mr. farrell, earlier suggestion being that it was a signature may fraudulently by cbs, then that it was not a fraudulent senator. we do not have information to suggest that all that this is a fraudulent or valid signature. we really just find the curiosity in the second issue is that they argue that a planning department response to an application made by the previous company in 2003, prior to her purchase of the property, this should have been mailed to her. i want to make clear that this is not required under the planning code. it is not our practice to do so. it is worth pointing out that even if the department had sent a copy of this letter to her mother, it would not have had any bearing on the permit to remove these two sides in question. this is regardless of whether the application had been granted or denied or frankly even filed in the first place. the permit to remove the signs would have been processed and approved regardless. this issue has come onto our radar and we wanted to share with you. it is requested that mioss -- miss ramos has a lack of knowledge regarding the signs. a

mr. farrell. i just wanted to ask, do you have a feeling of how many companies here in san francisco that are public have left because of their continuing to pay stock options? >> right. i think mr. egan as you mentioned before, i think it's impossible to tell how many of those have left over the past number of years to track them down. what i would tell you in anecdotal evidence in terms of research so what we've all been doing right now is public companies are actively placing head count elsewhere outside of san francisco. is it specifically related to stock options? i think it's more of a cumulative issue about their perception of the overall economic environment in san francisco. but they will actively tell you they're buying office space outside of san francisco and trying to add head count outside of the city when possible. >> thank you. >> just a followup on that then. if you're going to, for future public offerings and you're not going to have a tax on those, do you anticipate that you're

we also have supervisor farrell. mr. young is the clerk. mr. young, are there any announcements? >> please turn off also funds. present a documents to the committee and provide a copy into the file. items they will appear on the board of supervisors may 17, 2011 meeting unless otherwise stated. >> call item no. 1 and 2. >> regarding the five-year financial plan. item #2, adopting the financial plan for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. intersection 9.119. >> the item before the committee previously, there is a hearing with the comptroller " -- comptroller's office. we want to bring to our long- term financial books to balance. there was an item those introduced by superivsor - - supervisor chiu. there were a number of things to respond back to us. we also asked the office to take a look at reserve balances that would be present during the five-year financial time. they're still working on that analysis. and like and have the deputy comptroller talk about when that might be ready. >> good afternoon, members of the committee. we are still finalizing the impact of the reserves honda reven

mr. farrell. why do you need to see the pictures to believe bin laden is dead?s a law, freedom of information act. a federal law that governs all government records and these photos are government record that is the public has a right to see and now about. arguab arguably, the most important historical event in the last generation. a law governing it. >> defense secretary gates said last week the death pictures could be photo shopped and misused to provoke violence overseas and endanger american troops and civilians. doesn't that bother you? >> it does not. there's a number of different photos that can be photo shopped here. the issue here is that there's a law. if administration wishes to with hold those, then they can envoek to properly with hold, but instead of doing that, the administration has elected to sort of have a cavalier approach, well, we don't wish to do it. then they should exercise the law and say to a court, no, and here's the reason why and abide by the law, but they're choosing not to do that. the department of defense wrote a letter to us and

supervisor farrell: thank you, mr. president. thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. obviously, we took the question obviously, we took the question of stock options from something

supervisor farrell: thank you, mr. president. thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. obviously, we took the question of stock options from something of a different approach. i thought both of these pieces of legislation were mutually exclusive, and i think i still believe that. but i have to say, i have been speaking over the last week with a number of companies and

supervisor farrell: thank you, mr. president. thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. obviously, we took the question of stock options from something of a different approach. i thought both of these pieces of legislation were mutually exclusive, and i think i still believe that. but i have to say, i have been speaking over the last week with a number of companies and individuals that were not affected by supervisor mirkarimi's legislation who are -- that considering separately, to me, is a mistake. i hope that this is a point where i can ultimately support supervisor mirkarimi's and mind together, but i do not believe we should be considering the separately. i think supervisor mirkarimi is right. we have a problem. and that is we're the only city in california that has a tax for stock options, the only city that does this, and it does not only aspect these 10 companies. it aspects -- affects a large cadre of companies. that is why i suggest my item the other week in committee was continued. i want to wait until the report comes out about that. i have no problems with t

