of my fellow board members to make the best decision. if appointed, i would look forward to hearing from constituents and residents about the issues that come before the authority. i care about san francisco, its residents, and its workers, and therefore, would value being part of such a large-scale project that would provide tremendous opportunity for this great city. i'm honored that mayor newsom has put my name forward for this rule on the authority board, and ask for your support. supervisor campos: thank you very much. any comments or questions? seeing none, before we turn it over -- open it up to public comment, i see that the director of operations is here. did you want to say anything? >> [inaudible] just assurances in reviewing what mr. daly commented on. the mayor has set forth an application process that will result in at least one tenet being appointed to the board. i also remind the committee at this time that there are four residents that serve on the community advisory board -- supervisor campos: if i may, a supervisor mar

we did not request or supporters to come here and address the board for the convenience of the board as well as the fact that we feel that the community support was adequately reflected during the actual initial hearing. thank you. president peterson: thank you. >> greg? >> good evening. i am a little nervous, here. my name is greg schoepp. i and the sponsor of bay area compassionate health centers. wheat started looking for a location 18 months ago. i found 2139 taraval street in the sunset district. as i began my due diligence, i found out about the agreement. i contacted the san francisco planning department. i started playing rent on the location. i met with supervisor chu and captain schmidt before applying for my permit to let them know why i chose the sunset district and what my purpose was, which was not to open up a pot club. this was to allow safe access to medicine for people in the sunset district. there are many disabled and sick people that cannot travel to get their medicine. the taraval location is on the streetcar line. it has been mentioned how easy it is to get on

in our board rules -- as we are faced -- as the board prepares to appoint a successor mayor.t week, the body directed the clerk to outline a process so as to determine what if any rules may need to be supplemented and to create a process to appoint a successor mayor. i have done so under the excellent guidance of the santa clara county council. i came in developing this draft process was to provide a simple and clear set of integrated parliamentary and legal processes based upon our board rules, and when silent, robert's rules of order pursuant to the restrictions contained in state and local laws. as you will see in the annotated

what board member is she replacing? >> i cannot remember. she is a city official as defined in the bylaws. she sat on hrc. she is officially sitting on the board. her appointment took effect immediately. she resigned from hrc. she is a title board member, similar to the other incumbents. that same process -- she would follow the same process as the incumbent title board members. supervisor mar: she would continue to serve unless rejected. >> correct. supervisor campos: thank you to the members of the public who have spoken and to all of the applicants for being here. colleagues, we're going to figure out how we should proceed. let me say that, from my perspective, i do wish that this had been done differently, that the mayor's office had, in fact, submitted an entire package that included a resident of the island. i will be honest with you. if we were talking about a major project in my neighborhood, where i live, and there was a body of this type that was providing governments and oversight of that project, and a resident was not to be incl

alternative two is a sideline bus rapid transit with curve boarding -- curb boarding. vehicles would be boarding in a protected lane. this would increase ridership and reduce run times, so it would be a marked improvement there. there are some specific issues with this, in that there are the right-turning vehicles, and that is a potential conflict to slow this down. alternative three is a center- lane bus rapid transit with right-side boarding. this would improve ridership a little bit more. probably generate about 52,000 riders. the estimate is that it would improve run times by about 22%, and it basically is a fully dedicated, center-running system. it would require a different type of bus, buses that have left doors on them for a left- door boarding, which we do not do. that is more on the high range of the alternative and the vehicle cost. the fourth alternative is the center-lane bot with left-side boarding. that would give similar ridership and performance. there are several key infrastructure designs. the previous alternatives did not require [inaudible] this on

no timeline is actually provided during which the board has to act. is that correct? just a clarifying question, with respect to items 9 and 10, the appointment of linda richardson, is there -- is that an individual currently serving on the board? >> i believe that ms. richardson is not a current member. supervisor campos: so it is an appointment, not a reappointment. i think the amended version of the notice has that. before we begin -- supervisor alioto-pier. supervisor alioto-pier: when you say officer of the city, these are people who have already served or are currently serving on commissions? >> we received a member of the -- in a memo from the mayor of who are city officers and who are not. supervisor alioto-pier: ok, just one more question. linda richardson was never an officer of the city? >> yes. supervisor campos: before we ask the individuals to come forward, i would like to give an opportunity to the office of the supervisor that represents treasure island, supervisor chris daly. we have a letter from the supervisor, and i know that mr. jackson from his o

in our board rules -- as we are faced -- as the board prepares to appoint a successor mayor.

i hope you make the right decision whether it is the old board or the new board. i think you have more experience, and if you are thinking about what is in the best interest and not particular egos, i would support this board making the decision. president chiu: next speaker. >> as far as i can see, this is not a terribly partisan decision to be made right now. unless the mayor decides not to be sworn in as lt. gov, it doesn't seem to me that we should assume lightly. the board is going to have a crack at deciding to the interim mayor is going to be. and given that that is the case, why shouldn't they do it in a transparent and collaborative process starting now? it should not be made hastily but should start now and be one of the board gets the benefit from the input of the public, certainly if you decide there is a fair process that you want to adopt and take suggestions from different folks about what a fair process would be, as long as it is happening over the next few weeks, i favor that to any delay in this very important vote. how to speak on behalf of the

item s, board members' reports. commissioner wynns? commissioner wynns: we met on october 13, and we had the following items, the transportation policy being the big issue, and the outreach and rieker and plans for the 2011- 2012 school year, so i want to do a couple of games. the presentation i believe that we had at the committee is on line. we did specifically ask for it to be put online. in particular, the transportation policy is something that we're very interested on getting feedback on. postponing this until december in order for it to go through committee and to have been put it from the community on this issue, -- to have input from the community on this issue. we have heard from the parents advisory council tonight about the recommendations for the redesign of transportation. i am just going to say a few things about it, and it will lead a major impact in the district -- it will have major impact in the district. there will be a baseline of transportation which will be significantly less than we currently have. one of the re

not the new board. has got to be this board. we know that you want the good process.a city employee, we need a city employee mayor who looks upon us as not the enemy. cuts from the bottom oup. city employees make up a lot of that middle class. i pay taxes, so do all my friends. city employees in the thousands. i think this has to happen now, it has to be open and public participation. >> i am with 1021 and i represent public health records. we are here to speak in favor of the supervisor avalos's motion. we are in favor of the current board and making the decision for the next inter-american -- and from mayor -- interim mayor. they can appoint someone who understands the budget and understands all of the pertinent issues that are before us. again, we want a transparent process and that the current board makes the new mayor can come in and make their feet wet right away. >> and the executive board at last night hot our meeting -- [unintelligible] this current board is the best decision maker for the upcoming and current mayor. we believe we have been through a lot toge

the message about how to operate in such, does the board understands -- i guess the board understands the process. the planning department regulates the underlying land use and then the department of public health up -- the department of public health regulates the suppliers. the department of public health even regulates the signs, which is normally something planning would do, but they have complete control over the signs. i think there is suitable oversight here, including through the department of public health. i think that addresses the questions i had here. i like to respectfully request that this board of pulled the planning commission's decision to allow this mcd to operate and i am available for questions. vice president goh: i wonder if you could walk me through 790.141, the reference to 790, subsectionf, and how that references a and not b. >> it is simply a typo. it there is not at section. there has never been a section f. if we look at article 8, article 7 and eight were to fall to run the same time, the late 1980's, and have a different format from the rest of the plan