>> the department in this specific case was given a printout from the police department specifically. we did our best faith effort to extract that printout into a series of mailing addresses for this mailing. the courtesy notification. we do not believe the applicant in this case was necessarily on that list. based upon records provided by the applicant, he acquired a permit in approximate august or september of 2010 and is approximate two months prior to the change in legislation, so the public works did not know exactly what happened within the police department process. commissioner fung: how many other license holders we'll now call m.f.f.'s, failed to properly reapply and weren't wear of the new legislation and the requirements of that legislation? is that a common thing or is this extremely unusual? >> if memory serves, the department sent notifications to approximate 220 applicants, of that number, approximate 70 or so has since came to the department within that 90-day period. president garcia: there were 130 people out there who weren't wear of the new legislation and needed

i can't be specific as it was a result of that specific -- >> was it a result of anything that you said at that meeting? did you say anything at the meeting. >> me personally? >> yes. >> i spoke very little, frankly. >> did you let mr. moody's know that you were brought on to trade -- let mr. corzin e-trade through that $2 million number? >> that characterization

there is also a category of additional work, specifically certain kinds of dredging, specifically for spectator vessels in the bay, and with 26 and 28, the supervisors may recall that this category was created in the venue agreement in november 2010 specifically because the dredging expenses were unknown and very expensive with our estimates at the time, some north of $20 million for dredging, so we thought it was important to pull this out as a separate category if we can get recovery, as a way of doing that, but as a way of right sizing that, to make sure the only did as much dredging as appropriate. we created a separate category. 26 and 28 can be deferred until after the match. then, other than work that is necessary for the regattas, the infrastructure work, there is other work the authority can do. they can do other work regulated as minor improvements. that work is they are doing for their benefit and at their cost. so the cost has been a source of much discussion already. these are our current estimates of costs. the dda called for the reimbursement of actual costs, mainly for

that memo specifically mentioned fast and furious. it specifically mentioned straw purchasers. it specifically mentioned 1,500 firearms supplied to mexican drug dealers. that's july of 2010. 1,500 firearms. april 30th, 2010, a memo from maine justice employee winesteen to andy brewer. atf let a bunch of guns walk. then the rest of e-mail is worrying about the negative press connotations that may have come from that. not how to fix the policy, but how to mitigate negative press consequences. october of 2010, jason winesteen and james trusty swapped e-mails and specifically mentioned gun walking. and mr. attorney general, that e-mail is so illustrative of our frustration with the notion that maine justice did not know about this. i'm assuming that james trusty's a maine justice employee, am i correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> all right. this is the e-mail. and they're specifically talking about fast and furious and, in fairness, they also mention laura's tucson case. they say it's a tricky case given the number of guns that have walked. but it's a significant set of prosec

we do not expect that to be a problem specifically in this case. understand that this is a significant challenge for this location, i do, when i was younger, did attend roosevelt middle school for a while and i know this area. from my recollection and from the site visit, the pedestrian volumes as such is relatively low and we believe that this provides both a benefit to the property owner as well as the general public in order for them to access these businesses in the specific case. i am ready to answer any questions you might have. >> if you are interested in the solution that the department is proposing, it would need to be something that you do as a condition to the sperm that. it is not something yothe department could do later. the matter is yours. >> the department has guidelines for the warping of sidewalks on sloping sides. the more common one is where it is used for garages. there is some latitude allowed in those related to the slope as compared to what is the normal maximum that you would allow. what is that? >> there are two different

project specific design issues would still be studied. where your curb cut or garage opening is, how the front of your building integrates with the streetscape or bikeway. those site-specific design issues will, of course, still be studied. it's the cumulative analysis that would no longer be necessary. all land uses would pay the fee including residential and, again, this fee would fund this cumulative system wide package of improvements to solve our problems systematically as opposed to in an ad hoc fashion. the good news, too, for san francisco's transportation projects is that we expect most transportation projects like the bike plan or future versions thereof be r.t., rapid transit, etc., to no longer require cumulative transportation impact analysis. in a few limited cases, there will still need to be studies in those cases where, for example, a bus line or a bike line takes away a lane of traffic such that that traffic might slow down buses, polk for example would be a good example. if a lane was removed on polk, congestion rose to

