the internet about board of appeals. this is the purpose of the board of appeals. it is to citizens who do not have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars and the board of appeals and over jurisdictions and commissions and uss what happens and you decide. that's all i have. >> thank you. any other general public comment? >> okay. seeing none we will move to commission two which is commission comments and questions. commissioners anything. >> madam director was item 10 not continued? >> item 10 has not been continued. okay. any public comment under this item? okay. seeing none then item three is the board's consideration and possible adoption of the meeting minutes for october 24, 2012. >> [inaudible] >> okay. there is a motion to adopt. is there any public comment on the minutes? okay. seeing none mr. pacheo. >> on that motion then from commission lazarus to adopt the october 24, 2012 motion. on that motion. vice president fung. >> aye. >> president wan. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> those are adopted. >> thank you. we will call item 4a a jurisdi

you were part of the board. i was hoping you would be very impartial to this. >> supervisor elsbernd: i'm agreeing with your finding, ma'am. >> i understand that. finding 4, the jury says that the increases in pension contributions by the city are growing at a faster rate than expenditures on most city services since 1999. the fund says that they neither confirm nor deny this. the jury answer is that the controller agreed with this finding. the jury believeses that since the city insures the fund against investment losses they should play an active part in influencing the investment risk. it's common for an insured to limit and penalize risk and even to refuse to deal with matured individuals who do not exercise sufficient care over their health or property nevertheless we think the board and staff should show awareness of impact of investment losses on the health of the city budget. recommendation 1 -- almost done, recommends that a high level task force meet and discuss these issues. the board says that this i

the general rule is, if someone is appearing before the board or is a party appearing before the board who has been a source of income to him, basically one of his clients, who is paid him 500 dollars or from home he has received 500 dollars in commission the last 12 months he is required to recuse himself. >> i could be anyone other whether a realtor or not. >> that's right. >> any other question? >> thank you mr. honda for being willing to serve. one of the dynamics we have seen around the board of appeals lately is because of the charter allows "any person" even if that person does not live in the city, and regardless to the connection to anything can appeal to the board of appeals. that delays the project a few months. there was an appeal, one person appealed the project, it happened elsewhere as well. and without commenting on specific projects that could come before you, in terms of the general policy, i think there is a case for reform in terms of how appeals go to the board of appeals, making sure there is some level of community support for an appeal before it goes up, and all

of appeals, appealing to this board. and the director of transportation committed to take the issue up again at the mta before any action before the board of supervisors. and so far that hasn't happened. and there a recommendation to get rid of section 1179 that deals s with appeals of this board. and no recommendation to get rid of the section that allows someone that is denied a permit to bring an appeal. and to contend as has, and this is not the denial of a permit when people have waited for 17 years. and 200 permits are shoveled to cab companies. if the permits were needed, would otherwise go to drivers. this is the first time in 34 years that a single permit has been issued to anyone but the taxi driver. and it's completely contrary to the provisions of the transportation code for them to do that. it's outrageous. >> is this the final comment you want to make? >> excuse me? >> is this the comment you want to make? and i will allow the department to have extra time and answer. please wrap it up. >> their pretension

, clerk ofe board.in the mid-40's for the things being considered in the rules committee. thankfhñ?ñ? you forbmñ?ñ? havinn rules. the÷pñ?ñ?áóñ?ñ?ofñ?ñ consolidatr the last 150 years various supervisors have amended these rules and our thanks to supervisor elsbernd, the most senior member of the board in helping us sponsor this legislation. the proposed revision does not seek to change the way the board conducts its business. we had three goals in mind. we wanted to reorganize the rules so the order is more intuitive, making the rules more users friendly, we wanted to clarify existing rules by eliminating redundancies and codifying practices such always doobication of the file and overall general edit of the document. to date we've held two working groups sifting of legislative staff from all board offices, we've obtained suggestions from deputy city attorney john givner and the the#$s#ktks previous dy attorney cheryl adams. there is worth mentioning honorable mention for several deputy, director rick c

board staff during a break or after the meeting, or call the board in the morning. the board appeals office is broadcast live on san francisco government tv, sfg tv and channel 78. and thank you for your attention. at this time point in time we are conduct our swearing in process. if you plan to speak at any part of tonight's meeting, please stand and raise your right hand and say "i do" after being sworn in or affirmed. please note that any member the public can take this oath according to the sunshine ordinance in the code. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> i do. >> thank you. >> vice president fung, we have one housekeeping issue, 12-041, this is regarding a letter of determination, having to do 651 to 655 geary street, and we need to vote to move it. is that a motion? commissioner lazarus. thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none. please call the roll. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus to reschedule item five, 12-041 to january 9, 2013.

