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 on which we did it, to the extent necessary what evidence we considered and then to the extent necessary summarize the findin

>> he wanted me off the board. this was to get me off the board. don't know if he ever thought through the consequences that would go beyond my getting off the board. >> well, you said he went to law enforcement. >> well -- >> that takes it another step. >> it does take it another step, and here i am today with an indictment over my head. >> are you saying he's responsible for that? >> well, i don't think i'd be sitting here today if tom had handled this differently. >> we have learned that perkins made several settlement demands on hp -- that the company pay his legal fees, that pattie dunn be forced to resign, and that the company not disparage him or jay keyworth. this is what c.e.o. mark hurd said on september 12, 2006, in a news release. he said, "jay keyworth leaves the board with our best wishes and gratitude." here's what i have trouble understanding. everybody says leaks are bad, the leaker is identified, and now there's a settlement with him. >> mm-hmm. go figure. [ laughs ] >> do you understand this? >> well, at that point, i think that

you know the board like i said could exercise its authority to simply, have the board serve in that capacity or have the board appoint all of the members of the commission, but why not, you know, strike a balance, you know, in terms of checks and balances, and have a situation where both the mayor and the board of supervisors in conjunction make the appointments. it would seem to me that that also allows for this board to become even more invested and more engaged in some of the issues that deal with the agency. so i am wondering if there are any thoughts around that issue? >> is there staff that can answer campos questions? >> in response, i think city administrator and cohen have laid out the box in which we are operating really starts from the state. redevelopment is dissolved and gone. state dissolution law prevails and the sole purpose and the narrow focus of this body is to complete these surviving projects. it is imperative given the level of affordable housing delivery to thousands of units that would be delivered in these major approved projects. the jobs that would be generated as

engaged by the board, have you been advising the board during our proceedings? >> yes. and there has been one meeting about procedure with the board. one public meeting. >> i apologize, commissioners, were you waiting? did you have a question or just a general pause? >> i guess i am a little surprised and i don't know why the board doesn't have independent counsel. >> i can't answer that question. i am doing this pro bono. >> i know that and we're very appreciative of all of the help you have given us and i am just a little surprised that that it wouldn't be obvious to the board that there is to a certain extent a conflict between you advising us and they as the decision-makers. because we're not the decision-makers, we just make the recommendation, but be that as it may, i would suggest that the solution is for the board to get counsel, find another pro bono. >> i would just also add respectfully commissioners and with all due respect to mr. emblig, it's my understanding that mr. emblig was retained by the city attorney's office of the city and county of san fr

. >> this board continues in its role. its sole purpose is to provide a check and balance and to be sure that those are true obligations and that the obligations are spent and paid down. over time, these obligations will dwindle to none. as we know, these long-term affordable housing obligations, these are 20 and 30-year projects we are not yet complete. in addition, the commission, this ordinance authorizes that commission to select an executive director and handle all personnel matters, including the labor agreements. and the employees as we work through the process that mis kelley outlined. those former redevelopment employees who on february one became employees of the successor, agency and continued as employees of the city, as successor, through june 27th, they are so-called rclass employees, the legislation as a result of the separate entity status under 1484, this legislation acknowledges that those employees are in fact employees of the separate successor agency. and those liabilities whether those are the pension

we hope that this board, and only this board can, now, head off an election and save the city the time and effort and cost involved in election. we understand that a number of you originally voted for this project because there are jobs involved. we believe jobs can be created from good projects, and this is not a good project. we understand that some of you voted for this because the port needs money. we believe the port can get money for good projects, and this is not a good project. so standing behind me are not only some of the 31,000, but throughout this great city, 31,000 and more, who are opposed to this project. we ask you today to please repeal the ordinances, stop the costly election, let's all go back to the drawing boards, and get a sensible, sensible project that leaves a waterfront for all of us, and not just a few. thank you. >> president chiu: thank you. if i could just remind members of the public we do have a rule in the board chamber, asking the public not to express either with awe place or with hissing or other signs of opposition to various comments that are made

i don't know if anybody was on the board, who is currently on the board but where mayor brown nominatedfour people. the board made its three appointments and was going to confirm one of the four, so it would have a quorum on planning. and not confirm the other three. so the board would effectively control the planning commission. and mayor brown met with nominees and we nominated them and it was a game of cat and mouse and made no sense. so there are real problems when we talk about split appointments. i apologize for the lengthy be supporting this legislation today. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just wanted to bring up another perspective, which is the assumption that a split appointment naturally confuses an agency or provides more inefficiencies in the agency. i think from members of this body and the mayor's office a direct commitment to serving the city of san francisco. so i am not sure where that argument comes from. i'm not sure what the fear is based on or what the sudden confusion that is going to occur in our area plans. the one thing i can say is when the supervisors th

