correct. the issue of the existing amount of shadow on the park was a big part of the information in the 1989 memo was that when into coming to conclusion about which park should be set as zero tolerance parks or parks would could accept no increase in absolute cumulative limits of shadow but through further analysis specific to the now gene friend rec center, it was determined it was erroneously listed as one of those park, smaller park of less than two acres that had an existing shadow load of greater than 20% and, therefore, placed in that no new additional shadows should be allowed categories. essentially the '89 memo is based on erroneous conclusion. the actions before you today would be to -- because the 1989 memo was essentially a policy document that was jointly adopted by both of those commissions to provide guidance as to what was determined to be adverse or significant in terms of new shadow, the action before you today is a request to consider amending your own jointly adopted memo

>> correct. commissioner mar: and some of the illegal work that was done, was it done by the tenants or -- >> to my knowledge, yes. and if you look at the quality of the work, you can tell by the pictures it certainly wasn't done by a general contractor that i would have hired. commissioner mar: but it wasn't anything that the property owner -- you as the property manager was aware of? >> i've been the manager for 15 years and no, no. not our work. >> as a matter of fact, in the kitchen area there are cabinets that are not attached to the water. it has a very, very temporary nature to it. something like you'd -- something at ikea or something like that, goodwill, kind of put it there and secured it to the wall. it's very temporary. some of the things. not all of them. particularly in the kitchen. president lee: commissioner hechanova. commissioner hechanova: at the time it was rented out, would there have been, because of its commercial space, a need for at certain points potentially fire extingu

what we're doing is a little bit correct with what has been found. for the purpose of the session, i am very confident. this is a very significant one, and this is accurate, and this is well below the 20% that would be considered. we raise the allotment for this project, and another project comes forward, and again, this has not brought this even close to 20%. is it possible that the other projects could be heard, and we would allow the shadowing allotment again for the additional projects. >> we will have to separate actions and this is not a different project without being on a level where we could utilize this budget for this particular project. >> the issue is for the additional allotment, for any future project. they would have to come to a joint hearing, as this one has. but i am now supporting commissioner -- not supporting commissioner borden. we would have another hearing to correct the language, which adds more of an expense to the city business, by doing a separate hearing. >> commissioner borden? commissioner borden: we did have the heari

>> correct. >> so the assistants work for the patrols and, correct? >> yes. >> ok. i wanted to make that clear that it is not just 20. from the public's perspective, a member of the public won't tell the difference between a patrol special. i can't do the math out there. >> now a beat owner can work for another beat owner. >> i am slow today. i am sick. i am sorry. there are nine beat owners. the total number of people the public would assume are patrol special between the patrol specials and the assistant. 27 or 27 plus. >> 27. >> ok. thank you. i'm sorry. >> ok. thank you for your update. at this point in time we would like to hear from the patrol special officers and their representatives. i know that there are several in the audience working diligently on this issue. if you can come forward and please provide us with your presentation. >> i am the president of the san francisco patrol special association. i would like to hand each of you a letter here from our newly elected supervisor, distri

>> that's correct. commissioner hechanova: and so there could be a tracking mechanism by which that could be investigated? >> not from the department of building inspection. that would be more from the owners and tenants, i would assume. commissioner hechanova: ok. it could be the rent board because that would indicate if there was also an increase of the rent if they were renting before the work was done or when -- what the rent was before the work was done and then the subsequent and current rent? >> that would be probably correct. commissioner hechanova: is there any valuation that determined the drop from $93,000 to almost 4 1/2 times to $20,000? >> just dating from our date receipt it was -- looks like on february 11, 2011, the agents and owner met with the director and found that the work was rudimentry and not finished construction and therefore reduced from $93,000 to $20,000. commissioner hechanova: of that amount, is there a timeline associated with the work that could be done within a certain

it may be helpful to look at all of the parts of this, and so, if we're going to correct the mistake we might as well make certain that we have all the mistakes corrected. >> and you would have to meet again for this session. >> can i follow up on this. >> i think it would have a more broad discussion about -- the process is what they have shading of over 20%, this may be a good time to have another conversation as well, about the situations in which we think you can raise the cumulative limit overall. we have the opportunity to do this as well as hold a larger conversation. commissioner sugaya: we have to have some understanding because of what the staff told me, and with the staff told commissioner antonini, because these are different things as far as i'm concerned. does this raise the limit to the absolute maximum? his question was, if another project came along, can we consider increasing this absolute limit again, and the answer was yes. there are a couple of different answers -- some of these places are a zero-tolerance and we cannot raise the shadows. >> commissioner, this is