board. for seat 3, must have experience provide a direct service to the homeless, thre community setting, nicholas kimora [sounds like] shelter client advocate. and for seat 4, must be from a different list of candidates nominated to provide behavioral health, andrew mendez, an active member of the shelter working group. seat 5, must be homeless or formerly homeless, selected from the list of candidates, trulia antonia [sounds like]. i believe the put people in seats they qualify for. >> that is incorrect supervisor kim. the requirement is your home is or formerly homeless in the past three years, have custody of the minor child, seat 1. jenny parrilla is currently under shelter monitoring committee, appointed by the local homeless cording board. >> supervisor kim: oh. i apologize. >> both -- have spoken to ms. parrilla, asked her not to apply, it would be confusing. ms. wong had an older application. she's already seated by the local homeless cordoning board. >> supervisor kim: how can you

when you became the board of appeals instead of board of permanent appeals.and your perview, not to narrow it. it was to make it available for more people for more issues. if we do not -- it's not american to take away rights. and narrow things. the way it is now with sfmta there no avenue of appeal. they are judge, and executioner, and if the not for you, we have nothing but to hire a lawyer and go to superior court. we need you there. we need you when there are individual driver issues, and when there are other issues. we need you because the public needs you to step up. and this is the time that you must assert that. if not you then whom? if not then, then when? i paraphrase, i can't say it better. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is saunba. and i speak for the members and can bring 300 people and clutter your movement and all of those things. so i suggest if i could have more than three minutes otherwise they have to talk and it takes more time. i have dyslexia and i would not be able to read all of these three pages you have in front of you

board's executive director. we are joined this evening by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board tonight. scott sanchez is here and he is is zoning administrator representing the planning commission. joseph duffy is here, representing the department of building inspection and also joined from the environmental section of the department of public health. if you could go over the guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that all turn off all cell phones and proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board holds the presentation are as follows. appellants and permit holders and department representatives have 7 minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals people affiliated with these parties must include the comments in the three or seven minute periods. the members who are not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the min

but it's been clearly stated by the board that don't want the board of supervisors to take action until we have this memorandum of understanding of process. >> commissioners unless you have other questions. the matter is submitted. and mr. gruberg, i am happy to give you my copy of that letter. >> commissioners? >> well, i think i would like mr. gruberg to have an opportunity to review the letter. if he hasn't seen it. and make any comments. if he would like to. >> okay, the letter didn't say that much. >> i would have comments about that letter myself. >> i believe that mr. gruberg represents your side of the issues. >> he doesn't represent the united taxi driver members, i am a member of the public and have things to say. >> let him have a chance. >> we will determine that sir, whether there will be further public testimony. >> that letter was available in the board's office in our files. if you came to the office and looked at our files, you had an opportunity to see it. >> if that's not the most outrageous thing i have heard, i don't know what is. sorry, i don't come down there ever

honda the board of appeals. one of the most important qualities is someone who can listen; that was brought up by our last speaker. it is important to have someone who has spent time in multiple sectors. the community offers that place; you have a background as a realtor, that it is owner; it is hard to quantify or qualify the ability to listen. i think that is something our neighbors want to see as we come up with issues that are emotional. is also great to have another san francisco native on the board of appeals as well. i'm happy to support the motion. we do have a motion to amend. we can do that without opposition. (gavel). we have a motion to move the item forward to the full board. it won't be heard until the first tuesday in december; i urge you to reach out to the board of supervisors as well. it will be helpful to sit down with the city attorney about any other kind of potential conflicts that may arise and you can think about this in advance. we have a motion that we can do that without opposition. th

the board held 25 meetings for a total of 28 hours. you schedule 28 meetings but because of the lack of board members we had to cancel three. the board heard 114 cases, that year and that was actually down about 20 percent from the few years prior. and i think that was the number down a bit, both because we were unable to hold as many meetings as we, had in past years and the number of matters was also down 12 percent. and now, that goes to all new matters filed but not for new appeals filed. the board actually held steady with the number of new appeals filed in the fiscal year, the same as pretty much the same as it was true for the three years prior. but still that is down significantly. if you look at the ten-year average, down ten years from the norm. >> looking at the year to date numbers, i just thought that it would be interesting to see where we are this year in comparison to where we have been in the last few years. it does seem that the new appeals are coming in slightly faster than in prior years. although it is still a litt