and pursuant to the charter, the board may hold a meeting when there was a vacancy, the board may overrule the action of a department by a vote of three members, four votes are not required to overrule a departmental action. to my left is deputy city attorney robert bryan, he will be providing the board with any legal advice this evening, we also joined by our legal assistant, he's at the controls and i'm cynthia, we have representatives throughout the departments who have cases before the board, joseph duf fi, senior building inspector is here representing the building inspection department, we're also joined by carla short, urban forester representing the department of public works. if you would at this time go over the board's meeting guidelines and conduct the swring-in process. >> 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, appellants, permit holdings and department representatives have 7 minutes to present their case and is three minutes for rebuttals, people affiliated with these p

oka would have the support of the board of supervisors, and at least six members of the board so we can seat the sunshine ordinance task force as soon as possible and really get moving with the business of what that task force is all about. again, i appreciate that there's difference much opinions here on that, but that's something that i would certainly support. again, i want to emphasize from my perspective, this is about following the rule of the law. it's about what happened before. to me it is not a political thing. this is about getting someone that everyone can agree with, that has served the city before, in a distinguished fashion and can serve it again, even though i've disagreed with mr. oka on a number of matters at mta board, he's someone i would support for this commission. i appreciate, chair kim, your opinion on this. i don't think we need to do a procedural motion over motion but that is something i would support and would recommend here. >> chair kim: thank you. we do have a motion to move forward on bruce wolfe with recommendation to the full board. i know that we actu

the board is in recess currently anyway.haps we can schedule something in early september to adopt whatever findings have said that with the rest of the package to the board. >> i don't know if this is what you wanted, but i am out of the country from september 2 through 14. >> we have the meeting on the 27. i dunno if it is too late to notice for that if it was a window that we could do this. >> you have thoughts on this? >> we could still use the meeting date on the twenty seventh if you wanted to. >> august 27? i will be out of the country on business. >> i would recommend that you make a finding tonight as a basis for that. but we are going to have to work out a follow-up time. the alternative is the you can empower him to the drafting on behalf of the commission had a trust that he will put together a correct document. Ñilp>> i was going to ask if we could delegate this to the chair? it is a lot to ask. for somebody to do without a commissioner of the work. and i don't need to be here if we have takent( a vote. i don't

that you're asking the board to accept? >> it's a letter stating that the center for environmental health is concerned about the new study with new data. thank you. >> okay. >> and what was the date of that? >> the date of the study is august 22, the date of the letter is today. >> i have a question about your argument. >> yes. >> so, you're saying that because you submitted some materials on the date of the hearing, in other words, late, that that constitutes different immaterial facts or circumstances, which if known at the time could have affected the outcome of the proceeding, is that your argument? >> yes because the coastal program advocates for increased recreational access and it would increased hours of play at beach shall lay, we had two days after the supervisor's hearing, it took a bhiel to calculate the numbers and come up with a study to show that we would have the same hours applied. >> however, let me just ask, the heart of my question really is, if we accept that argument, what would prevent anyone really f

>> no, you know, i will -- i totally understand about this is the board decision, board member decision, and i try the best i can to actually make it my case. i understand that there will be at the beginning, there's two permits, and i do try to also look into combining the two, but you know, as i said, as president hwang has been talking about and there's a due process and -- >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you, we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, board members, i'm joe al ford, i represent the permit holder, kevin read is also president here today, i will try to be brief. as this board is well aware, there's no jurisdiction here. i understand the appellant would like to challenge all mcd's at any level in any proceeding. i suppose due process allows him to do that no matter how frivolous these appeals may be, in particular here, the appellant is seeking to drive up the cost associated with constructing a well managed medical cannabis dispensary, he's driving up those costs by filing what is a frivolous appeal for purposes of these proceedings. his

it's a very important board, as you know.at you spent the last couple of months but we grilled you at our last rules committee meeting and we appreciate you coming back for your reappointment and your service. if there is no other comments, is there a motion? >> madam chair, it is my privilege and honor to move that we forward ms. hurtado's name to the full board with positive recommendation. i think that her stellar qualifications are -- when she came before the rules committee last time, and, you know, i think she's doing a great job, and has already distinguished herself in the last two months. and i think that the city will be well-served by her continuing in this position and i'm just grateful that after doing it for two months you still want to do it. so that's a good thing. so i'm very thrilled to see th that. if we could quickly -- i couldn't agree more. thank you for your willingness to serve. i've heard great things. maybe we make it as a committee report. >> yes. >> chair kim: before we do that, we need to amend th

