, multiagency requests, difficult requesters, that sort of thing. so i just wanted everyone to know that we're not here to advocate for requesters or for agencies but for the process. the other thing i want to mention is gavin talked about the best practices. we just came up with best practices for data base requests. we have best practices for requesters and also best practices for agencies, and we have handled several cases dealing with data bases and found that they can be pretty difficult for both sides of the requests, so we have those. unfortunately we don't have them among the handouts. but they are on our website. please look them up there, and let us know what you think. i think i'm going to end it there. >> let me say something more complimentary. if you would like to get the most acute sense of what this is all about, you can do that by simply looking at four words; and this is within publication that was posted under the heading striking the balance. under the heading tips for requesters, the third says, quote, even if you suspect the re

if it is moot, i would just accept the jurisdiction request. >> there are two jurisdiction request. you can make a separate motion for each of the permits. it sounds like the board is inclined to grant jurisdiction on the one that is denied, and not the other. president garcia: your first motion applies to morris, which would be 10wr-0145. director goldstein: and that is on the basis that the permit holder has conceded that to juror -- jurisdiction. cracks on that motion, with respect to permit -- >> on that motion, with respect to permit number 10wr-145, president garcia. commissioner fung: before you vote, may i make a short statement? i am willing to go along with that vote, but the brief and what has been presented does not give me the issues i would normally consider to be pertinent to a jurisdiction request. president garcia: for the benefit of the requestor, it might pay to listen to that comment, because i would agree with that comment, but i'm going to vote yes on the motion. director goldstein: commissioners, shall i can sit -- continue with the roll call? vice-president h

collect duplicate requests from the requesters. that's something many requesters are not aware of. we wanted to shed light on that, too. there are some important updates in the fee categories. we are in the process of releasing that. we hope in the next several weeks that is something we will have committee meeting on and that will be available to the public. also next week we are having our foia hearing. the house is actually in recess next week. unfortunately we did not get to participate in the sunshine week activities. i guess we're starting off the year well and making foia a year-long thing now. our hearing sen titled "foia in the 21st century: using technology to improve transparency in government." and i think it's going to be a very exciting hearing miriam nesbitt will be testifying about work they're doing including work with the foia module with the epa and the department of commerce which we're very interested in which would allow requesters to submit their request to multiple agencies in a single portal. also what's in

and they're request specific. but a while back, and in the '80s, i believe, there was a case called payne enterprises versus secretary of the navy, and in payne, the judge actually came down and the circuit judge actually came down and said that you can use foia policies, patterns or practices that are in violation of foia, and it was along of the roe v. wade standard of capable of repetition yet evading review, because what would happen would b -- in payn foia officials would deny information, and the people reversed on appeal and then file another request and the analyst would deny the information, they'd appeal and it would be reversed oppthis over and over again, and so the idea was, if you have evidence that an agency something that is against foia, the court has unlimited equitable authority to stop that, and so a client of mine, greg mudded, who was an author in the uk, was writing a book about the u.s. and uk's involvement in the development of the iraqi oil law, for how oil contracts would whatnot. and on

, just as it was requested in 2012. thank you very much, i would be happy to respond to questions. >> thank you very much. and the secretary of -- -- i'll call on dpr after i recognize senator franken. he has to be back on the floor and i'm going to ask him for any opening remarks that he may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i thank you for your courtesy. unfortunately, i have to preside in 15 minutes so i would like to say a couple of things. each year this committee holds hearings on the needs of the indian country and what we choose to fund sends a powerful message to fribs got our priorities. in these times of tight budgets, programs across -- i hope that as we examine this year's budget, we will all the -- the president's fiscal year 2013 budget has some good things, i'm very happy to see the proposed increases for end yang health services, contract support costs, public safety and enforcement. i know these were all things that were asked by the trirks. i am deeply troubled by the zeroing out of school constructio

we received a jurisdiction request. since then, there have been -- off the top of my head, three so far, and this will be the fourth. and those three were granted -- were granted jurisdiction requests for the reason that the standard of review is not whether or not the process was followed. the department of public works did follow the old process. but the granting of the request is a broader-based request of whether the city did something intentionally or not intentionally to provide notice. when you look at an ordinance that did not provide notice, even if it was unintentional oversight, there still was not as for those permits. >> i am understand that, but i do not feel that is responsive to the request that you feel every time there has been a jurisdiction requested where a 11.09b ruled, we have granted it. >> for next gen, yes. there has been a denial of the appeal a ultimately. >> i remember one that had to do with whether or not it was a good view. to me, that was a very different situation. but you have given yo

