have a board decision on that item before we go back to board discussion on the budget. if that meets with everyone's approval. but? great. thank you. item six, introduction of new or unfinished business by board members. >> anything? >> thank you, vice chair. de with the black coalitike coalition. i want to commend staff on the work they have done. i think it is great, it will promote usage by families as well as individuals. it is very exciting. i felt a very safe going through their because of the way it is sucked up. set up. i salute the coalition for advocating to get that done. >> that is a great step forward. i have one thing i would like to bring up, we have some individual board briefings. i know that is an item that will come to the board for a decision. i would like to request before that comes to the board for a decision, we go ahead and have an informational meeting where we can have some discussions in public about the different options are around it. so we can make sure we get a chance to your input from the public. i know that is a really big policy decis

this is a strong board, a really good board. with he worked with them a long time and i don't think they will be significantly influenced what they might perceive as bias. if they did as paul has done in the past if you have an issue with something, you bring it up. the letter was sent to the executive secretary of the nsabb who is at the nih, dr. patterson. we have responded on a point by point basis to everything in that letter. we would be more than happy to make that response available to you so that you can see the point by point discussion. again, there were important issues about looking forward. there were several things in there that i must say quite frankly, mr. chairman, i actually disagree with, one of which was the concern about the security briefing as you know. i have a great deal of trust in the director of the national intelligence to tell us what we need to know, so that's just one example. the idea as you mentioned about the picking of people who would be on, we did not get any indication from dr. osterholm of

at the control is the board's legal assistant and i am the board's executive director. we are also joined by representatives from the city department that have cases before the board. scott sanchez is here. he is the zoning administrator. he is representing the planning department and the planning commission. we are joined by joseph duffey, the senior building inspector representing the department of a building inspection. and john hwwang representing the department of public works and mapping. at this time, if you could go over the board meeting guidelines. >> the board requests that you turn off all phones and pagers so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows -- the appellant, permit holders, and department representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated must include the comments within the seven or three-minute periods. those not affiliated will have three minutes to address the board without rebuttal. to assist the b

one is the next series of reviews of our board policies. this is our work to try to get them on line and also to make them searchable and more accessible to everybody and hopefully compliant, which has been a problem for us. we have not looked at our policies for decades. if all of you have the series 1000 proposals, we will be going over them in detail as we did with the 900 series. i hope he will give us input on that before our next meeting. we have an issue about, which we have been asked to look at, related to a technical change related to state disability insurance. then, of course, we have an update on the state budget. that goes before the budget committee. the outlook is bleak. we will be keeping you updated on that. that is an interesting issue because it does crossover. it is the legislative advocate to comment talk to us. they do our budget work. we want you to be aware of that and think about where you want to go to talk about that and learn about it. as well as for the public. i want to thank the deputy superintendent for subs

i want to thank the board of trustees, the board of directors, the mta. thank you for your great leadership on this, as well. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, mr. ma. yor. he has been a steadfast supporter of this from its inception. the board president who happens to represent this the district has also been a strong supporter of this project from the start. i want to remind folks that every single action that the board of supervisors has ever taken with respect to the central subway has been approved on an 11-0 vote. there's not a whole lot of things we could say sail through with that type of track record. it speaks to the city wide importance of the central subway. it brings very specific benefits and very specific impacts to this neighborhood here. the board president and his role as district supervisor has been very focused on making sure that we do do the right thing, that we did the right thing in relocating tenants. i just want to acknowledge our real estate director, the city attorney's office, and our program manager. they all worked very ha

the board approved one director. in the matter a faz vers -- of fz, the board authorized a settlement of $25,000. in a matter of -- versus sfusd, the board authorized a $25,000 section statutory offer. in the matter of aeg vs. sfusd, the board authorized a settlement of $46,000. item u. >> before you go further, some of us have announcements. president yee: why don't we do that right now? thank you for reminding me. any announcements for committee meetings and so forth? commissioner maufas: -- commissioner mendoza: we were just returning from washington, d.c. some of us have received an implementation grant, or a planning grant, and several of us went to washington to meet with geoffrey canada and others. i just wanted to acknowledge that carlos garcia, our superintendent, was honored at the event because he was retiring and stepping down for the council. i want to remind people that all of our high school students will be going to three sites, most of whom will be going to city college. those who have not registered

