that being said, in san francisco i'm very proud to be a resident of a city, fifth generation city, of a city that has always been a city of dreamers and doers, a city of entrepreneurs, a city that doesn't just identify these larger global problems but begins to address strategies to solve them. indeed, san francisco is very proud of its leadership to begin the process of mitigation so that we don't have it adopt and as some have said suffer the consequences of global climate change. more mitigation, less adaption, less suffering. this city decided a number of years ago after the united states did the obvious and that was decided not to participate in the kyoto accords to go further, as ryan was just mentioning, as kyoto would have required the united states. we want to roll back our co2 emissions 20 percent from 1990 standards. the challenge is how do you do it. we have mayors saying, well, we've done it. what's the methodology where you determine where you were and now where you are and i realize we're not that sophisticated in terms of really aggregating that information, registerin

not apply in the charter city but only in a general law city. >> anymore? commissioner garcia: we can give you one of these if you would like? >> you're still not qualified. commissioner hwang: = -- vice president goh: we heard mention a particular case. it is my understanding that those cases, once our decision is final, we no longer have jurisdiction. is that right? >> that is right, the board would not have jurisdiction over that, and the enforcement of the board's decision is left to planning in -- and dbi. vice president goh: the case was not agendized, so a responses were limited, or we were not meant to respond, is that right -- so our responses were limited? i think he was saying the we ignored him because we did not respond. >> i would be happy to respond to him tomorrow. vice president goh: thank you. president peterson: seen no public comment -- >> si no public comment, we move to the adoption of minutes. -- see no public comment. -- seeing no public comment. president peterson: any comments on the amendment -- on the minutes? seeing none, mr. pa

spoke earlier about the difference with how we are treating the enterprise departments versus general city departments. could you speak about that? >> i think -- for us, it is the same approach. we are trying to understand exactly how the vehicles are used, how they may get used in a better fashion. regardless of whether it is enterprise or general fund, we broke this down because there might be specific types of uses that they educate us about that they have special needs for. but in terms of approaches, the way that we can answer their concerns, many of the enterprise department is talking about then need to meet the customer services. that is the same across all the departments, enterprise or not. some of the departments have argued because these vehicles are not necessarily paid for through the general fund, it ought to have some flexibility. we have not taken that as a direction simply because our focus here is not just a reduction of the vehicles we use but also for the environment. that is where the conversation has come city-wide. it is virtually the same for us. >> supervisor aval

spoke earlier about the difference with how we are treating the enterprise departments versus general cityartments. could you speak about that?

as a general city, let alone state and country issues, the presence of mobile food vending units in public green space is truly miniscule. but because these parks are parks for all of us, this conversation has been both enlightening and necessary. as an organization la cocina has advocated for five years that would allow low-income entrepreneurs to access avenues for formalization. we believe that the rec and park program is just such a policy and they go a long way in innovation for small business owners. make no mistake about it. this is still very much a business. there have been no give machine awace. with the minimum monthly rents of over $12 per squake foot, we'll be lucky to make money. we need to be cognizant of the potential of making this work and delores park seemed like the right place. we mention this because we believe that part of this conversation must consider the economic reliability of the proposal and the viability of this program. it is because of this recognition that we believe that all sizes of business and nothing is not a good thing for the program and for the par

and directing the sale of not to exceed $85,000,000 aggregate principal amount of city and county of san francisco general obligation bonds (earthquake safety and emergency response bonds, 2010), series 2010e (tax-exempt), and city and county of san francisco general obligation bonds (earthquake safety and emergency response bonds, 2010). item 10. ordinance appropriating $85,000,000 of the 2010 series 1 earthquake safety and emergency response general obligation bond proceeds including $76,603,071 to the department of public works, and $8,396,929 to the public utilities commission for necessary repairs and seismic improvements in order to better prepare san francisco for a major earthquake or natural disaster for fy2010-2011, a1. supervisor avalos: thank you. we have a presentation. >> good morning, supervisors. comptroller's office of public finance. we have. pieces of legislation before you. one is authorizing the issuance of the task. a resolution authorizing an amount not to exceed $85 million for the issuance of sales of the first series of bonds under that authorization, as well as a supplemental or

general fund. the port is an enterprise department. i understand it is all one city. i understand it is everyone's property and money. this is specifically focused on the impact on the general fund, which we do give a good bit of attention in budget and finance, because it is where the more discretionary dollars are. it is a bit of a taking of the temperature. i understand there is a port fund and there are liabilities. there are some potential upsides to dealing with a huge potential liability in terms of the port. this spreadsheet is aimed at figuring the impact on the general fund, which is separate from the port budget. >> it looks like you included the $40 million of revenues and the costs of the port infrastructure work. supervisor daly: the reason why i included that is because of language. maybe that 40 is too high because the revenue into the city is not that much. maybe that 40 should come down to the 24 figure because of language through that charter provision where there can be an intra-departmental thing. i heard you were interested in keeping the port hol

