but i think it's clear referring to what was just the referred to. there is not a break in continuous operation. it's been operating continuously. >> but it says provided that location. >> i'm trying to make a substance over form argument is that a block 1/2 change because of the requirements of landlord where the character of the neighborhood is exactly the same. it's simply less than two blocks away, is that fair to interpret that as a change of location in the sense that what the city was trying to accomplish with the legislation >> i think you make some good points but i don't think this is a place where we change the text calling this point over substance. >> can you say where you are headed now mr. wong? >> i appreciate the can dor of the attorney in if we want to get to where he's going we would then sort of just view the one 1/2 block change is not a location change. so i think we can't get there because maybe they are ultimately two blocks from the original site but they have moved all over. i appreciate the arguments and you have made very

i'm going to refer it after ms. wilson i refer it last; right? that you i'd like to call on members of your offer site committee on this item. just press the button and introduce yourselves. >> jim, combrag. i'm jim i'm the chair the citizens bond oversight committee it was created to propose 59 and its duties includes the spending of the body revenues to make sure their extended only as described. the committee is charged with mooment be bond revenue see any - the cdc meet to review and discuss the proposed policy to establish the projects under the 2011. give the restriction of the bond composed by the voters. we have some projected additional costs to the bond project as a result of higher results. the district commissions an independent third party economists to assess how the project would impact the administrative cost and two it have a legal opinion the legal higher propose would not violate the propose. it's based on purely statutory. it's not based on the ability of the district to serve as the engine or the potential to create jobs for

but, i mean commissioner studley is right, they did refer this and did refer buell and gong to us for simple failure to comply with the order. >> mr. pilpal do you have something to help us through this? >> looking at the december 5th transmitter there was a finding of willful violation, the language is not as precise as it could be in regards to ginsberg and ballard, but a failure to comply with the order and presumably a violation. and i would also note on the page 5, 1 a, 1 a and d make some distinction between willful and non-willful violation and later on in your determination, that distinction is lost. so, i think that you could further delineate between miss ballard and miss gong. and mr. buell on this. >> okay. well, in my view, i would think that my view is that miss gong's failure to comply was willful, it certainly would be non-willful as well. it would still be a violation in my view. with, mr. buell, i don't frankly don't see the violation, it appears to me that he searched and did not find the documents and i don't find the deleting of the documents that he had to be pro

the wit is razor sharp and can encapsulate stories suck cinctly, referring to -- succinctly, referring to a man successful because he was in another man's wedding party. that is convincing an damning you can be. >> yeah. you get one-liners from roger, sometimes. self-deprecating and others

please refer to the overhead, thank you for the original announcing the original opening in 1948. >> i can't see it. >> okay. >> i will just -- while i'm waiting for that image, i'll just continue my presentation. okay, i'll stop my presentation. >> [inaudible]. >> thanks. >> thank you. thanks. some important history because this is a story about history, the born december to*e sausage factory was the born gus to*e market which was established in 1920 by *f by the casisa family on a 3 thousand dollar bank loan, the family started manufacturing sausage in their storage just around the corner and they built this factory in 1948. if you look to the overhead, that's a picture of the factory, in an article in the journal of "meat" december, 1948, celebrating the opening specifically references the layout of the building and specifically references the main floor noting that at the front of the building, near the entry way, there was a men's locker room that services the rest of the factory next to that is the inspector's office and beyond that the actual where the meat is made. nowhere in

we'll get the same results if we switch frames of reference.l send flashes now at six-minute intervals and the rocket ship will observe them, while again, departing and returning on, what for the ship is, a two-hour journey. one hour out and one hour back. while going away, the ship's gonna see flashes 12 minutes apart. that means it's gonna see a total of fe flashes during this hour, going away. see that? now, while returning, the ship sees flashes 3 minutes apart. they're gonna see a total of 20 during the hour of return. for the round triphen, the earth emits a tal of 25 flashes at 6-minute interval, that's 150 mines or 2 1/2 hours. same results as before so, from either frame of reference, a person on earth ages more than a person in a high-speed rocket ship. it's not so much a question of who's moving and who isn't, but rather the different space-time experienced. the person on earth remains in one space-time throughout the experiment whereas the person in the rocket ship is in a completely different realm of time while traversing space go

