we need a collaborative process. the earlier we get started, the better. >> with all these are the questions about procedures, there was an extra twist. the city office recused his office. >> the city administrator recused himself from the beginning. he is running for mayor himself, so he did not want to have any ideas of conflict of interest. santa clara county will be providing information to the board of supervisors on how they can proceed. the board met again on the clinic to revisit the issue. >> it is my understanding there are at least four authorities that could potentially govern the process we are talking about. it is incumbent upon us that we have a process that is consistent with all of those things. >> on the member 16, you saw the board of supervisors direct me as the clerk to create a process that the board could utilize to nominate, select, and appoint a successor mayor. >> usually, when the board rules are silent, the role of order is the controlling parliamentary authority. so my recommendation is t

it was my first budget process. i would like to thank my colleagues for guiding us through a fairly peaceful and good budget discussion and process. i want to take the time to think a lot of the committee folks who are an important part of this budget process. there was a budget six stakeholders group from multiple different services that really helped to guide our office in setting principles and values and also help to lead and facilitate our budget town hall meetings. one of our facilitators was here. i would like to thank the budget just as coalition for continuing to advocate for the most essential services and helping us to prioritize what our communities can and cannot live without. many groups to the time to live and reside in city hall. i would like to think the mayor's office and the budget director and also our comptroller for really working with our office and getting us through the first year. i would like to thank the mayor's office. we're working with the community and a lot of people and making june

that is not how i would have designed the process, but that is the process that they were given. and i think they have tried to follow the criteria set out for the. from what i can see, they have done a serviceable job of that. there are some questions, i think, about the division of latino communities. there are also some things to try to do to create new opportunities for asian americans that have sport -- that historically have been relatively and incorporated in the california political process. i respect the work that they have done. supervisor kim: any other questions? just a quick question. how long have you lived in san francisco? >> since 2005. supervisor kim: since 2005. ok. no other questions. >> thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. next, we have eroc/after eric, we have gia daniller-katz. >> i am eric mcdonnell, native from san francisco, born and raised in the western addition. i spent some citi lakeside and ingleside. i spent my entire professional life working in community, working on behalf of low-income families, working on behalf of those marginalized and often

is, and how we go through that process. the importance of audit follow- up is one of the benefits is not just on that finding, but the recommendations, and those recommendations been implemented. we do take seriously once we have done the audit work and issue a draft request and request an ex bonds -- response by the department, which initially goes into the audit report and republish that. six months later, we request where the department is in the follow-up process. for one year after that we do another follow-up, and then we do a third notice for a two-year follow-up if the items are still open. in the audit follow-up process, while we do send out requests to understand where the departments are, once received information we actually analyze the documentation to determine if that information or the prop frigid process their implementing is sufficient. once we determined it is sufficient, then we deemed that recommendation our audit-finding ". there are times in the year that we actually go out and do additional taxation

regardless of what happens with ceqa, which can eventually get to it permitting process. the law is that dpw will issue a permit. i think it will be sent to a hearing officer and then appealed to the board of appeals for the ultimate say. but at&t has indicated, since at&t is the one that needs to apply for a particular site, that at&t as a matter of respect would defer to supervisors in terms of selecting are not selecting a site. i believe that at&t does have a particular letter of intent or mou, would everyone to call it. with individual supervisors, it would memorialize that in writing. supervisor mirkarimi: what piques my interest is if we reflect on the normal course of action that with an exemption does not require eir, when it occurs for one location, typically it is a ceqa response for all locations. i highly doubt that through any ceqa process there would be this sort of selective evaluation. i think that in effect is what at&t was trying to avoid in the first place. if there in fact is that backstop as a supervisor to say no, i think that is an important voice

that was the option as part of the original process -- the original rfp process. supervisor avalos: has the department of elections noticed any difference from sequoia to dominion? is it exactly the same standards? >> not to my knowledge. >> the service has not changed? >> to my knowledge, there has been no change. supervisor avalos: thank you very much for your work on this issue. i am very interested in the subject, and i believe supervisor campos may be as well, so that is something we can discuss amongst ourselves looking at how to proceed with recommendations and what we can do with the city to improve our voting system, so thank you for your work, and we will open this up for public comment. i have a couple of cards that i will read the names of, and anyone else can come forward and line up in the center aisle for public comment. we will do three minutes per person. [reading names] . >> thank you. i am here on behalf of the league of women voters of san francisco to present a letter of commendation to the san francisco board of supervisors and voting systems

they are engaged in a robust process -- of course, the outcome of the process is a noble, but the city, our department of elections -- we should monitor to them and cooperate with them to the extent possible -- the outcome of the process is unknowable. travis county, texas, also recently completed its own two- year process, looking at issues similar to what we did. our intent was to provide strategic guidance to the board of supervisors and other interested parties. we want to provide short-term actions that can be looked at and taken immediately as well as longer term recommendations really geared toward the next step, the next move for the city. this is a very complicated topic. we do not want to make it seem like it is an easy decision for an easy turn key thing we're looking at. throughout the process, we have tried to balance privatism with innovation, thinking about the next big idea in voting systems, and also want to keep incremental progress in front of us. we can always be looking for ways to improve our system. we studied by topic areas. i should mention i have some hard cop