generator. frankly it is a treasured asset of the city and we have an obligation to maintain it. >> under the gulf fund legislation -- supervisor avalos: under the golfing fund legislation that goes generally to the parks, this is now saying that this contract, 80% of the gulf fees will be going to tpc. wondering how that change was made, how was it determined that it would be taken out? what was the function under the current fund? >> this point has been raised and we would disagree with this. that the fees should go to the city, we have had multiple conversations with city attorney offices about the revenue due to the city going to the city, meaning contractually. this is the point that the attorney, we have conferred with her about it. as well as the city attorney. it is not that all of the revenue generated goes to the city, just that the revenue due to the city goes to the city. >> one of the pressure points that was brought to bear back in 2002 was this notion that the city, for decades, had generated revenue from golfing and never put it back into golfing. that is one of the reasons that th

in the agency, those are generally folks who do city planning-type of work. that will be the position responsible for a lot of review of the major phase applications submitted by the developer, engaging in a lot of the activity that we were involved in prior to the entitlement phase. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor avalos: supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: if after this gets approved, if those individuals are the ones that are hired, will there be an amendment to the budget eliminating the positions in oewd? >> these positions are not in the city budget. they are agency positions. supervisor elsbernd: i know. my question was if these individuals are hired by the agency, and thus their oewd positions are vacated, will those position be eliminated? particularly because they have only been doing this work anyway. >> i do not know the answer to that question. i do not know if we are intending to eliminate those positions. i think it depends on what other projects we have coming up that would require stopping. i can get back to you on that. sup

money collected from the increase would go to the general fund and the city could use it for any public purpose. a yes vote would increase the hotel tax rate from 14% to 16% for the next three years. a no vote would not make this change. please visit the league of women voters website at sfvotes.org to get all of your voting information. early voting is available weekdays at city hall from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. if you don't vote early, make sure to vote on >> currently the city charges a 14% tax on the rental of hotel rooms and related charges and the money goes to the general fund. in addition, a fee of 1% to 1.5% for improving the conception center and promoting san francisco is assessed. the hotel tax applies to the amount the guest pays to occupy a room and related charges and the hotel operator must collect the tax when it collects the payment. proposition k would keep the hotel tax rate at 14%. proposition k would combine different definitions of operate in the tax code to one definition. a yes vote would keep the hotel tax rate at 14%. if the voters adopt both proposition k and

it says part of an update to oakland's general plan, city drafters drafted an e.i.r. that would address most of the areas available for residential development as part of their general plan update, i guess. it says the document should clear most of the groundwork developers typically have to do to gain approval and some developers may not have to do any e.i.r.'s and some only have to do supplemental, rather than a full one. the planning commission discussed it a december have differs ever does 15 this and public comment is open today. more information from staff? >> i think, because i saw that same article, it's essentially the equivalent of a neighborhood-planned e.i.r. which allows projects to do what we call community planning exemption. in some cases those projects would have to do a supplemental or what we sometimes call focus e.i.r. i think that's it. but i will confirm it. commissioner sugaya: thank you. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i am glad to see a term sheet was submitted for the america's cup and hope we will find and ongoing di

that the commission is requiring, you need to prove to the city that your management practices reduce vehicle ownership, reduce trips generated, and meet the transportation goals we are seeking for the city. chairperson maxwell: any further questions or comments? supervisor chiu: the only other quick, i would make is that if you look at the map of where these car sharing options exist, that are currently in the corridors we have in the city. my guess is that in your district and supervisor chu and supervisor elsbernd's district, there is less transit, and more people drive because it is further out. the more we can figure out in hong to assist par sharing organizations to give -- the more we can figure out to assist car sharing organizations, i think that is good. chairperson maxwell: when i think about my district, i think people need to do a better job -- we need to remember people that car sharing exists. i think it has to be motivated by the number of people who want it. thank you. public comment? >> i am david glover. i recently signed up with zip car. i lived in patrol on the hill. i can walk to zip car

general fund. the port is an enterprise department. i understand it is all one city. i understand it is everyone's property and money. this is specifically focused on the impact on the general fund, which we do give a good bit of attention in budget and finance, because it is where the more discretionary dollars are. it is a bit of a taking of the temperature. i understand there is a port fund and there are liabilities. there are some potential upsides to dealing with a huge potential liability in terms of the port. this spreadsheet is aimed at figuring the impact on the general fund, which is separate from the port budget. >> it looks like you

planning, which has determined that the improvements put in place are in conformity with the city's general plan. the director of public works has issued a completion for each agency and has determined that the construction was done in accordance