the wit is razor sharp and can encapsulate stories suck cinctly, referring to -- succinctly, referringa man successful because he was in another man's wedding party. that is convincing an damning you can be. >> yeah. you get one-liners from roger, sometimes. self-deprecating and others are disparaging. usually you survive. >> lou: we thank you for being here. the bok is ronaler ailes. "off camera. " the author, we thank you for being here. come back. >> thank you. the sperm tax. [laughter] >> the clock is ticking. taxes are due but most americans now pay someone else to do that because the rules are so complex. >> i have an accountant. >> you don't want to do it yourself. >> i have no idea and i promise this is true. >> he does my taxes. i don't want to pay him but i have to because i understand the rules. i bet you don't either. tonight we will test to. >> one state offers a $50 tax credit for losing both arms. >> that shows how crazy

. >> actually i tried to refer to code section 180 through 186.2. the zoning administrator is referring to this code section if the fringe financial surface using it they move is subject to those code sections. a lot, yes, it's subject to code section but it doesn't mean it's non-conforming use. they refer to nop conforming use to the regulation but they do not say this is non-conforming use and you have to use this code section. they say, this is something we want to you do and refer you to that code section for regulation. we never realize that's a non-conforming use. we just you use regulation a, regulation a to regulate b. >> are you saying you don't agree that that's an applicable section. you disagree in >> i disagree that's non-conforming use. >> you disagree? >> yeah. >> okay. >> i guess i have a question for mr. sanchez. did you say that there was an explicit provision in the 2008 legislation for businesses that were already in existence before 2008 as fringe financial services? >> can i have the overhead to show up on 249, it's actually in

we're going to be forced to let the mayor's budget office to know this and again, i refer those casess to the private bar not because we don't have the attorney support but the volunteer support. right now, i'm trying a murder case and in order to prepare a case for trial i can't bring the case >> excuse me. >> yes. i was going to make a statement similar to what you are talking about. i look at this supplemental coming before us and the contacts coming before us in the past we had a long, you know, dragged out relationship about how we fund the public defender and the court and the private bar and the idea about what is caseload is for the public defender and you have work to maintain and you have effective recommendation in the office and a lot of cases have gone to the private bar. that actually costs money for the city to pay for the services as well to the chiropractor. i actually see that, you know, there's a that capacity that you have to refer more cases to the court and that would actually be an increased amount to the city and i know i have the ability to move the cases over

sanchez referred to the front and back windows. it will be significant to the impact of the light on our property >> we can take rebuttal now from the variance holder. >> i have to admit we're a little bit confused. from the documents from the appellant in the dining room of their document you can see they've basically triangleed this square footage in the front yard their own windows their southerly view would be blocked as would the neighbors it's quite baffleing. we're the 37 percent below in square footage we're not building an huge home he we're truly have stayed within the footprint almost identically and added a modest third floor. regarding one of his exhibits i believe he put in there d or e referring to the overhead? he took a overhead or google to suggest that the house's have a set back. he's only focused on that homes this is is our proposed home that is the appellants home well above it. again, we're at the two union and it will remain a two unit. >> thank you. regarding that photo sir. one of the earlier either drawi

the wit is razor sharp and can encapsulate stories suck cinctly, referring to -- succinctly, referringsuccessful because he was in another man's wedding party. thatis convincing an damning you can be. >> yeah. you get one-liners from roger, sometimes. self-deprecating and oth

and refer to? and so, i wish you the best, and i appreciate your work very much but we need to remember these laws exist that government activity and i don't know who said it, so i can't quote anyone, but i wrote it down, government activity be as transparent as possible. and everything that we heard tonight, was about government activity. thank you. >> president and commissioners, judy, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. in my positions as president, of the coalition, i have been in almost in every supervisor's office in every aid's sitting down next to every aid and the mayor's aids, and i can tell you that i don't know of anyone outside of those testifying before you today that deletes e-mail. these guys keep everything on their desktop computers it is like they have a rely that says question mark? it is there. they keep it. in their inbox, i don't know why? but they do. they are the only people that don't. and on the second item, mr. buell reports that the common wealth club has other t