i understand the board's dilemma. there is no merit of the application to because they will not let him apply. there is something wrong where they can make rules and the dark and no one knows about them. >> i think some of the commissioners are worried that your speechmaking. -- that you are speechmaking. one thing you achieved is that it is no longer being done in the dark. it has come to light. this board has expressed itself, at least a few of us have, as to how we seem to question this policy. let's see where it goes. >> mta said it is their policy. we understand it is a staff policy that has not been adopted by the full commission. but do doubt the merits of that policy? -- but do you doubt the merits of that policy? they could have adopted a policy that says, we will have a moratorium on these permits for two years. planning has done that when they are in the midst of planning a new area and coming up with new zoning. they sometimes have a moratorium. >> it is a terrible policy. it is a regulation that has not b

item s, board members' report. board delegates to membership organizations? >> i want to say one thing from the last roll-call, maybe. >> this will come with board members reports later. >> i am under item s. reading it straight through. standing committees. and any board delegates to membership organizations? none? all other reports by board members. >> you're not going down by a committee like you normally do? >> that is the next thing. unless you want me to redo it. we will go ahead. >> -- if it will make everyone happy i will skip to the augmented rules, policy, and legislation. commissioner mendoza. commissioner mendoza: you want the report from the committee or do you want us to do that all once? >> why don't you do the budget reports and we will go announcements. >> we had a good budget committee last week. we had requested there is the technology pieces of it. and at what point our schools will be. we have a chance to do it electronically. we had a report from the proposition a oversight committee which was good in terms of thinking about how we are s

they will continue to go to the oversight board. the oversight board's role is fiduciary. if there is a funding of a project with new increment or modification of a loan agreement based on tax modifications, that would have to go back, first through our loan committee process. there are a number of enforceable housing obligations in this transition. the director talked a little bit about the redevelopment project areas. within those approved project areas, there are current and foreseeable obligations that are related to affordable housing. all of those contracts were identified to the state as on going eforcable contracts. there are additional costs in the recognize obligation payment schedules as well as other housing transaction costs. one of the processes, in addition to the approved projects top the recognized obligation payments provided for the replacement of housing loss during the early part of redevelopment. in addition to the 3 approved redevelopment projects, the fourth major activity that the oversight board submitted to the state was the replacement housing o

the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium as well. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, or hearing schedules or board rules, please talk to staff after the meeting or call the office tomorrow morning. the board office is at 16 edition -- 1650 mission street, room 3 04. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, cable channel 78 and dvd's of the meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgtv. at this point in time we will conduct our swearing-in process. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or firm. please note any member of the public may speak without taking this oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance of the administrative code. thank you. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the tru

. >> >> thank you, members of the board. the ultimate issue, it does the 2002 certificates of use create any new fact that justifies every hearing? i do not think it does. it does not apply to the planning code or any other zoning laws. the invocation of the ellis act does not give the owner the right to rezone the property. because of that, the new certificate of use, because they filed the ellis act and withdrawn the property, and that was the only evidence presented to support the certificate of use. because of that reason, and because of the court of appeals decision, it is not determining anything under the planning code, the issue becomes, what is the fact that merits rearing? the certificate of -- merits rehearing? it is not a fact that would change the zoning. the fact they have lessened the nonconforming use during the 1980's to have more residential use indicates to me that this is not a 100% tourist hotel. lastly, it would still have to be terminated under the nonconforming use provisions of the planning code. it

the mta board of directors asks the board of transportation to authorize all youth who use the card forthe pilot program, through may 31, 2014, at which time they will return to an index value, abscent explicit board action. and the implementation of transportation service for all youth during the pilot program -- through may 31, 2014 is contingent on the mass transit authority and the transportation authority approving the allocation of necessary funding. mtc. >> mtc. >> director? >> based on the vote, what happens if this is approved and we do not get funding? >> adel language of the resolution and the understanding all along -- has been if we do not get the funding, and then things stay the status quo. >> and it goes back to the way that this is right now. >> this is within the index, just like the senior phares. >> why would there need to be a change to the budget document? >> we assumed that the finding in the budget -- we assume the revenue of said base. we're talking about a $4 million difference. based on the assumption of certain revenue level, with a $4 million of said -- we h