>> yes, correct. it's a very important correction. supervisor elsbernd: in the analysis if nothing happens -- none of these developments happen -- 19th avenue, what happens to it? >> it would become more congested and this is consistent with the patterns of recent decades. most of the both grow of traffic on 19th avenue has to do with through traffic. all that would happen irrespective. supervisor elsbernd: mr. albert, would the other -- what the other piece to have 19th avenue study does is looks and kind of sets up the various mitigation measures in a tiered fashion. tier three, tier four, tier five. tier four is the extent to which we have -- maybe in my head the way i think of it, the total extent of all the mitigation measures proposed in this e.i.r. and what the city is planning to do. and then tier five is that last piece that is unfunded at the moment. is that a fair description? >> peter albert from m.t.a. what i would actually -- i'd like to reinforce that important description of what we've done with the analysis. the m.t.a

that language has been corrected, right? >> there was a language that was corrected in the amended letter. that was plans that were in the eighth in -- the wings. we wanted to have something good come from this. the permits and the suspension, which could have released that without any permit and not having any additional work to the property. we pointed them to correct some of these issues. that is why we had required that permit. we are open to any direction that the board has or that the appellant could provide as to how to improve that permit. these are all good things and positive things that are happening to the building. the appellant wants them to happen. it is a matter of getting clarity for everyone about what needs to be done to achieve that. removing the steel gate, which has always been a point for the appellant. keyboarding will come off the windows. the windows are to be replaced. any doors that needs to be replaced will be employed -- will be replaced in kind. i believe is not at the issue stage. we have a ho

is that correct?>> commissioner antonini, i think the ceqa findings, if the commissioner were to approve the 37 parking spaces, the ceqa findings are correct. i think staff would like the commission to adopt a motion of intent on the c.u. approval so that staff could go back and correct and change some of the findings because the c.u. findings are based on the lower amounts of parking. if the commission approves the project as recommended by the department with the lower amount of parking, the ceqa findings, it's just a question of correcting the two paragraphs about parking as well as the title. so that you could -- the commission could just approve the ceqa findings with that direction, and that's easily correctable. and the c.u. motion could be adopted as is with the lower amounts of parking. commissioner antonini: and if the motion were to pass with the higher amount of parking, could that be voted on today? >> the commission could adopt a motion of intent. i think the staff prefers the commission

we have already corrected and implemented new policies and procedures, taking the corrective actions as recommended in december 2010. regarding this section -- and the guidelines -- we have noted the errors that we made in the first few quarters, and we took action in march 2010. for the last one, relating to the payroll of march 2011, we have implemented a new policy and procedures, with the submission of the certified payroll. basically, we have taken all productive actions as recommended. >> and are there any questions? is the mass transit authority here? >> we have a couple of management comments, the internal procedures for the inventors have been updated. modified to address these issues. the procedures will be included in the upcoming trading inventory. the second item -- we have reports to identify the retro- calculations, for fiscal year 2011. and we are poised to have this be correct and timely, starting in march. >> thank you very much. and is there anything else from the staff? >> i think that is everything, unless you wanted to speak with the mayor's office. >> please co

realistically, you know, commissioner lee is correct. i appreciate the fact that sometimes you get in contact with somebody who is less than capable of working on your property, and that is one of the reasons why you would look for an insured licensed contractor, so it's something like this happens, unfortunately, you do have to pursue some legal remedies, but my assumption here is that if you had to pay any fees, that those types of things would be wrapped into the remedy you would be seeking from the arbitration adjustment board. >> that is a possibility. i have been asked what i'm looking for, and i did give them a figure. i love the fact that i'm standing in front of you today shows that he did work incorrectly. we have suffered many floods since the installation of this new sewer. commissioner lee: commissioner walker, mar. commissioner walker: i have a question, and it may be better to the staff. in the original store permit -- 2005, did you say? >> i believe it was 2006. we had our first lead in 2005. commissioner walker: my quest