is that good for specific and get vague? thank

, specific laws. and so i'm not going to be able to really comment on that with any -- >> mr. roseman, do you have any reasons why a decision would be made to do this -- you know of any precedent for this? >> i don't have the expertise myself why the decision was made, or why -- >> but from the knowledge of the industry, does it seem strange to you? >> it actually does seem strange. >> does it raise a red flag that something is wrong? how long have you been in the industry? >> sixteen years. >> how about yourself, mr. stockman, you said even in the industry? >> twenty-five and i'm not saying you're an expert on bankruptcy. i'm just saying does it raise a red flag that a copy that is mostly commodities and futures is not going under bankruptcy normally under the commodities bankruptcy, but it's under sipa? does that raise a red flag to you? does that seem odd or strange? doesn't cause you any reason to question? >> i think it's a reasonable question, and in deciding the basis on which to answer the que

colleagues, specifically, to the voting members of the committee, there is a motion to add a resolve clause 2 item number four, that would take the recommended action on item number two and incorporate that language into the resolution. that is the motion. i would be supportive of that. do we need to do roll-call? that motion carries. there is the second portion to that, which is to indicate -- can you repeat the language? commissioner avalos: the language would be that no additional general fund revenues -- no additional general fund monies will be utilized in reimbursements on the event authority's investment. commissioner chu: that is the language supervisor avalos is suggesting in terms of item number four, correct? that is the motion before us. that when i will not be supportive of. i do think there's opportunity to perhaps have a smarter financing mechanism, a cheaper- cost financing mechanism that we do not want to preclude. i will be voting against that. if we could take a roll call? >> can i ask a question on the amendment? to the point about whether -- what the impact of th

and 13 identify specific education of the primary purpose of public schools. so we have a very strong and storied history of civic education as the basis of our educational system and you can ask, well, what happened, how are we dedrived at the point where 8% of high school seniors are lacking proficiency? probably one thing is that we have taken civic education for granted. and so in the last 20, 30 years in terms of science, technology, math, english, as we all know, those are now the subjects that are being tested for which funding is tied and so other subjects in the arts are fallen by the wayside. but another thing has also been happening, and that getting edge gauged in civic education is to get involved and to learn how does the national and state and local government pertain to you as a young person, as an adult and to be very practical about it. it's not just enough that we start testing kids on civics, although that's the kind of thing that's now starting to happen in states around the u.s. in states like florida. but to figure out how to make sure t

could add the language that is here in this document that was provided by the event authority specifically that -- that says the port -- it is underlined in the second page of the third column. the second page. the portables obligation to reimburse the authority shall be limited exclusively to revenues derived from the following sources. we could list those sources in the resolution as well. to me, that is taking the language that was told to us would be in the agreement, that this is bringing forth in a resolution. the key to me as we're not losing general fund monies. that would be one motion i would like to make on this. if we could perhaps -- commissioner chu: just to be clear, your first amendment that i see on this sheet, it talks about the aggregated hard cap on reimbursements. that is not what you are doing any longer. commissioner avalos: it is a cap and so far there are no general fund monies that will be utilized in such reimbursements. then, we use the port's language that they propose to us that the sources of the reimbursements, or the investments, will be finite. we are just

they will have a site-specific design review. we need to make sure when we're looking at a particular building that they are not proposing becker cut of this in contrast to a bus stop. and all projects resulting in the new growth would be required to pay debt transfer tillage -- transportation sustainability fee. payments of up the allows the city to comprehensively uprising -- payments of the fee would allow the city to comprehensively apply them to growth impact. and as a result, the majority of the transportation projects would not be required to conduct studies under ceqa. in some rare cases where we anticipate disruption to transit service, we may be required to take a deeper look at the transportation impacts. an example of that might be if we were proposing to establish a bike lane on mission street where we have heavy transit service all the way from first to 30th in terms of the corridor-level of tax. we would anticipate being able to resolve any of these issues through design, and we would hope we would be able to balan