one seat on the board is currently vacant, and the board may hold a meeting when there is a vacancy. the board may overrule the action of the department by a vote of three members. good four votes are not required. robert bryant will provide the board with any legal advice this evening. i am the board's executive director. we are joined by representatives from some of the city departments that have cases before the board to night. scott sanchez is representing the planning department and planning commission. if you could please go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. but the board requests you turn off on phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. good rules are as follows. appellants and department representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people must conclude within 7 minutes or three minutes. members of the public not affiliated with the party have up to 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. joyces the board and accurate presentation of the meetings, members are

how come eight of you can't do that for the board president now. the board defers on thoseem

the board voted unanimous will you to deny the hearing request.he second and final item before the board that may be of interest to you was 4218 mission street. this was a building permit an appeal of a building permit for soft demo. there was no change of use involved. the reason this address may be familiar to you is because this is the proposed future site of the green cross, which is a medical cannabis dispensary. this was approved by you in february of this year, commissioners. however, the permit that would change the use is still under review by other city agencies, and has not yet been issued. the department did note that the permit on appeal, the soft demo permit does not itself change the use of the property to an mcd. however, the appellant did continue with extensive arguments as to why an ncd nonetheless should be located at this property. after several hours of public comment both in favor and opposition to the mcd itself the board vote to deny the appeal and approve the permitted because the permit department authorize an ncd. appel

cannot be implemented by the board. going to the findings related to employer's health reimbursement accounts, finding number 8, disagree, and for this, the board of supervisors refers to the olse's response, the analysis of the 2010 annual reporting forms provides that employers allocated to health care reimbursement perhaps, flexible spending accounts, savings accounts, medical savings accounts, the 12 thousand dollars reports the amount..[reading].. from all of those types of accounts, the annual reporting form does not ask the employer's what happened, these allocation and is reimbursements were reported by 2019ed and 16 employers who submitted the annual reporting form to the olse, with regards to finding number 9, disagree, the city and county does not know employees and employers using those, similarly there is no data between the differing reimbursement rates, the board of supervisors made amendments and believes they will help increase reimbursement rates and other reimbursement programs. finding number 10, par

further be it resolved that the board of education encourages them to represent the board of education support for the full implementation for childhood arrivals program whenever and wherever possible and further be it resolved that the board of education recognizes and applauds the efforts of our community partners, e.g., affirmative action, asian law caucus. fsop. san francisco immigration network. asia pacific islanders. legal outreach. central american resource center. a whole host of community experts in making this national opportunity a dream come true locally for our students and their families. so i believe that we have community members who could speak to this action from the mission community. thank you. >> thank you. >> public speakers? that signed up for today, jim, ava, wade, emanuel, clarissa. come on up. press the button and you have two minutes each. >> hi commissioners. my name is jen, i'm a communitied a and i work with our immigration program with undocumented pacific islander youth. i'm very grateful this resolution was presented today. thank you so much commission

>> good evening, members of the board. my name is steve collier, tenderloin housing clinic staff attorney. yes, we have agreed and stipulated to the findings and determination that are presently before you. the matter should be decided by the planning commission to see if they will approve a conditional use. i think that is where the issue is better set, and that is why we agreed to the stipulation. president hwang: thank you. director goldstein: mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good afternoon, president hwang, commissioners. we have a of -- we have reviewed what was put forward to the -- to us. there is information that was not previously provided. this board agreed to the rehearing request because of some of this new information that has become available. it is required to go before the planning commission in order to continue the use as a tourist motel. so that due date would have been several years ago now, but they would not have been able to file the c.u. because it has been more than a decade now, so the result of this ap

one seat on the board currently is vacant and pursuant to charter section 4.1060 the board may hold a meeting when there is a vacancy. in such instances -- four votes are not required to overrule a departmental action to my left is deputy city attorney robert brian. at the controls is board legal assistant mr. pacheco. we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board tonight. dan snyder, representing the planning department and planning commission. patrick o'reardon, senior building inspector, we have aliana crusho and janine young from the department of health and mr. harris from the police department. if you could go over the board meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> turn off all phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentations are as follows. appellants, permit holders each have seven minutes to represent their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of th

on the timber 22, at the san francisco unified school district board of education and a board resolution no. urged the city and county of san francisco to remember its status as the city and county of refuge as set forth in the san francisco administrative code via adopted the ordinance no. 37589 on october 24, 1989, and whereas in board resolution no. 992 to 82, the final whereas clause where denial of access to an sfusd education to undocumented student would impose a lifetime margin on a discrete class of children not accountable for this disabling status. the stigma of a literacy will mark them for the rest of their lives. by denying these children their education, i get the ability for foreclosing any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our nation as recognized by the supreme court. and whereas the board of and their ability to learn, grow and thrive in every available facet of the san francisco unified school district regardless of their land of origin, parentage and documentation status. whereas on june 15, 2012, the departme