i presume that day, is that correct? can we correct that? we are not making a memorandum of understanding n.y. is that correct? it should be 2011. president mendoza: february to june? >> it appears from the requested action that the agreement would stay in effect from march 8, 2011 through june 30, 2011. i believe commissioner wynns is correct. this is a typo. commissioner wynns: can we correct that? president mendoza: thank you. roll call vote -- >> wait, one more. i just wanted to have a brief request on 1-a. i'm sorry, the -- what is it? 1-d on page 5. i have a question about the student selection process. you don't have page five? it is the last page. i just have a question about how we read determine that for different students. -- how we determine that the different students? >> is this something you wanted to do later? or can the staff member talk to you about that? hong >> a staff person can talk to me about that. president mendoza: rollc al call under section l. there are no board members proposals tonight. item j is regarding gener

secretary: correct. commissioners, we're going to call item five. is that correct? 5, hearing and action, so item b and d have requested continuances until april 12, and so, i guess i would like the commission to make a motion to that effect. president newlin: ok, with someone like to make a motion to continue items c indeed -- and d? secretary: commissioner meko. oh, do you want to have public comment? president newlin: do you have a comment? >> yes. good evening, commissioners. i live in san francisco, and i came out tonight expecting these items would be heard, so if i could have a couple of minutes to talk about them, i would be happy to come back on april 12, as well. president newlin: ok. >> sean manchester was my neighbor, and we were next to the bar, and he and his wife used to live on the street, as well. they were very nice neighbors and also very responsible operators, and also another. so i just wanted to speak in favor of chamber and look forward to being able to visit it at some point. the beat box is in a space that has been an ongoing challenge, alth

about that is correct. -- >> that is correct. as you know, the chartered drives a number of contributions, from bass lines and different set asides that the voters have adopted. those include the most significant, $16.4 million increase heading into next year for the city's contribution to the public education and retirement fund. it is because the city pulled the trigger on that measure and the career that allows us to reduce the funding allocated to the schools by 25%. the report a sense that we float back to the status quo contribution next year, although we know the mayor and the board have the discretion, given the fact the shortfall next year is over $100 million, to make a policy choice to reduce it by 25%, or about $15 million. in 2011-2012, increases and baseline requirements, the largest being mta, but also the library, parks, and others. this somewhat busy slide is our effort to pick up everything else included in the report, discussed in more detail. $199 million in non salary- related cost increases for the coming fi

waving the city's requirements in terms of the fees. >> correct. supervisor chu: the involvement of the city would be allowing it to go forward as long as neighbors, etc., were able to raise that money. >> correct. supervisor mirkarimi: pddpw, you have spoken on this before. something to add? >> a couple of points of clarification. the request for annual requirement under the law. a way to give annual assessment. would still require the f attend opinion -- should we see this? the department does not have a position as it relates to labor assessment. it is left to the board in this case. this segment of 48 avenue is what the department has identified as unimproved right- of-way. it has not been constructed to city standards. therefore, for fronting property owners are responsible for the maintenance of the median space. weekend. supervisor chu: thank you for the clarifications. are there any members of the public that wish to speak? seeing none >> here are some grs showing you what some people make. and this is what other people make a lot more of.