and under 67.21 c, is there an agency responsibility to have referred someone to it? not the common wealth club, i don't think that is what the rules contemplate at all. >> right. >> the person that i mailed the letter to may have the letter that i sent and i may have a copy of it. those are true but i don't think that the law requires them to do it. if you go to rec and park and they ask you for something that is really at the labor department or the mayor's office that they will say we don't have that but we should go to the other city office but on those two, there is at least potentially, an agency responsibility and under as the head of the agency, have that responsibility and what would it take even if there were a failure to respond that day what would make it willful? since he had appointed a staff, responded himself in a timely way? as we do these, i just think that we are going to have a series of these kinds of questions. >> commissioners? studley pointed exactly the point that is troubling me because i think that mr. ginsberg himself did conduct the search

and i see that references are discussed in the oral interview. it would seem in the initial side you want to get satisfactory references whether they work with the city departments or private agencies. so we have a sense of satisfactory performance with other parties or the city as part of the selection criteria. >> yeah, we review that, it comes in, in the final phase. when we go through the oral phase, we are going through the other process, and eliminating people on there. and we are following the standard city policies and procedures. on how they -- >> which means you only do it at the end? versus asking them to provide up front? >> we do it at the oral interview phase and that's when it's scored in those phases. and again we are following -- >> is that mandated by city policy? or something that we have -- so we can exercise judgment in terms of how we want the process? >> you want to answer that? okay. >> good afternoon, commissioners, elaine, support staff. it is not mandated, we have discretions of how we treat references. one is to treat

the projects shall be referred back to planning if changed. and if the project description is no longer changed then the e r os is required to put it in writing >> i said not that many of those changes are laid out in section 121.9. now what is side in 3108 some language l about modification there was existing language having to deal with project modifications and now the language is laid out in more detail for exemptions. >> i'll read that more carefully. i think there is a certain when a project is modified when is it modify? or i'm sure the public will weigh in. we need to set up a previously kind of outlined set of criteria so everyone will be on the same page so we know what we're talking about. so later on this doesn't deserve another consideration and the public feels like the scope of this project has really changed but they have no process then for inserting their opinion on the process. that's why we had that piece in our legislation. i think that deserves a longer than or longer conversation >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all,

when the referal from the sunshine ordinance task force i do not see a violation of 67.16. on the specific question on whether the 150-word summaries provided by speakers were properly or improperly included in record of the meetings. the word in the minutes, seems to me to be satisfied by the fact that the documents were pagenated in the examples of of issue here through one through 9 or one through 16 including the addendum, that seems to me the clearest lay version of what is a document? it is a thing that is in a set of continuous pages. they are referred to in the text that were generated by the recording secretary of the meeting. the sunshine ordinance task force cannot add or imply the word in the body of the minutes. that is one way to read it. but that is not in the under-lying law and requirement. we have heard some comment tonight about whether everyone's summary was included whether people were treated the same, whether their summaries were included in the same sort of way. and that might be an issue, i see them going back that it was listed as one of the

the wit is razor sharp and can encapsulate stories suck cinctly, referring to -- succinctly, referringul because he was in another man's wedding party. that is convincing an damning you can be. >> yeah. you get one-liners from roger, sometimes. se

and i would strongly ask you to refer to that and apply what is going on here and what was said to be or needed to be retained or not. and now, there is a question as to whether it public records with regards to city records verses, external records needs to be retained, and section 8.1, after the end of section 8, let me see if i can find it we will just par phrase, it does specify that the documents that are pertaining to the business of the department. internal, external, it does not matter what form it is in, it is all pertinant. >> if this is a point to me this is the point that i would give me pause, i would say, if i don't know i have not read section 8.1 of the administrative code, i would continue this item, i would read it, and come back and then, have another discussion about it. i just feel that it is... it really speaks to this, i don't know who created this retention policy, but there are a lot of anomolies in it there is no listing like that there. thank you. >> good evening, david pill pal and i am speakings an individual i was not a member of the task force at the tim

there are two references to annual reports for the occ. but this one asks for a fiscal year report, and i -- about a year ago when i went through all of these listings, i did provide you with notes that for over 15 years the occ's database has been developed on a calendar year basis. and, so, that is how we generate our annual reports on the calendar year. so, it would be onerous. >> director hilbtionerctiontion, i ~ >> >> director hicks, that is something commissioner turman -- >> [speaker not understood] on the annual year rather than the fiscal year so long as that is in compliance with what we do, and certainly what is in compliance with the administrative code which probably [speaker not understood]. you wouldn't happen to know that off the top of your head [speaker not understood]? >> [inaudible]. >> okay. it's something we can look into and modify because we certainly don't want to make it more onerous on you. >> our final question to the full commission, should we include in this the fact that we're -- do we want to make permanent