make a foia request. a lot of people are unfamiliar with all of the basics of the foia law. it's not necessarily a basic law, it can be comprehensive. we would like to better inform the public and the house offices that are handling foia requests with constituent services so that they are better served and they're getting access to the data they need. so in closing i'll mention one thing that we're working with the minority on, which is a gao foia per expectus. gao is going to be looking in agency foia compliance. one of the aims of that is to see how well agencies are enacting eric holder's memo on government openness and transparency. we also asked them to look into compliance with e-foia and pro active disclosure and we also asked them to look at the accuracy and usefulness of data c contained on foia.gov, it's a new web site on foia where can you go and get reporting information from past requests. that's something what we should have the results of this summer and we will be following up with agencie

for records which would indicate which ten requesters submitted the most requests in a couple fiscal years. we gave several options. we said you can give us just those ten, depending on how you can short your database, you can give us a daybase listing of the foia log from those ten. you can give us, if you can't sort by that, you can give us your foia log and we'll go through and figure out which ten there are. the problem with that is the cia every time you ask them for a foia log they give you the foia log that doesn't list the name of the requester. it's as though that's not a field in their foia database which is really sort of bizarre and that was in darrell issa's letter yesterday when it did the report card for agencies, and it noticed that the cia did not give names of requesters in the foia log, and then they said or, if you have to, but this is really disfavored, you can give us a copy of every request you've received for the last four years. and they said we cannot determine what information you're looking for, so we're going to refuse to process this request, it's not re

even be able to track your requests. if you don't know that it's been closed out at the agency you missionly made the request and i think if you're not cloing the requests, addition alg resources are not really helping. and i think that's something we need to look into, see if there's's a way to fix that. i thou the foia portal is something we are looking into as a specific concern. >> reasons for back logs and delays, politics, homeland security, culture, referral problems, resources, data tracking and we can keep going, suggested a comprehensive centralized look by some sort of independent commission might really be useful. yes, ma'am. >> hi. i'm studying the freedom of information act of china's national government. i'm very curious that according to your work experience, what are the most tours and legal tours you're using to overcome the information from the signaturecy side? thank you. >> ooh. that's a good question. >> is this question what tools congress is using? >> the best political and legal tools that can be

for usec within the nonproliferation budget request. i hope to hear from you and others in the department why when couples with a transfer authority request for fiscal year 2012 the department believes providing you with 300 million dollars in taxpayer money is a good investment and not a bailout. mr. secretary, i do look forward to hearing from you today about the fiscal year 2013 budget request that will help address energy and national security challenges. none of us will always agree. but certainly as we remember this subcommittee on long standing know that we can work through our differences in a cooperative and bipartisan fashion. and, again, mr. chairman, i appreciate you yielding the time. >> thank you very much. chairman of the full committee is recognized. mr. rogers? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you and your ranking member for doing great work over here. you're doing good. mr. secretary, happy birthday. happy anniversary. welcome. this week the national average price for a gallon of gas is $3.60. it's up 20 cents over la

boxes noted in the request. this request was filed on behalf of the neighbors on polk street in question. we feel deprived of our rights and to be informed and what goes on in our neighborhoods, especially of matters that affect our health and aesthetics of the spaces. we are aware of the appeal. for the permits filed, -- of the appeal time frame for the permit fire, however with all due respect, how could an appeal be fired -- be filed when there was a no dedication during that timeframe. also, there was just as the mandate of wireless permits. that notification was intended to protect people like me and my neighbors from this kind of situation, but there are still no notification. the day after i wrote complained, the street sign had been manipulated -- the day after i complain that the streets and had been manipulated, someone came and fixed it appeared the day after i complained about the signage, they came and moved it. i know i am being heard by somebody. i love living in san francisco. i love the unique f

he has had until february 1 to request this. he has had since february 1 to request a rescheduling. it has been planned. all three groups are familiar with this case. i think this is a simple and straightforward case, and the sooner we can get this hearing done, the sooner we can move on. >> i do not want to direct not the testimony you might give or what you might say, but there was some talk about not giving a meeting tonight, and then you were contacted, and you came back with some reasons i found to be someone a compelling. if you would share some of the content with this board so they can decide whether to continue this, i would appreciate it. >> it was a phone call. ms. gold scene called me and said she was having some reservations. she knew i had been on hold as soon as i found out there was an issue, i went to the city and requested a permit. they showed up 30 minutes before my final inspection requesting an appeal. i would have liked to have this a lot sooner, but it has been drawn out. this whole situation has been so freaky i am staying with a friend. i do not think it is