>> correct. as employees they do carry workers' comp. >> and they have liability, correct. >> correct. >> the city is named as know an insured on those policies? >> correct. >> there is obviously a way we can confirm the city is named as an insured on those policies. >> this is the information that we have until february 28th to turn in our insurance and car records. we also have $1 million policies on the insurance that we use. >> knowing we had an issue with potential liability to the city, you asked folks to raise it to $2 million. have you heard anything that they actually have? do we know for each of the 27 patrol specials or whatever it is, do we know precisely how much insurance they are carrying right now? and if you did not have an increase to the levels committed to in your papers that were submitted, why has it it been that we haven't seen the liability insurance increased? >> i have talked to probably four of the beat owners. and they have increased it to $2 million. there are several

>> correct. >> do you make today's residents pay for it forever? you are asking to pay for a reasonable future, but then they pay for it as it continues to grow. >> pc level rise predictions are actually less. if we change, we have to cope less. we will spend the capital where it is not needed. if it is more, we can accommodate the additional sea level rise. commissioner torres: if i may, what benefit is it to the ratepayers that we provide these protections? >> i do not quite understand the question. commissioner torres: are we going to ensure that we have a minimum of 16 inches for the project? to what benefit are all those improvements? >> most of the cost the gentleman was talking about is the developers' costs. >> there will be a funding mechanism that will be in place that raises money over time under development to pay for that infrastructure. commissioner torres: so, these will not be borne by the ratepayers of sand and cisco? >> correct. they have the benefit we have of being able to rai

is that correct? >> ithat is correct. >> why? >> i am not a policy person in this area. >> is that a directive from the white house? >> i believe i was instructed by the office of the secretary to do that, and we processed it. >> who directed you to do that? is that a document that you can provide? >> i believe is the deputy chief. >> if it is not in the record, would you provide that? >> certainly, but i think it is in the record with the deputy chief of staff, and we did so. >> my time has expired. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> who was that one member of congress? >> it was not sent to the white house. >> who was it? >> i believe it was senator grassley when he was asking for a request. we modified it and answered it three different process. members of congress did not often file foia requests, so it is a relatively moot point. >> we now recognize the former chairman of the full committee, mr. towns, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. at the meagan, -- let me begin, first, ms. callahan, think fee

about that is correct. -- >> that is correct. supervisor wiener: in terms of the not structural, not one time, the things we have relied on in years past which have cost concerns to outside rating agencies in terms of not addressing the structural imbalances, we have less options these years in terms of using those than in years past? >> i would say that is a correct characterization. some of the items that we have used have been one time in the past that are very big onetime items, and are certainly no longer available. the chief example is that last year we balance the budget with the hospital fee revenues and the remainder of the federal stimulus funding increases. those pieces together were over $100 million of one time revenues. those are gone and no longer available to us. there have been other solutions that were one time savings that we were able to pull out that we have no longer available. there will be one times solutions available to us this year. i am certain it will be one time solutions that we used to balance the

is that correct? after the committee as a whole. the vote on the twenty eighth is the budget committee's recommendation only. in may 3 will be the full board. everybody clear? gray. -- great. if you have to. [laughter] >> just a point of clarification, do we have to make a recommendation to postpone this bill? president mendoza: with regards to this item, we want to postpone the so which is heard on may 3. there will be the interim budget meeting. how do i need a vote on that? we will have a final vote on the denial of this charter. any questions? thank you all very much for this very lively conversation. item i is a board member's proposals. item j. a. request to speak on general matters. -- a request to speak on general matters. many of you have been waiting patiently for this item. i will call your name. a police lineup. we have probably lost a few people. i have over 35 speakers speaking tonight. i am going to ask you keep your comments to a minute and a half. there are a lot of you speaking on very common items, so if you can b

>> correct. the 79 would be for the $11.3 million. the reality is it comes up to 171. we can work with the federal government as far as the $6.1 million and possibly negotiate with them. we are looking at that also. the reality is when you have almost 90% of the budget that pays for salary, there is no reduction we can have on the budget but police officers. supervisor chu: if there is a fair way to think about this, if we do the layoff scenario, it sounds like we would have savings of $11.3 million, if we did it. but we would lose $6.1 million and so we would get about $5.1 million in savings but lose 171 officers? >> correct. supervisor chiu: if the overall budget is close to $470 million, 10% is $47 million. how does that compare? >> that is why i brought deborah because i asked the same question. >> i can't answer that and deborah can feel free to weigh in if she likes, but the way we calculate the target for the police department is we include a factor as we do in other departments for chart