referring to the deal that supposedly was crafted once upon a time, i was the architect. neither of those two neighbors even lived in those buildings. so, for them to claim that there was some deal is [inaudible]. and anyhow that sums it up. thank you. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions to the party in interest? okay, at this time let's hear from members of the public if they wish to speak on the side of the project sponsor. if you could please line up on the right-hand side of the chamber. >>> hello, president david chiu and members of the board of supervisors. i am stephanie, and this is martin. we are the homeowners at 61 1 buena vista. today we ask that you please deny the requested appeal that our project categorical c-e-q-a exemption. over the past two years we have cut, trimmed, recolored, setback and radically reduced our home addition to respectfully address concerns by our neighbors. the final design that was reviewed by the planning commission was done so because it is a respectfully designed addition that blends well into the neighborhood's arch

and i think this is referring to the hope sf project. >> i'm actually referring to the overall capital budget for the housing authority provided to me by the interim director barbara smith. >> right. and i believe -- again, you know, i believe what we have with them is that there's -- i know we've been moving forward with the hope sf project and there is a lot of infrastructure [speaker not understood] with them. [speaker not understood]. they still haven't completely prioritized them, but that's going to be a challenge in the next capital plan and going forward. how do we come up with the money to help do the infrastructure for those -- for the final two hope sf projects. >> so, in terms of my understanding, it had more to do with repair and maintenance that was needed in terms of the need and not necessarily any of the developments in terms of -- >> for the housing authority -- >> specifically, yes. >> yeah. again, you know, i mean, the housing authority is an area where in the capital plan we've been listing since this is an agency we don't have direct control over. we've been tryin

>> in reference of going them get a gun?n. >> not sure. >> that is what we have heard from the family -- >> let's go to another case. i find fascinating. jodi arias. a manifesto? in case she is famous. now they decide that is a problem for the argument she has low self-esteem. >> she is so fragile. a victim. >> she has a manifesto because she wanted her i.q. tested because she is, you know, as smart as einstein. she said this to the defense. witnesses to the defense witness. you got to love this. self-esdream problems there. >> it must be helpful to have that i.q. as you write a manifesto in prison. >> exactly. >> this is something you never want to come out. >> 2 million on this case. >> 2 million. >> the prosecution put the cases together in two weeks. the defense is dragging this out. >> you get paid by the hour. >> good to have you. >> lou: political dynamo. just a few of the words used to describe the founder and the leader of fox news. now a new biography. roger ales off camera. the author will join us next. alec, for

it's in the 90 percentile and in the end of the summer job i actually am a reference for them in any future job they reported today 39 percent of the kids that got private jobs were retained permanently and work throughout the year. it's all good stuff. >> thank you, that's great that you serve as a reference for them. >> anything further for the chief? >> thanks very much, chief. you'll call line item 2 b. >> recent activities. >>> good evening president, chief, captain moezer and members of the community. i'm joy inhibition and director of the of the citizens complaints. also is here is edward mcman in the office for those of you that may have questions after the conclusion of my remarks or after this meeting. it's a pleasure to be here with you this evening. we are also known as the occ, the occ is the third largest oversight civilian -- is surpassed by new york city and the civilian oversight agency in chicago. the occ was created by a board of supervisors chartered amended in 1982. we are 30 years old. the o c c was originally an office in the san francisco police department but

>> the question is you make a reference to the 95 jobs that would be lost assumes a different scenario that is being proposed. central is that correct? >> yes. >> what was the scenario that would have included the loss of those jobs? on the fact that is a different approach before us. >> barbara hale, assistant general manager. the report that the city's chief economist prepared, did not look at the prospects for local investment. so it looked at the shell contract and at the increase in pricing assumed that if you were paying more on your electric bill, you as a san francisco resident wouldn't have that money to spend in other ways here in san francisco and it would therefore decrease jobs in other sectors. but the report explicitly acknowledged that it did not look at the local investment, local build portion of the clean power sf program. so that's how it's distinguished. >> also in terms of the renewable as well >> correct, the contract is on renewable and the local investment component is not located in that chief economist report. >> california certified renewable, yes. >> thank