>> i specifically started becoming more uncomfortable at $2 billion. i felt it was in excess of the approved board's approved risk appetite statement at that point in time. >> did you tell anybody that? >> yes, i presented the board. >> did you tell the credit rating agencies that? >> at that point in time, that was -- i don't think an issue to bring to the credit agencies until after discussions potentially with the board. >> well, they were rating you this entire time. they had you in a good watch, actually. they kept either affirming or downgrading you pretty much repeatedly from 2008. i mean i've never seen this many credit ratings of a firm by two different -- to major credit rating agencies so frequently. seems like every couple of months somebody was rating you. >> you have to remember keep it in context to mf global's history. as you know, in february of 2008, shortly after the ipo, the company suffered a weak trading incident. >> i understand that. but that's a separate item. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you addressed that issue

lawmakers pundits defense and intelligence officials and analysts all peddling constant fear and one specific area that we've been warned about incessantly over the last few years is a threat of homegrown terrorism and it's not just a line that was repeated by officials or put into reports you know we saw the government act on it we've now seen extensive documentation of local police departments specifically the n.y.p.d. spying on muslim communities we've seen one sting operation after another and how could we forget there were those hearings on muslim radicalization held right here on capitol hill and you know the mainstream media well they've played along with this hysteria all along compared to other heinous crimes every time that there's been an arrest and what could have been a terrorist plot especially with a muslim group a traitor staged by the f.b.i. or not that mug shot was splashed across the screen for hours days even weeks on it so who is this teenager authorities say wanted to cause so much mayhem in portland a new chairman of the house homeland security committee is going to hol

there is no question that the proposed use is undesirable in this specific neighborhood and in this specific community, and if there is any doubt, i would urge the board to review the exhibit b of the documents submitted in support of the appeal which contains over 500 signatures of residents and individuals, members of the community who learn and worship and lived in this neighborhood. it is unquestionably not desirable, and for this reason alone, the appeal should be granted, and the appeal should be reversed. second, the appeal should also be granted because the proposed project violates applicable ftc health and safety standards. exhibit a details that in a very detailed way from the appellants expert. the appellate expert was supposed to be here today to make a presentation to show in more detail how that indicates the noncompliance. unfortunately, you had a medical condition, and he is not going to be able to be here to make that presentation, so we submit it on the documents already provided in support, but this does lead to a another problem with a piecemeal review and evaluation of

>> i didn't say that specifically. i was looking for that kind of work. i am seeking full-time work with a city agency still and i'm seeking contract work if i can find it, that might include representing clients to the media, and might include representing them to the city. it would be the kind of public affairs work where people need to understand how city functions in a particular way and what the rules and procedures are and sort of what outreach is necessaries to get things into the right place and give them the context for a project going before city hall or a set of ideas or businesses or goals they may have. so, a particular subject matter area is not really particularly -- i'm not seeking a particular subject matter area. i mentioned in my letter that i had potential for work, potential for contract work for the fort mason center which has in mind an effort to try to extend the f-line, the historic f-line train from the center of fisherman's wharf down to fort mason because there's track and a long history of a desire to do that so the fort mason

what did you all do specifically with the recommendations? >>. >> let me answer the general question first which ao reports of the process of adhering to them or not. we actually have instituted about 2 1/2, 3 years ago a very synchronized dance in effect with gao where we're tryingoy'r to get in early to understand the problem so we're working very closely together. there's a whole lead-in process. we're all working with them to get as much data as possible. and the back end of it when the gao is dpshing its recommendation, we've given an opportunity to concur or not in how we'll do it. we do that in every report. we usually provide what kind of corrective action or steps we'll be taking. gao follows up often with whether we've done that or not. in terms of the cost estimates, the specific question about the cost estimates f

let me give you some specific numbers. in the two-year reporting period before the lawsuit, 457 voter registration forms were submitted by the four affected rhode island social service agreement. in the second month, 1346 forms were received. in two months, a total of 1784. this is a total of 4171 new registered voters in the four months after the settlement as opposed to the two-year reporting period before the settlement. this illustrating the critical importance of section 7. i want to commend and thank the officials in rhode island for their cooperation throughout this case. we work very collaboratively to fix the problem rather than fixing the blame, and i am very grateful for their collaborative efforts in this matter. i always say that the best policing is the policing that comes from within, and i would urge all of us to conduct these sorts of self-assessments on the nvra front to ensure that all of the covered agencies are indeed in full compliance. we had an interesting and productive meeting friday with the prod