and what it asks of the board of supervisors is the same question and if three-quarters of the board of supervisors vote to sustain the charges, then there is no discretion on the penalty. the penalty is removal from office. so i think the charter anticipates a decision here on whether or not to sustain the mayor's charges, a decision by the board as to whether or not to accept your recommendation and nothing more, nothing less. >> commissioner was there anything further? on the issue of making a motion for us to vote on the -- on what the penalty should be, i am not in favor of that for the reasons that we discussed. if you want to put in something -- i guess if there was some sort of concurring type of opinion, you wanted to put in, statements about what your view of what the punishment should pe, that could be something that we could add, not as part of the majority opinion, but something that is separate. that could be done, but i would ask what your viewpoint is on whether that is something you would like to do? >> well, i mean based on the discussion and what mr. hemblig as ind

as president of the ac transit board of directors and on behalf of my fellow board members, i want toe federal transit administration and administrator matt millen for showing an understanding of our $7.5 million grant that will help us maintain bus-reliable service. i also want to thank our east bay congressional delegation for always supporting our efforts and for working so hard on our behalf of the securities grant appeared we know that without congresswoman lee to helping our perpetual fight for fundamental would be much tougher. we need the funding to replace our existing bus fare box system and support equipment. fareboxes are a required element for recording and collecting cash fares on our buses. system failures not only result in lost fare revenues but also costly maintenance, expenses for repair and interruption of service. ac transit will bite fareboxes and equipment for storage as well as equipment to manage the system. replacement will bring our fair system into a state of good repair and enable us to provide our customer with most reliable transit service. a game, thank

the board should be aware of. for us, the issue in drawing the attendance boundaries is not strictly whine of residential patterns. for the people at the school and the children, the issue is one of history, community, and culture. japan town has been part of rosa parks attendance area for almost 85 years. it is inconceivable to the community that any issue be excluded from the attendance boundary. i mentioned rosa parks built in 1927 in the midst of one of the most of the verse of multicultural neighborhoods in the city. japan town has been, and the residents have been a proud part of that community for that time. it was interrupted by the internment of japanese-americans during world war two and even more recently by the redevelopment. these factors are all part of determining what a boundary should be, and i will discuss with staff those issues. >> and good evening, commissioners. my name is karen and i am here as the second part of his statement. we really do have a school community that is based in both the w

of supervisors, board of appeals and the historic prezservation commission. >> in the written report, the department has been doing some work partially through an epa grant, i'm looking at the possible structuring of a couple of eco districts, there's a workshop happening on october 1 and they'll talk about the department environment, spuc, to talk about how to establish these districts in these neighborhoods and we're excited about the potential there, it has some great possibilities. secondly, i just wanted to call your attention and we're able to mention this briefly that there is due legislation related to the successor agency, there was additional state law passed that required us to make changes to the structure that we have set up, the mayor has proposed legislation that would separate the functions of the fiduciary responsibilities from the other functions that were not quite under state law but were required by the city to take on such as entitlement authority, so the legislation that you'll hear about briefly and that we will follow up with you in a memo about -- we'll expl

. >>> welcome to the regular board of supervisors meeting. i'm supervisor chu, avalos, our clerk and we have jennifer low and scott wiseman. madam clerk, any announcements? >> yes, please silence cell phones, electronic devices. complete cards and copies of documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. item acted upon will be on the october 23rd, 2010 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. would you call items one and two. >> resolution approving issuance of -- up to 502 million of the san francisco plan bonds. * item 2, ordinance appropriating 543,200,0030 of proceeds for sale of bonds to the airport commission for fiscal year 2012 * 2013. >> thank you. for this item we have kathy weiner from the airport. these came before the budget and finance last week. we made a change to the dollar amount. for that reason we had to continue these to allow for public comment. to ms. weisner to items one and two, resolution approving issuance is 502,200,000 versus appropriation at 543,

from the board? >> i don't know that you really are prepared to discuss the question that ms. franklin brought out in terms of the increase in administrative costs. is there an easy answer to that? >> in the packet had some notes on page 2. what happened, some of the coding issues have changed over the years. we have hired additional and administrators as part of the redesign, a total of two physical bodies have been added, one of them as not tired yet. the major change is that substitutes are in their because of the 5000 code being unspecified in one year. a lot of work has been done cleaning up the resources. that is part of the reason. >> before we go to another subject, can you give us in writing and analysis of something that is comparable so that we are able to see here is what is not in the budget that we have been doing all along? and also just a reference to the positions that we have so that we can -- is so that it is comparable and we are able to analyze it in that way. >> we are in proces