this is a jurisdictional request. nothing has been stated by the request for, mr. hanson, indicating he has satisfied it any of the necessary threshold's in order to justify the right to have this matter proceed. in particular, to grant lee jurisdiction that the board must find that the city intentionally or inadvertently was late in filing the appeal. there is nothing before the board that suggests that. unlike what mr. hansen had stated, exhibit b, which is referenced in the materials are presented to the board, clearly, in december of 2011, he refuses to provide information regarding his tendency and references an attorney who is representing him at this time, robert peterson. mr. hanson is now on his third attorney. while i understand that mr. hanson may be disappointed about the fact that he is residing in an unwarranted unit, my clients are new owners, trying to do the right thing and remove what is not permissible. they have complied with the san francisco rent ordinance and served a proper 60-day notice, provided mr. hanson relocation payment as provided un

to get requests in general. we haven't seen anything come out of the doj about this. i was wondering what the status of that is. whether they plan on addressing some of those other issues. >> okay. thank you. the justice department's probably the best place to answer your question. i can tell you the issues with the exclusions that come up at our hearing, we asked about that and we were told the regulation is being finalized and we would get more information from the department about that. i haven't seen the other regs. i know there were a lot of issues and concerns that many in the requester community in particular had and the chairman had as well. we'll be looking to see what they come up with. but i have no further insight on that at this point. >> it's particularly problematic to us and we submitted comments on this, because the department of justice is supposed to set the example for the rest of the agencies and for them to have such repressive foia regulations it's just very problematic, it sets a very bad

or almost 10% of the total request. this includes $576 million for research, including $81 million in research grants and fellowships to scientists and universities throughout the country for targeted research as part of the science to achieve results or s.t.a.r. program, including children's health and disruption and air monitoring research. also as part of this request, epa includes funding increases into key areas that include green infrastructure and hydraulic fracturing. natural gas is an important resource which is abundant in the united states. but we must make sure the ways we extract it to do not risk the safety of public water supplies. this budget continues epa's ongoing directed hydraulic fracturing study. we're taking steps to ensure it's pier reviewed and based on strong and scientifically defensible data. building on these ongoing efforts, this budget requests $14 million in total to work collaboratively with the united states geological survey. the department of energy and other partners to assess questi

when we filed the request, it was a first person request. we said we want any documents in which their name appear. when we got the information back, there were large redaxs on in pages redakted on the ground that the information there was outside the scope of the request. sort of obviously in a first-person request, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have an outside the scope redaction. then it is within the scope of the request, there may be another basis for exempting it, but it wouldn't be that one. in addition i have concerns about the adequacy of the search. therefore saug more data bases. i don't want to get into details. as often happens, there were cross motions for summery motions. then they held a hearing that is obviously very common in the cases. after we had an argument to which the district court suggested he was inclined to believe that the searches were inadequate and there were problems with that. then there's another one. we tried to get more information. basically we're told that nothing more could be told to us at this ti

item 2-d for 8 washington is a request to consider whether the net new will be adverse and to authorize the allocation of a cumulative through river park to the project. president fong: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i'd like to move to consider whether the new shadow impact will be adverse and to authorize the allocation of the cumulative chatle. will not be adverse, of course. naturally. and then to authorize allocation of the cumulative shadow limit for the park to the project. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on the motion that the new chatle will not be adverse and to authorize the allocation of the cumulative chatle for the river park to this project of 8 washington. on that motion, -- [roll call] >> commissioners, item 2 e. the request for general plan amendments. within the northeastern area plan of the general plan. president fong: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i'd like to remove request for a piping plan. >> second. >> thank you. on the motion before you for recommend approval of this map change -- >> [roll call] thank you, commissioners.

requester if you could come to the mic. did i hear you right in your testimony that you said the concern was with the second floor deck? >> correct. commissioner sugaya: ok. thank you. i thought that was the case. just an observation, i guess. that deck comes off the master bedroom so i think it would be used mainly for family affairs and possibly even just the owners of the house and it isn't the deck that would -- wouldn't be a deck that would be used for things like parties and things, i don't imagine. so -- secretary: commissioners, the motion on the floor is to not take discretionary review and approve the project. [roll call vote was taken] secretary: thank you, commissioners, that motion passed unanimously. we'll return to item no. 5 on your calendar. the informational presentation on the eastern neighborhoods transportation implementation planning study. >> good afternoon, commissioners. secretary: i can turn that one on. hold on just a moment. >> good afternoon, commissioners, tim pappendrao, deputy director of pla

