. >> just to refresher my memory is the city and county of san francisco required to do the information. >> we're required to enforce the laws and one of the laws the most recent one that regina passed out in responding no one can charge more than the price. >> we can take the approach we're going to respond to complaints rather than have a preempt enforcement it makes it illegal to overcharge but not illegal to do the testing; is that correct. >> the statute allows the board of supervisors to allow the adaptation of fees, however, i have to - >> this was so then backing up we the bvrz did, in fact, dick your department to go out and do the preempt. >> to get - >> to get back off would require the board of supervisors to have a new perspective initiative to say we're not going to do preempt testing we'll go out with the complaints and we'll go out and respond to those complaints that's the practical thing we're going to get into why this is completely impracticality in the new age because the term po s device has changed. and the original reason for this was because supermarkets there's

existing litigation: city and county of san francisco v. pacific gas & electric company 16. existing litigation: city and county of san francisco v. pacific gas & electric company 17.existing litigation: pacific gas & electric company, v. city and county of san francisco. 18 will not be heard. >> i will get a motion for the attorney client privilege. >> please si >> okay, we are back from the closed session. and announcement following closed session that the commission has reached an agreement to settle on item number 14, i will entertain a motion to disclose. >> move not to disclose. >> there is a second. >> all of those in favor. signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> and opposed? >> the ayes having it. any other commission business? >> seeing none, this meeting is adjourned. >> well, good morning, everyone welcome to the city hall san francisco the people how's house of san francisco. i am so delighted to be joined by the park commission of the rec and park and as well as phil ginsburg who has the presumption responsibility for the park recrea

i could try to photo how it benefits the city and county of san francisco i'm not sure i could do it tomorrow or next month but the implementation was certainly the most difficult here in the city in the first two years. i'm sure you're aware of the data was not there that provided did information that we could lessen our costs to be able to go out and get this program implemented the data was not there. we pretty much manuel deleted those businesses from the tax collectors to answer your question i don't have any idea how to get that information >> my final comment i find important is education. we put a lot of emphasis on licensing and i don't have how much emphasis on the education in educating the businesses for the reason to bring down the implementation of the >> law. i'm presenting this to you should you not put-down more this was on education and relieve the businesses that rely from the burden of licensing and what is our opinion about that and what has our vice president done educating the small business in the city and county of san francisco. i'm so glad you asked that qu

existing litigation: city and county of san francisco v. pacific gas & electric company 16. existing litigation: city and county of san francisco v. pacific gas & electric company 17.existing litigation: pacific gas & electric company, v. city and county of san francisco. 18 will not be heard. >> i will get a motion for the attorney client privilege. >> please si >> okay, we are back from the closed session. and announcement following closed session that the commission has reached an agreement to settle on item number 14, i will entertain a motion to disclose. >> move not to disclose. >> there is a second. >> all of those in favor. signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> and opposed? >> the ayes having it. any other commission business? >> seeing none, this meeting is adjourned. >> good afternoon, everybody. thank you, everyone for being here and i want to thank you for joining me and the board of supervisors for this special occasion to sign our next two year budget 8.6 he million dollars this city is worth it. it is as i may say an historic time

existing litigation: city and county of san francisco v. pacific gas & electric company 16. existing litigation: city and county of san francisco v. pacific gas & electric company 17.existing litigation: pacific gas & electric company, v. city and county of san francisco. 18 will not be heard. >> i will get a motion for the attorney client privilege. >> please si >> okay, we are back from the closed session. and announcement following closed session that the commission has reached an agreement to

san francisco for a major earthquake or natural disaster. item number 22, resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed $106,095,000 aggregate principal amount of city and county of san francisco general obligation bonds, series 2014d; prescribing the form and term of said bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication, and registration of said bonds; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said bonds; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said bonds; providing for the establishment of accounts related to said bonds; providing for the manner of sale of said bonds by competitive sale; approving the forms of official notice of sale and notice of intention to sell bonds; directing the publication of the notice of intention to sell bonds; approving the form of the preliminary official statement and the form and execution of the official statement relating to the sale of said bonds; approving the form of the continuing diskale you're certificate; authorizing and approving modifications to documents; declaring the city's intent to reimburse certain expenditures; ratifying certain actions previously taken; and

and to integrate, the tourism industry here in the city and county of san francisco. and so one of the things that i might want to again, encourage the members of the board to do, is to really lean on using and to lean on the institutions like that that have been around for over 50 years, and we have had over 24,000, college degrees earned by students who came through pac, and over the last 50 years and i can guarantee you, that the majority of the people that i am talking to right now, and i am talking about within the sound of my voice, and out of the airways, don't know who we are. and so, we want to encourage you, and we talked to over 2,300 students in the city and county of san francisco and about the college and career choices each and every year and, so please, please, reach out to us and we want to do what we need to do to roll up our sleeves and make this happen. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, good afternoon, my name is doug, and i am the president and ceo of a couple of... and a company that is located on webster street, and in the