that process took many years. knowing our current capacity at the alta month site, i think it would be bad for the -- altamont site, i think it would be bad for the city to hold off on this, whether it is a natural disaster or something else that comes down the pipeline. i think this is a positive contract, one that was competitively and fairly bid, one that will show ratepayers $100 million worth of savings. finally, with regards to the issue of fees, i know much has been said about whether certain counties and jurisdictions can increase fees. regardless of where we would be, whether it is altamont or you but county, those local jurisdictions have that capability, so we do not have certainty either way. we do know at our current site we have fees that are far higher than the current yuba county amount. should that increase, that would drag down the deferment to, but in either case we would still be under the same pressure of local jurisdiction in terms of these. i do believe this is a strong contract and hope you

process. i think it is important this go to the voters for them to make this decision in november. if they do not want to see it, they will vote against it. i do not think it is a confusing charter amendment. i think it will be easy for voters to understand. it is fairly simple. it is an opportunity to hear what voters think. president chiu: colleagues, any additional comment? if we could take a roll-call vote on item 48. aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: no. supervisor mirkarimi: no. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: no. supervisor campos: no. >> there are seven ayes and four nos. president chiu: this charter amendment is submitted. colleagues, why don't we now go back to the items related to at&t, which are items 5 through 7? madam clerk, please call those items. >> we have already called those items. president chiu: we had a little bit of a continuance earlier today because the department of public works was engaged in a conversation with at&t and four members of the b

overseer of the permit process. -- in this case is the department of public works that as the overseer of the permit process. commissioner fung: the write up is quite limited. it's sort of relates to having gone through many years of history with this issue of communication equipment and everything that there are limitations in terms of what planning can or cannot do with respect to the qualitative reviews of these permits? >> that is correct, there are a variety of state and federal regulations that supersede local jurisdiction or limit local jurisdiction. commissioner fung: the letter from your department? the shortness? >> it is to the point. commissioner peterson: i am happy to start. we have seen a few of these cases now, and i think there has been some conduct in prior cases by the company's that perhaps was improved, but i think in this case in particular, i am inclined to uphold the permit for nextg in this situation. it appears they follow the process. there was notice. it is unfortunate to have these boxes

and place of entertainment process. the other processes that are so daunting to anyone who does not have deep pockets and maybe a year or two to spend waiting. this is very important. i just want to note two things -- one is i -- if i could wave my magic wand and just control everything, which i know i cannot -- supervisor mirkarimi: but you are trying. [laughter] supervisor wiener: i try really hard. i have a 50/50 success rate. i would love to see the western soma included. i did not like the idea of exempting neighborhoods and including all these opt outs. if we have a good city-wide policy, it should be city-wide, unless there is an extraordinarily good reason for a sending an area, which i not believe has been shown here. from what i can tell so far, i am on the losing end. if that happens between now and tuesday, then that is awesome, and i'm going to be totally supportive of that, but i'm going to support the legislation whether or not that change is made. we also talked last week about adding digital and analog

dante down the line of the servicing process. in new york we had some of the highest numbers of subprimal loans but under the leadership of the governor we organized regional with other elected officials with voluntarily banks participated, not-for-profit, and one on one, we worked out details that help people stay in their homes. so i'd like to ask you, do you think that servicers have done a good job of communicating to the bar was about their lost mitigation policy and about the rights and options once they have gone into default? and if not, what improvements need to be made and what is the best mechanism to ensure we have this improvement. >> we have a consumer protection in our office the attorneys general. we have received a number of complaints. we deal with them on an individual basis. i wouldn't say it's a collection and alabama but we have stayed always that deal with it and they work well. that's this the decision we've gone with on the nonjudicial disclosure process which contains them for consumers, so your diligent

and place of entertainment process. the other processes that are so daunting to anyone who does not have deep pockets and maybe a year or two to spend waiting. this is very important. i just want to note two things -- one is i -- if i could wave my magic wand and just control everything, which i know i cannot -- supervisor mirkarimi: but you are trying. [laughter] supervisor wiener: i try really hard. i have a 50/50 success rate. i would love to see the western soma included. i did not like the idea of exempting neighborhoods and including all these opt outs.

and there was no public hearing before this process. there was no public outcry for a public hearing. his wife was the chief of the project and made an unreasonable demand a few days before the hearing and said if you don't take this down by 33% we will stop your project. within two weeks, there was a private meeting with parks and recreation to set in motion eminent domain process. eminent domain is one of the few powers in this democracy which is given to government to violate the primary constitutional and civil rights of americans. without such an overwhelming exceptional necessity that cannot be solved, the government cannot take your property. in this case, it was said that open space was the only need for this space. we give evidence that it was not the intent of the city to keep this as open space. but with the separation of powers, the judiciary cannot challenge your findings -- findings here. as though this is the court of law. you have heard evidence in another are no rules of evidence. we spent a long time battling this case