i think the board's inability to muster a decision shows how difficult this case was for the boards, how complicated this question was for the board. we think is fairly straightforward. if you recall what occurred, it was a motion made by commissioner to uphold the determination. that motion failed 1-4. when a substantive motion was made, one of the persons who voted against it to uphold voted against the determination to overrule. we had a person who voted no on the same issue in the same case. not sure why that happened. we regret that it happens. that sense some signal to you that this is a troubling case to the board. more importantly, it has been overtaken by events. case has been heavily litigated through numerous court proceedings involving but the city and the tenderloin housing clinic. the case was tried for rape court here in san francisco -- the court -- the case was tried for in court here in san francisco. the result in that case could be viewed as a mixed in terms of penalties that were awarded, the court refused to issue an injunction. that case went up to the appellan

rules and procedures of the student board members to correct all references to student board members to read a "student delegates" instead. this was taken up by the legislation committee on march 21st. afforded to the board with a positive recommendation by general consent of the committee. >> thank you. there are no public speaker cards for this. any comment from the board? seeing none, roll call, please. >> missed than -- ms. zang. miss tom. ms. stewart. ms. mendoza. dr. rossi. ms. norton. ms. wynns. and ms. ji. seven ayes. >> itemi. this one will be 106-8a1. >> [unintelligible] >> you are correct. >> you are correct. [applause] [no audio] >> i'm going to take privilege and have this next item heard so that the interested delegates can leave. this item is item i. again, establishing districtwide dr. access policy. original and substitute motions. this resolution was moved and seconded on june 10th, 2010. the resolution was held in committee since for staff and legal review. it is now back to the board for action. the committee report from roles. commissioner wynns. >> the committee

she will provide the board with any legal advice this evening. i am the board's executive director. we are joined this evening by representatives from the city departments to have cases before us. they are here representing the environmental help regulatory program of the department of public health. at this time, if you would please go over the meeting guidelines. >> the board request that you turn off all cell phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, and department representatives have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three-minute periods. members of the public not affiliated with the party have up to three minutes each to address the board. the number of bottles. to assist the board any accurate preparations of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak our past, but not required, to submit a speaker cards when you come up to the podium. speaker cards are

board. the residential units, whether or not they were there, they got out of the residential rental game. 2002, there was a permit to convert. we don't have any records that indicate that this was done. if you look at the note on there, it says that it is really addressing just chapter 41 of the administrative code, not dealing with the planning code compliance issues. what we have here is no longer a residential hotel. what use is it? this is under a permit that was not available at the time. that does seem to be new information. a little bit about the zoning history, 1957, up to 1960, this would have been located in the commercial district. we had about six or seven zoning districts in the city that was commercial. in 1960, it resound to r-four. this allowed any nonconforming motel to maintain, carry on as they were panther 1978, there was rezoning to the residential district prohibiting any hotels of more tha and it can't do away with the ability for that motel to continue operating. the

government policy, the board shifted its position. in my opinion, the split vote is highly significant and signals that the board still believes that there is great potential for misuse of information generated by these types of experiments. the majority of the board members vote forward publication but they were clearly still troubled by thissy is search and its potential to be misused. it is fair to say the board believes that these types of experiments will arise again and that these issues are not fully settled. as one board member noted, we have only kicked this can down the road and we'll be dealing with it again in the future. it is critical that we establish policy that intensely monitors high potential durc research from kradle to grave in order to protect us from misuse, but also to free low potential durc research from onerous regulations. we must be careful we don't destroy the enterprise as we protect against a misuse of some research. thank you. >> thanks very much, dr. keim. let me ask you while the phrase is in my mind