for the record my name is emil lawrence i've been a resident of the city and county of san francisco. i've been stopped and beat up by the . >> what is that a setup? inappropriate conduct yeah those are a waste of time. we can get by on that. that's a waste of time but you look at some of these charges here they are very serious. whether it's sustained or not i'm not sure. but a citizen a resident of the city and county of san francisco who fills out a complaint he's obviously very unhappy. we don't know if the complaint is going to be sustained or not but to have out of several hundred and have the chief of police based on filled out the wrong ticket. what the hell is that? those are the types of complaints that the chief of police is going to adjudicate? neglect of duty. the officer was admonished and retrained. let me tell you something -- this city and county has anywhere between fifty and 75 police officer that belong in jail they don't belong on the street they are protected by the occ the police officer's association and parts of the sfpd i've come in contact with probably 3 or

architect that is knowledgeable of the city so preventing them working with the city and county of san francisco it means we are prevented from finding a commissioner that understands the nuances of working with the city and i think the commissioner brings that expertise in terms of managing timeline and budgets that are city bound so that skill set of a commissioner that understands the workings and it's a challenge as well and i am happy to answer any questions and i appreciate your consideration this evening. >> david pilpel again and again i am speaking as an individual. i do not know commissioner chow but i think in general on waiver requests i support the motion to deny the request. my understanding that this seat is a license the architect. it's not specific to large or small firm. it appears to me that another individual could be found in the city who is a small firm architect or merely does private projects in the city or elsewhere or public projects not in san francisco and i think that where we can avoid recusal and have full participation of members on all matters been them that shou

the requested action is that the board of education approves the other plan or l cap for the san francisco county of education and san francisco unified school district keeping fiscal year 2014-2015 through 2016-2017 subject to annual updates. so actually, i think the 2016 yeah, that's correct if i can provide a little bit of information regarding the item before you and this is summarized in the language under background. as the commissioners know you approved the first l cap for the district at our i believe it was the june 24th meeting and that was submitted to the california board of education later that week and over the summer we got feedback as i am guessing many other district and communities got feedback upon their review of the submission and they give us item a few items of feedback listed on the bottom of the background language. and they were very minor not problematic in our view it didn't take long to incorporate the feedback but asked the changes to be made i'll ask the board to adapt the changes. just to go through the 4 specific changes they recommended one was that the l cap be

lawrence and been in the city and county of san francisco for 45 years. i have been a taxi driver for the last 16 years in the city. i am not here to disrupt the meeting or so-called financial issues but i am here to present facts that in five observations at this commission that i have noticed there isn't one discussion of the taxi issues. number one is this is that over the past four years the sfmta has taken over the taxi commission and we have chaos today. anybody that wants to get into the car can be a taxi driver and go up to the new terminal and pick up passengers. if you look around the area and the hotels and taxi planning never took place. the only place i see it in the city and county is sfo and partially in the embarcadero but not completely. i consider this trans bay project equivalent to the embarcadero center, one, two, three and basically where you have no taxi plan whatsoever. two, is briefly i make this statement because i have applied for the taxi director position four times in 10 years and -- [inaudible] to this commission but you're

>> item 25, resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $375,000,000 for 1500-1580 mission street; authorizing and directing the director to direct the controller's office to hold in trust an amount not to exceed $100,000 in accordance with cdlac procedures; authorizing the director to certify to cdlac that the city has on deposit the required amount; authorizing the director to pay an amount equal to such revenue bonds; approving, for purposes of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended, the issuance and sale of residential mortgage revenue bonds by the city in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $375,000,000; authorizing and directing the execution of any documents necessary to implem

accounting & management system, between keefe commissary network, llc., and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its sheriff's department for a three-year term beginning september 1, 2014, and ending august 31, 2017, and two one-year options to extend, exercisable by the sherriff's department with a guaranteed annual minimum income of $590,000. >> okay, sheriff, welcome. >> good morning, supervisors. madam chair. there was a prepared presentation, but i don't see the staff here that has copies so i want to be sure that we have it. here you go. excellent. i want to make sure that you have these in front of you. also f it helps, i would like to... there is a story also in today's san francisco chronicle that highlights our ongoing reforms on the exorbadant cost that the families who are incarcerated have to pay and this contract before you is step two of an ongoing menu of reforms that my administration is pursuing before this committee. not that long ago, you all helped make history that we were the first county, sheriff's department, in the united states, to dramatically r