>> it's up to the members of the board. if they care to speak again there is no pending motion on the floor so a motion needs to be made. >> oh there is no motion? okay. >> i have a couple of comments. >> go ahead. >> just to be clear and perhaps if it wasn't involved in my discussions at the previous hearing, you know, what is before us is a fairly narrow issue versus all the things that we heard from both sides. we're not hearing the case before us, and until we've had the verbal testimony i knew very little exactly what the action was. the question in front of us is whether this board accepts the city attorney's opinion that we don't have jurisdiction, and that question is tied specifically into how we read that opinion, and what we know individually about the charter and what occurred in terms of the various actions that were part of that opinion. the issues brought up by the vast majority of speakers are related to their own lives and industry. it's not something that this board has been any jurisdiction over most of i

we're looking how pedestrians board and where they go once they get there. we are looking at as people are arriving by private car and we call it kiss and ride and look at those pat -- patterns and some include looking at the area and the interchange and there are six ramps in the area where you only need four to have a full interchange. are there ramps we can eliminate inference and physical traffic. >> >> >> and if we do that then what does it allow us to do in terms of relieving some of the conflicts with pedestrians and buses? it's not that we close the ramps all together or repurpose them and restrict access and allow only buses to use some of the areas or vehicles dropping or picking up passengers to use those areas. we also have our eye out on if we do retain these ramps then certainly at least one of them should be redesigned. the 280 southbound off ramp to ocean avenue currently allows vehicles to speed on to ocean avenue without slowing down. if we retain that ramp make it a t intersection so cars have to stop for pedestrians and finally we're agai

and that is also something that is not necessarily part of this particular board's issues. what is before us is a permit that relates to the building, to the tennis court, to the paths around it and perhaps, to the landscaping that that is impacted by this particular permit. and then the question is and it has been brought up by a few of the speakers, some concern with the tree that are being removed to relocate the tennis courts. and it is interesting that the two play grounds that have had tennis courts, that came in front of this board, both have relocated functional tennis courts in light of a master plan. i will not dwell on that too much, because i think that the level of community outreach and participation here was much more extensive than the other instance. whether i am in disagreement on a personal note with the way that they developed that, i don't think really has much significance. the question is whether we feel that this permit then has certain things about it that are in either error or represents a decision by the department that is truly not in the intere

in this case and also as the board procedures there's no public comment typically at the full board, but for appeals. so, if this were to go through, i believe what would typically happen would be the board could have a decision that they could make -- take all the public comment for the public at the committee level or the board sits as a committee as a whole at the full board. so, they could also choose to -- the committee could not hear it at all and the full board could hear its sitting as a committee. the full board as a whole [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. i think that is an important distinction and disdifference to what it is today and what it might be in the future. it is not for us to decide, i think it is for the board to decide. i just wanted to highlight that. and then i have another set of questions on standing, which is new to me so you have to bear with me. so, it seems like today any person can appeal either an exemption or a neglect derek deck. but what is proposed for the future is for the exemption, it's any person who has objected to the exemption. * neg

they must be approved by thet5fu board in the same way that the retirement board relies on the-ñ consultingctuary to calculate and determine employer contributions. >> supervisor elsbernd: i had just a couple of higher level questions. seems to me that one of the big assumptions that underpinning this executive summary has to do with drop of the bear market assets shrank from 17.4 billion to 11.1 billion. the question i had, just doing a little research here on the computer, it seems that the overall markets dropped by about 20% during that time period, and our fund dropped well beyond that. and i wanted to just get your sense of is that acceptable, typically when folks think about their own investments you want to at least track the markets if not do better than them, seeing that we did worse than what the overall markets did i want to get your perspective on that and the suggestion there hadn't been a failure analysis and what kind of analyze you've done since 2009 to make sure we're not in that situation again. >> again, as i indicated earlier, we measure once a year, it's a snapshot as