supervisor farrell: thank you, mr. mayor for being here. what a, if any, are the discussions with the san francisco forty-niners to keep them in our city and with the golden state warriors, to potentially draw them to san francisco? mayor lee: thank you. first, i want to be clear. i believe the san francisco forty-niners belong in san francisco. i want to make that clear to the public and to all of you. this is their home, it's been the home of the forty-niners, five super bowl victories, and it's the only fitting location for this team. as you are aware, the city has focused its efforts on a new football stadium for the 49ers at the hunters point shipyard. the shipyard redevelop approvals included all the necessary land use entitlements to build a football stadium, including a certified environmental impact report, rent-free stadium, and it included $100 million in funding from private funding developers toward the construction of the stadium itself. with that, as you are aware, the city and the 49ers have recently, and i want to thank the

mr. haley was speaking to. supervisor farrell: if it has been in effect for that long, it seems to be an excuse that that's the ability and that's why the overtime is so high. shouldn't that be budgeted in? right now, we're looking at not just over all, but transit operators and the transit division has basically all if not 90% of the overtime increase. it is well over 50% over budget this year. how is it -- we have known this for however many years that it's not part of what we know honor scheduling route? >> first of all, the budgeted number you are measuring as against, it is unclear to me what the assumptions were when that number was built in terms of service levels and staffing levels. in terms of the second part of your question, forget part- timers, why are you over the budget? a couple of things -- first is the number of operators we have them available to drive. our schedules as we need a 1174 operators available to put service on the street every day. when we have some number less than that, we either missed the servic

farrell's proposal? >> thank you, commissioner, yes, mr. egan is doing a study right now that will be available in a number of weeks. it is a little bit of a time step process at this point. president o'brien: would there be a serious impact on the world if we were to wait and give that the time to come back and -- and deliberate on this at that time when we have a more full picture of everything as opposed to voting on something with kind of half of the picture? >> i will leave it to your good zpwraces but i don't believe so, no. president o'brien: we won't have the snime >> you will have the time. >> point of clarification, supervisor farrell and your legislation may not be heard in committee until before or after our next commission meeting -- >> it will likely be before -- be heard before, in all honesty. president o'brien: i -- >> i don't think these are exclusive. these are mott mutually exclusive pieces of legislation. they are quite different. supervisor mirkarimi's is very targeted. i think -- if anything that we do to promote busi

farrell present. kim present. mar present. mirkarimi present. wiener present. mr. president, all members are present. supervisor chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? colleagues, you should have copies of the march 29, 2011 board meeting minutes. could i have a motion to approve? without objection, this meeting minutes are approved. madam clerk, are there any communications? >> i have no communications, mr. president. supervisor chiu: if we could go through our consent agenda. >> items one through eight comprise the consent agenda. these items will be acted upon by a single roll call vote unless a member requests a matter be removed and discussed separately. supervisor chiu: would anybody like to sever any of these items? madam clerk, could you call the roll? >> on items one through eight, mirkarimi aye. wiener aye. avalos aye. campos aye. chiu aye. chu aye. cohen aye. elsbernd aye. farrell aye. kim aye. mar aye. there are 11 ayes. supervisor chiu: those ordinances are finally passed. resolutions adopted. >> item 9, ordinance amending the public

supervisor farrell: i would like to ask the city attorney. i suppose mr. blake would be the one. really, to talk about cop's in particular. if anyone has a more historical perspective, specifically how it works. >> my name is mark blake, and i am a deputy city attorney. my specialty is finance and the closure. my comments will be brief. certificates of participation are forms of long-term debt that provided interest in loan payments payable by a government agency. cops are you less by the city only for the construction of capital assets. egiven the security concerns of investors, it covers the central government purposes only. in accordance, they are not issued for operating in the vicinity. all issuances must fulfil the public purpose of the city. courts will defer to the legislative audit. our view is that the city charter, in adoption up specific limitations and not enumerated powers, because in the charge section, the city entered into a transaction. it is underlines. the charter does not require arrangements with full profit entities. it requires board approval for any contr