>> how does agency respond, how do we as a requester get the information, right? >> yes. >> yeah. >> and so you know what to expect and, you know, that being forewarned is very helpful. >> gentleman on this audience looks semi-forewarned at least. >> jim snyder. my question has to do with conflict of interest guidance for foia officers. there's lots of discussions about how to get foia officers to comply with the law, but it's not generally thought that they may have blatant conflicts of interest in actually serving their role. many officers don't just do foia. they're lawyers for an agency and they have many other roles. for example, i have been researching a particular agency and the foia officer also does all the vetting for the federal advisory committee. this agency it happens to be i'm interested in investigating how that agency does the vetting office. there's no public disclosure that the person i'm asking is actually -- i'm actually checking on the foia officer as it turns out. i didn't know that early on, and they don't disclose it. well, this is not an

requester? seeing none, project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm yako askew, architect representing our client, taylor walker, jane timberlake and their three children hoping to relocate to this residence. i'd like to thank you guys for agreeing to hear this tonight as i know you are trying to continue most of these items. i'd like to turn your attention to the first couple of pages in the booklet we've prepared for you. we have letters of support from both adjacent neighbors. we worked with both of them and met with both of them at several meetings to talk about concerns with privacy because we are proposing to do a deck on the -- above the first floor, which is -- goes beyond most adjacent properties so we wanted to make sure any privacy issues were being mitigated with the neighbors. they're both supportive of our proposals and we've included those letters in there. i think -- how do i get this to turn on? >> it's on. >> i think this speaks volumes to what the -- what the lack of concern, i believe, is, for

the total request. this request includes $576 million for research. including $81 million in grants for scientists and grants for research in the country as part of the science to achieve results or s.t.a.r. program. as part of the request, we have funding in key areas with green infrastructure. as i mentioned before, natural gas is an important resource which is abundant in the u.s. the ways we extract it should not harm waterways. this is the study which we have taken great steps to ensure is independent and based on strong and scientific data. building on these efforts, this budget request, $14 million, to work with the u.s.g.s. to assess questions regarding fracking. strong science means finding answers. we are making investments to support standards for clean energy and energy efficiency. specifically the budget supports epa's budget for cleaner vehicles to expand the use of home-grown bio-fuels. this includes the funding for fuel standards and certification programs for certification and testing f

and this was at the request of our clients. they didn't want to build a building that had such a large impact on that neighborhood because they are in that neighborhood. we have the required parking in the adjourning -- adjoining building. the sears are planning on expanding their business, which is if bicycle rental business. they are now able to move bicycles between the two buildings without having to go on to the very crowded sidewalks in that area. it also allows garbage and other materials to be moved without using the public sidewalks. lastly, we were very conscious of the height of the back of the building. we could have put more commercial square footage into the building and had a reduced rear yard, but we chose to keep the rear yard down and allow more light to penetrate into the adjoining buildings. we've also met with the neighbors and we have made some modifications to our proposal. we've removed 36 inches of a solid wall and replaced it with a see-through railing, so we've essentially reduced the bulk of the buil

it is a request. it is anticipated. from any commission looking out for the assets of the department they represent. i do not want to give false hope as to the results. president mazzucco: we had a motion and a second. where are we at? >> this is the second time this has been before us. i think -- your concerns are well laid out and perhaps the only reason i would call for this is with the addition of coming to us for final approval before the recommendation, it might be a place where we could provide further input. this is not the last time it will be here before us. commissioner kingsley: what is the urgency around voting tonight? commissioner chan: so we can get this done. president mazzucco: we can get this done. >> can we restate the motion? vice-president marshall, aye. commissioner dejesus, aye. commissioner chan, aye. commissioner kingsley, no. commissioner determined, -- terman, no. the ayes have it, 4-2. president mazzucco: please call out line item #4. >> public comment on all items pertaining to item 6 below

submitting future prop k requests to leverage the remaining highway safety requests. the second request is for planning and conceptual design environmental phases of the second street streetscape project. so, this is an $80,000 propped a request for general funds for the environmental review of the second streetscape project. as the board will recall, the original second streetscape project received a $4 million block grant from the authority. recently, in february, there was a special board meeting in which the authority reprogrammed those funds to other projects with community average coordination amongst city agencies, putting the federal funding at risk, we took action to reset the planning process. on page 40 of your inclosure there is a fairly detailed outline of what the process will entail. citing first that the process has already begun. there were existing funds already over there to start the process. so, there are three meetings scheduled. the first will be in april and will be with key stakeholders. the second one will be in august, where they go over maj

the request jurors for pope -- oppose the use of the light well stairs. although they support the reduction of a staircase to the footprint of the original staircase, a request sound dampening mats be installed on the stairs and request the project sponsor rep provide a skylight and kitchen window box to compensate for loss of light or that the vertical addition be set back from the well so as to not block the light. the project was reviewed by the design team which determine the project does not detain or create any exceptional circumstances. the project maintains the situation and replaces the stairs constructed in a larger format with a new staircase and footprints similar to the stairs. and the related noise issues are not within the purview of the planning department. in terms of the four story addition, i would mention it is 5.5 p -- 5.5 feet higher and situated next to the request for his property. we recommend you not take the dr and approve the project as proposed. >> you have five minutes. >> my name is chris hawkins and i live at adjacent to th