i have a feeling this board is very familiar. city and county of san francisco versus board of permit appeals, 1989. this party has all of the relief that she needs, all the damages she can sit in civil court. we would not propose putting is over, simply because there is a rule in san francisco that if her tenancy lasts more than a year, she is entitled to relocation money. we think this is a delaying tactic. we have obtained the permits. we have issued her a notice of termination. she is entitled to whatever claims and theories of fraud she would like to bring. those damages and attorney fees -- all of that. the light in this process is improper -- delaying this process is improper and unfair, and it is beyond the authority of this board to legalize this unit. president garcia: with those same revocation fees -- relocation fees apply before hair year -- before her year is up if the landlord was to allow her to stay until the school term is up? >> we will stipulate she may stay until the end of her school year. i do not expect to

this is a decision the mta board will be making shortly. there are a number of us who have been working on this issue for many months, close to one year now. i would like to thank my colleagues to have supported this effort. many of you have spoken at the board of directors -- supervisor camera, supervisor avalos, supervisor mar and supervisor olague as well. we feel there should be a decision to provide public transit for all children. at a minimum, what's likely to come out of the mta board of directors is a decision to provide free public transit for low-income youth. whether we get one or the other, we are very proud of how far we have come on this issue. we have a very historic decision on the part of the mta board of directors to make public transit more accessible to children and this is happening as the san francisco unified school district is forced to cut the number of yellow buses provided. i think that is something we should be very proud of, something that takes san francisco in a different direction in terms of how it deals wi

>> i am a member of the board of trustees at grace cathedral. chris cathedral is the center of a vibrant religious, spiritual, and cultural and artistic life, with various activities occurring through the day and week. we are located directly across the street from the masonic center. we consistently have adapted to the concerns and needs of the surrounding neighborhood. the grace commission -- grace cathedral does not take the position on whether to expand the operations of the masonic opportunity -- masonic auditorium. we do oppose converting the seats. we suggest the planning department incorporate conditions of approval to ensure there is no adverse affect on the neighborhood. these are things like we want there to be procedures for neighborhood reporting of complaints and problems. we want there to be a process for resolution. we wanted to be a monetary -- we want there to be monetary conditions if there are violations. this should be contractually enforceable. we strongly oppose the removal of existing seeding permitting general admission.

the board decided this was like food. in this case, they are suggesting that because of the way the coffee bean is provided, it is unlike other coffee, which is not established within the dpw order of the determination of a like food, nor does it match previous decisions coming from this body. we request the board of hold your decision and not provide a rehearing in this case. thank you. vice president hwang: i have a question for you. the information provided by the requestor -- i do not know if you have your packet up there. >> i do not. vice president hwang: it says protest denial of dpw hearing and permit appeals. you might have this text already memorized. encircled and highlighted for us to look at is something the hearing officer may consider, which is "like food shall take into consideration the ethnicity of the food and the composition of each menu, as well as other issues deemed relevant, do determine whether a conflict exists." a coffee cart should not significantly affect a traditional diner just because it al

i would like to say that at the last board meeting, two weeks ago, the board closed comment -- public comment on a staff recommendation. the board has received new information about the impacts of that approval. therefore, i board reopened only that part of the public hearing for that particular -- we do not want to hear anything but your comments on the report. at. -- if you start talking about something other than that, i will ask you to stay specifically on that, ok? the board has received extensive public comment on this. a great deal of written correspondence, personal correspondence. i will ask members of the public to speak on that issue. one minute, ok? >> directors, moving on to item 11 on your agenda. authorizing the director to execute the contract for the radio system replacement contract for a term not to exceed 1200 calendar days. directors, there has been no one that offered an interest to speak to you. >> as he gets the brief presentation ready to go, i want to preface this with emphasizing how when pour into this is to the functioning -- important this is to the funct

is to continue 14, 15, and 16 to the april 27 board meeting. because heineke said they could provide additional discussion with regard to the other options in the budget, should they so desire to discuss those items to provide any other directions, when he returns he has the full impact of the board, and he knows the wishes of the board with regard to the other aspects of the budget. >> these two items, we have had discussion and they are closed and they are being continued for the further vote. >> we have had public comment on 15, the we have not had the board discussion. could we go ahead and have a discussion -- >> there is an interest on the part of the community, with the speed of our decision. we will get some additional information, analyzing the budget impact in what you do to accommodate the full muni use. at that point, we can vote on everything. we've had public comment and discussion on 14. is this how it is playing out, roberta? >> julia? >> if you -- if you undrtaertake this dicussion, we have yet to see 16. you could see the vote