mr. chairman. supervisor avalos: we are adjourned. thank you very much. >> a good afternoon, and welcome to the rules committee meeting. joining us are supervisors elsbernd and farrel. we would like to acknowledge sfgtv and the transcripts they make available online. >> the items on the agenda go to the board on tuesday unless otherwise indicated. >> item 1, confirming the appointing of jane wu to the -- >> can you please introduce yourself to the committee, and talk about your interest in serving in this commission. >> i know you have a long agenda and i will be as brief as possible. you have a detailed by a. a couple of things i wanted to register with you. i was born in sydney, australia and have lived in japan and hong kong, and went to school for 12 years -- but i have lived in san francisco longer than any other place in my life. this is a gateway to the pacific. i love the natural beauty and also the diversity, for someone like myself who has a by cultural background. my father was a career diplomat in taiwan, and my husband, james, was near port commissioner in the city. as you have seen in my biography i have been active in the community for many years. i

about, about jazz, in it, billy farrell, who is one of a very large number of characters, is a jazz pianist and before he begins playing a black leprechaun appears to him, mr. mcginniss so you can assume it's the ghost of mr. mcginniss. as margaret said, in 1949 we came to the south bronx, which was an irish neighborhood, mostly. i was sort of a spaced-out kid, destined obviously to be a poet. i was this big at 13 and i was a good rollerskater and the kids were amazed and they befriended me. after a while, they recognized that i had some sort of athletic ability and because i was so spaced out, they mistook it for great courage and if they pushed me, i pushed them back. it was just like a game. so they took to me and asked me to join the shamrocks. i even changed my name from ed vega to ed mcveigh. and this is how they passed me off because most of the teams they played were other irish kids. this was a regular football team so, consequently, they listed me as eddie mcveigh. it was great fun and my friends were jimmy flynn, paddy o'connor. my siblings married the shenny's and i almost married a catherine finerin but it didn't work out. i have a

farrell had some input that is reflective of our amendments as well. i want to thank the office of work force and economic development for their input, the comptroller's office, mr. eagen, in particular, who will be expanding on this, and the mayor's office. we had conversations about the ablution of this legislation, especially as we were coming out of the deliberations with twitter. thank you as well to my staff for their round-the-clock facilitation of the many discussions. and treasury's office, of course. that is what is before us. i have an amendment. i would be more than happy to make that amendment now. one amendment that i will motion -- i would like to extend this from two to six years. right after this legislation, we realized the two years was a place holder so that we could gain some foothold in getting some affirmation back from the comptroller's office about why others were talking about eight years, six years, five years. we were looking for the most effective member. based on the fact that companies may not be ready to take advantage of the exclusion that we are potentially advancing today, immediately upon the approval of this legislation, to g

farrell. i think hearing both presentations, we should hear from the controller who will clearly give an objective analysis of the impact on the figures for the city budget, et cetera. mr. egan? >> which one do you want? >> ted egan, chief economist in the controller's office of economic analysis. i'm here to share with you this evening a review of a report we issued last week on supervisor mirkarimi's legislation. i understand that you're considering both pieces of legislation side by side. we're still in the process of working on the analysis for supervisor farrell's legislation so don't have any findings to share with you on that piece of legislation now so i do have the results of supervisor mirkarimi's legislation. i should also tell you too the report that we issued last week, we issued prior to supervisor mirkarimi making amendments to his legislation, and he has outlined those amendments. they're closely aligned with what we recommended in our report, and i will try and clarify the points in my report here where the legislation has been superseded by the amendments that supervisor mirkarimi has made. zwroust go to the presentation as both supervisors told you t