the processes in its infancy. they have not decided what environmental impact there might be, as well as all the processes that would take place before the board. i think as responsible supervisors, which i am sure you are, you would prefer to delay and wait until you know for sure. thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you. it is great to see you. >> good morning. my name is dr. richard paskowitz, part of, a member of yuba country against garbage. this is a proposal for the city and county of san francisco presented by a division of recology. deception by mission. -- ommission. the first deception not disclose to you is the fee per ton of garbage disposal for yuba county has been the same for years. recology describes these fees as "stable." you have been deceived by their implied assumption that the fis would not be dramatically raised to be consistent -- that the fis would not be dramatically raise to be consistent with other areas in the space. second deception, recology is going to charge the rate payers

that is what i would bring to this process. supervisor kim: you talked about being concerned about families leading san francisco and bringing that perspective to the redistricting task force. how does that perspective apply in redistricting? >> it is a personal passion of mine to understanding how is the demographics of san francisco changing and how are we looking to really building and growing a vibrant community that is what makes a city thrived. supervisor farrell: thank you for your comments about families. i share those concerns. a question i would ask to some of the other applicants -- have you ever applied before? what sparked your interest? >> i have not applied for any commissions. my interest of why now with redistricting was i landed at ca in 2010 and within the first month of me being on staff, we were able to bring 30 organizations together, working closely with the city and that triggered my interests of this is the next phase of that worke throughout neighborhoods n san francisco. it would be the next level of

this is not the correct process. thank you. i hope to make the right decision. -- i hope you make the right decision. >> any other public comment? you have an opportunity -- we will start with rebuttals. if you have anything else to say, you have three minutes. >> i am bill ronson, and i was the one doing most of the male's back and forth -- emails back and forth. we were aware that there were more permits in the pipeline that may include the elevator and the other stuff. our concern is air wells on to the master bedroom suite. if you put an elevator next to the master bedroom suite, we want to be sure that the noise and vibration will not be there. if that is done and the bathroom has fans that vibrate or make noise, that is fine. we do not care that want to put four elevators, but we want to be sure the privacy of the house and also the lighting, the noise and vibration issue. as long as we can proceed on that basis, we're fine with it. thank you. >> thank you. >> we have a bottle from the permit holder now. -- rebuttal from

it becomes a very different process.i think that this so many other different things about the way the process proceeds, whether it is in federal court or doj that, you know, my point of view is just that we continue to advocate for what we think the law says and we'll advocate in whatever forum or jurisdiction we need to but there are some important differences. >> michael? >> in virginia i served as a consultant to the governor's independent, bipartisan advisory redistricting commission or the ibarc. and i was actually questioned by doj about the redistricting, the state legislative plans. now understand in virginia we have a divided state legislature. there was a bipartisan san log roll where the state senate drew their districts, the statehouse drew their districts. they scratched each other's back and forwarded onto the governor who vetoed one. they made minor revisions and sent that off to the to doj with the governor's approval. we had two redistricting plans. one from the republican state legislature and the stat

it becomes a very different process.i think that this so many other different things about the way the process proceeds, whether it is in federal court or doj that, you know, my point of view is just that we continue to advocate for what we think the law says and we'll advocate in whatever forum or jurisdiction we need to but there are some important differences. >> michael? >> in virginia i served as a consultant to the governor's independent, bipartisan advisory redistricting commission or the ibarc. and i was actually questioned by doj about the redistricting, the state legislative plans. now understand in virginia we have a divided state legislature. there was a bipartisan san log roll where the state senate drew their districts, the statehouse drew their districts. they scratched each other's back and forwarded onto the governor who vetoed one. they made minor revisions and sent that off to the to doj with the governor's approval. we had two redistricting plans. one from the republican state legislature and the stat

we went through the conditional use process and it worked. when levi's came into the castro, we went down to the planning commission and said this is a good thing for the neighborhood and levi's came in and it added to the neighborhood. this is not about whether we like chains or don't like change or whether we support small business or don't support small business. this is about whether we're going to best achieve making our neighborhoods economically and culturally vibrant by putting in a blanket ban or by having a conditional use process that allows neighborhoods to decide if this particular chain store in this particular location is going to be beneficial or detrimental. when it is bad -- when it is beneficial, it should come in and go to the process and prevail and when it's detrimental, it should get knocked out of the planning commission. if not then, by this board. i have every confidence when i see these petitions, i assume this will be submitted to the planning commission and if i were petco, i would be trembling in my boots to see

i commit to being absolutely fair minded and inclusive in the process. i'm actually looking forward to the community town hall meetings that the commission is going to have in the community and i will put more community cohesiveness. supervisor elsbernd: you have been very supportive of the chair of this committee and made very clear her district is going to change. >> yes. supervisor elsbernd: are you going to be able to separate your support for one candidate and whether they other candidates can shift away? >> yes. one of the reasons she was elected is because she got support from all parts of the district. when district 6 has to be cut apart, there's no question parts of the district will be taken out that happen to support her. i started looking at the map and i don't see how you shrink district 6 and not take away people who support jane kim. supervisor elsbernd: let's talk about housing clinic. you receive far more money than the caa does. you need six of the 11 to vote for that. again, the appearance issue is very similar to what i asked mr. bara