>> correct. we've been unable to resolve the issue with the planning department. so the applicant has requested an additional continuance? >> are i had a couple of questions -- i had a couple of questions if you don't mind. president roja: i do not. commissioner meko: this permit is covered in the police code? >> correct. commissioner meko: i couldn't find language in it but are there other permits that we're responsible for -- are there specific grounds under which we must issue the permit, the place of entertainment, extended hours and others are framed as we are to issue the permit if -- and then there are three or four criteria? >> i can't answer that. but it is a question that's been posed to the city attorney along with what, in cases like this, when there is a code compliance issue with another department, then how do we proceed? may we proceed? is there some obligation to proceed. commissioner meko: the planning department, for the edification of the public, has stated that their recommen

when we identified it later, we knew it had to be corrected. in fairness, i need to say the initial communication saying we needed to do this came from the comptroller's office. a bit different from how it was characterized in the presentation. certainly, in the audit report, the detailed audit report, makes that a bit more clear. you can look that up in the report issued by the comptroller. a couple of points i would like to make to start out with. number one, there is one statement in that report that is very key. i just want to reemphasize it now. on page 19 of the report, also in the power point, the statement by the comptroller is "for the sample of expenditures reviewed, the audit team found laguna honda charged patient gift fund expenditures to patient subaccounts and charged staff development and gift fund expenditures to staff subaccounts." it is important we understand this. at the end of the day, it speaks to whether there was any use of patient money for the benefit of anything of than the patients, vice versa. there was good, discr

>> that is correct. >> it is a wholly federally operated center? >> correct. >> any other comments? thank you very much. next item please. are there any public comments on this item? >> we have no speaker cards. >> good afternoon. we would like to really discuss this proposal, but i wanted to make sure you all know that many of us are concerned about the obligations that the puc is taking on. as i personally listen to this discussion, i would encourage you to look carefully at this jobs and equal opportunity agreement. it could be that the puc is getting into something -- it could be that this thing is not financially sustainable with provisions that are in excess. i do not know if that is where you need to look, but i am concerned about the level of affordability in all of these programs, which i know san francisco loves dearly, but in a situation like this with our extensive and long-term obligations that you are assuming, you want to make sure that there is going to be a viable plan here, and i do not see it. housing, as a development plan -- it does not seem like the best opport

is that correct? >> ithat is correct. >> why?y person in this area. >> is that a directive from the white house? >> i believe i was instructed by the office of the secretary to do that, and we processed it. >> who directed you to do that? is that a document that you can provide? >> i believe is the deputy chief. >> if it is not in the record, would you provide that? >> certainly, but i think it is in the record with the deputy chief of staff, and we did so. >> my time has expired. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> who was that one member of congress? >> it was not sent to the white house. >> who was it? >> i believe it was senator grassley when he was asking for a request. we modified it and answered it three different process. members of congress did not often file foia requests, so it is a relatively moot point. >> we now recognize the former chairman of the full committee, mr. towns, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. at the meagan, -- let me begin, first, ms. callahan, think fee- for-service. -- th

over in studio b, we are cooking up bread pud i go believe correct? >> yes -- pudding i believe correct? >> yes. >> mark can be a handful. he is over there and has the kitchen laid out with food. and we will have recipes you may want to check out. it's opening day. >> absolutely. >> baseball, opening day. we have the orange tie with the black sport coat and the orioles mug. >> you ready to go and are excited? >> right there. great to be living in a city with a major league baseball team. can't tell you how excited i am about that. first pitch tonight 579:10 in

for those chairs or explain correct never have carried or a glitch in the correct. thank him her and her broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture. download the official allocation of your high phone the i pod touch from the i.q. exams to. one life on the go. video on demand keys mind old girls and r.s.s. feeds now in the palm of your. question. shows that so much. commercial. on it earlier today and over the past year well we've seen the was lawful as change rages across the arab middle east all in is this a new doctrine. the sixty . six. if. he is easy easy easy easy easy easy easy easy easy easy easy easy easy. easy easy easy. subsists.