board would be able to answer. what is the produce? should this be reverted back to the previous nonconforming tourist hotel use? that is something that could be within the purview of this board to decide, given that that is what it had been in the past. because of the unique nature of the ellis act, does that mean that they can go back to that? that is a question that the board has the jurisdiction to answer. >> it does not really matter of brother or not we had grant and the rehearing and some determination was made that they could become apartments or become a residential motel, which they claim they are now. if they wanted to do 10 apartments, would they have to go through -- >> not at all. right now, the question is exactly what is the current use. if we were just to classify the current use as group housing, and they wanted them to have that be dwelling units, they could do that without any kind of dwelling unit -- that would be required now. >> does the department others on the administrator have the directi

rules and procedures of the student board members to correct all references to student board members to read a "student delegates" instead. this was taken up by the legislation committee on march 21st. afforded to the board with a positive recommendation by general consent of the committee. >> thank you. there are no public speaker cards for this. any comment from the board? seeing none, roll call, please. >> missed than -- ms. zang. miss tom. ms. stewart. ms. mendoza. dr. rossi. ms. norton. ms. wynns. and ms. ji. seven ayes. >> itemi. this one will be 106-8a1. >> [unintelligible] >> you are correct. >> you are correct. [applause]

>> [inaudible] >> and the board is meeting on july 11 and july 25. >> you may have a new board by then. [laughter] there are three members that go up for reappointment or substitution. >> the people -- >> i might be able to make the june 20. it depends when i am back in town. maybe i can try. i will prioritize the list. >> ok. >> if we find out that we have to reschedule, someone will be in touch with you all for alternate dates. maybe you could tomorrow send in those states anyway as the contingency. >> [inaudible] >> you need to speak into the microphone. >> we would like to have a full panel of five members to hear the matter. we want to schedule on a day when everybody is here. >> ok. there is a motion to -- >> a motion to grant the rehearing request and set the meeting for june 20. [roll call vote] thank you. the vote is 5-0. the rehearing request is granted. the board's original decision of 1998 is set aside and the new rehearing on the merits is to and 20th. thank you. >> let's take a quick break. my apology is -- to whoever is waiting on the next ca >> we will resume the meetin

with regard to the board, we have had to take several actions. first meeting was largely housekeeping, but the primary action we have had to take was related to what is called our recognized obligation payment schedule, and that is literally a listing of every single payment that the redevelopment agency would have had to have made over the next six months, and it is hundreds of payment obligations, and the state requires us to approve that payment schedule. that would cover the time between february 1 when the agency dissolves and july 1. we again have to do this next month for the second half of the year, and it is a very detailed schedule that the state requires us as the oversight board to review and approve, and the state actually has to look at every one of those payments and has the ability under the law to question any of them, so that process is going on right now. finally, i want to say that reviewing that list of obligations was really enlightening to me because it really was an indication of the bread of activity that the redevelopmen

we requested be suspended until the board took up this appeal. commissioner hillis: the new permit gets rid of the roof deck and adds the skylight? >> that is correct. i think that is a problem. it also does not remove a water heater and furnace that are supposed to be put on the roof. again, that is common area. it is not exclusive use common area. to further that point, i would like to correct mr. soria on no -- soriano. if you look at paragraph 7.14, the last sentence, after the roof deck is constructed, then the owner of 1753 can apply to amend the map to add it as an exclusive use common area. finally, i know president garcia wanted me to touch on that the nuisance issue. i have one final photo that i will put up here. suffice it to say that my client is in the lower unit. since this term was issued, she has had banging constantly. she telecommutes and works from her unit. this has been a constant nuisance with e-mails from the contractor, the permit holder about day-to-day operations. the process was not properly gone through to issue the p