request that the matter be agendized for the full board, and that will happen in the following board meeting. those are two thoughts and proposals that i have. the fact is that this is not the united states senate; we have a much more democratic board and i think that if someone wants an agenda item, it should be agendized and we should have more time to know what the tentative draft agenda is so the members of the committee can be as prepared as possible. >> supervisor kim: a question to the city attorney. of these amendments substantive? >> you can act on these today and forward to the board. >> supervisor avalos. >> i'm fine with the new rule, 3.61. i have a question for the clerk on that one. it seems like as a legislative aide who work on the developing of agendas they are readily shared in advance. i have not been a part of how these agendas come up; has there been an issue where board members requested an advance copy of the agenda and was not able to get that? that seems to be to be pretty standard practice to get agendas out when requested. >> supervisor avalos, from time to

any appointment by board members?appoint aib rel tal ina for the -- commission. >> did you get that? thank you. any other appointments? item l, special order of@?ñ? business. okay.zéçy;8'x just for public hearings and adoptions. i now call the public hearing and adoption between the tentative agreement between the district and united administrators of san francisco. is there a motion and a second on the agreement? >> reading of the recommendation by superintendent or designee tom ruiz. >> the requested action for this is the board of education conducts the public hearing and the related public disclosure documented. i'd like to thank bothqs÷s]y bargaining teams from uasf andz the district for promoting this agreementy0$[qqv. i believe we have some speakers also. >> good evening, president yee, commissioners, and superintendent carranza. i'm here to thank the district and the uass negotiation team through interest based bargaining we came up with this agreement and i encourage the board to adopt this. while i'm up he

i want to thank the leadership of the chinese hospital, their board of trustees. i know that james has been leading this effort and rose pack has been leading this effort for so many years. it has been my personal pleasure to have contributed to the way that i have felt comfortable with, which is the annual golf tournament at the olympic club. but we have made that and we transitioned that to something that started out, rose, when we started some 18 years ago, some $20,000 contribution, to now, and just in a few weeks, $650,000 a year to help rebuild this chinese hospital, and make sure that it stands with generations to come. but also, the board of trustees working with the community, working with our superviserers and the communities that are represented here today and their wonderful contributions, $10,000, $20,000, $100,000, here. the family associations have been wonderful because they know that history as well. and they want to make sure that generations to come benefits from our hospital. we have been constantly doing it beyond just the golf tournaments. we

w"o5vñ >>> welcome to the regular board of supervisors meeting.r 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 543,200,000. so i'

is and the board considers them, the two items together, and then the full board takes action. not deprive anyone the ability to comment [speaker not understood] c-e-q-a. in fact, it came to an automatic appeal. another change is that currently when a c-e-q-a appeal is filed, no action can be taken by anybody, by the board, by any commission. and that means there are plenty of times where actions need to be taken but don't have any physical impact or irreversible impact, but everything is frozen. this will provide when c-e-q-a appeal is filed, actions can continue to occur. for example, the hpc can continue to consider a landmarking or similar kinds of process, but no physical change can be made to the property. and, of course, the c-e-q-a determination is overturned, those decisions will be invalidated, but nothing irreversible will have happened. there are also improvements to noticing in the legislation and there are also changes around the board's rules. for example, requiring that there will always be a court reporter when the board holds c-e-q-a hearing. now it's optional

the mental health board is doing. it's there to improve the lives of people in our community and thereby improving our community. so, thank you all for your support for mental health. please keep it up and let me know what i can do for you. [cheering and applauding] >> our next presentation will be by supervisor jane kim. >> thank you. and also i wanted to say real quickly, laura guzman, i love the work that you do so much and i think our city would be so much less if we couldn't call mnrc one of refuge in our city. mental health, i want to thank former supervisor bevan dufty and supervisor malia cohen for suggesting that we honor individuals that work in this area for mental health awareness month. for many reasons this issue is something that is of great importance to me. one, because of the district i represent. this is actually one of our top priority issues in our district. it is something that we in our office face every day, how do we address the issue of mental health in this city. and second, for me it's very