i have legal counsel here for more specifics. but the use for medical institutions concerned with in that building under 7000 square feet, so it does not negatively impact our project, but it meets community concern to create intensification of use in that area to ensure that future uses are compatible with the neighboring community. >> and i want to add that this compromise came from concerns from neighbors from india basin. there were concerned it was too large. i also would like to give -- matt, if you can come back up real quick. supervisor mar raised a question about the particular it s -- particulates and if this is the help the area to build such a center addressing health issues among the most vulnerable youth. could you talk about the planning department examination? >> the planning department, in our analysis under ceqa, they looked at the, sort of the land use changes generally, and found that there was no impacts under ceqa that this subject, the land uses, with impact. with the understanding that any specific project

i want to specifically talk about impediments related to job production.lease? i thought it might be helpful to highlight a real life example. currently i control a 3.3 acre parcel on showplace square which is surrounded by the california collegeç of arts and it's two blocks north of the daddaga triangle, which i worked with this commission on. in august of last year it was fully approved and we expect it will be under construction here in the next few months. the concept that i'm working to call it a model early version of the american can or the american building on the central water front. it's aç repurposed old canneryi believe it was. i would say it's aç beloved building in the city of san francisco. and i think the reason is it's a mettingw3 pot of business types. it's a diverse community of entrepreneur nurls. chocolate makers, people in digital technology, everything that you could imagine and it ink baits new businesses because of the collaboration and whatnot that is collaborated within its shell. when i first started to work on this site of c

>> the european backed rtms specifically, to the best of my recollection, didn't come up specifically during the interview process. which, as a general matter wouldn't be that unusual as it relates to propriety airy positions for somebody who isn't hired yet. >> do you believe in any way that mf global's increased appetite maybe during this discussion, this interview process would have been a prerequisite of you being hired? or do you think that was totally not a position or their decision? >> yeah. i believe it was not a prerequisite and as i mentioned, not specifically discussed. it was really about the interview and hiring process was really about my skills set and where the firm had stated goals were and where it was going. >> okay. you said in your testimony you noticed after you were hired that there was some concern noted, i think in the board minutes, that mr. roseman had addressed with the board related to increased positions being taken in european backed rtms. what did you do after that? did you ignore it? did you look into it? you're the risk officer. what did you do with

what, specifically, would a strategic plan look like? the first component of the plan, working with the working group, would be to identify a creative inventory of potentially -- of public and privately owned fast sites for station areas. second, we would study a range of highest and best use areas or those opportunities sites. third, we would project values based on those scenarios. fourth, we would project revenue streams and financing options to supplement the budget. once we have that fourth outcome, we can start to do cost-benefit analysis, so that we do not just look at engineered solutions, but also side-by-side solutions to see how much it can contribute to solving the budget gap. i want to emphasize that the office looks forward to working closely with the working group. community stakeholders involved in the process, as we look to make sure that some form of high-speed rail becomes feasible, sooner rather than later. >> -- supervisor wiener: in the working group, one of the things we have been working on for that at year is try

>> i have no specific or more on specific knowledge. >> so you knew nothing about any decisions that were made to use these customer funds, you know nothing about that, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> all right. given everything that has happened, what would you do differently? >> that's a terrific question. we think that when the final chapter is written by believe the moment it's a little preliminary to meet specific decisions and recommendations. spec you were the risk officer. you had the responsibility for at least alerting the board of directors about was taken place. what would you do differently today? i don't want to talk about any recommendations. i don't want to talk about -- i just specifically one of the position that you are in hadn't been the risk officer everybody looking at you and wondering where were you, you were absent or not have said what would you do differently? i want to challenge you a little on that want to say myself and my risk-management team we did our job during these mayer brown this period. we highlighted it analyzed, assess the risks made tr

the unfortunate part specifically is that the department did not have mr. ascarrunz's information when we received the package of records from the police department and why he was not notified. commissioner fung: ok. i understand all that. i understand the processes that the transition required to implement. but when the appellant brought this issue up to your department, at that point in time, a glitch had happened of some type. >> that is correct. commissioner fung: and i'm just wondering what did the department then do to try to resolve the situation? >> the challenge is such that once we knew about it, had there not been another application for this specific site, the department would have had a finding that, you know what, this was an error, that as part of the correction, we would have issued a permit if this specific case to the appellant specifically in order for him to retain his rights under the peddler's permit. however, in this case, legally the permit expired and we have a new application and we have to try to figure out in terms of being fair

if there was no response specifically addressed to dpw, so since i did not received a response, it is up to you, but i am asking for a government or of delay, a continuance. i think that is your choice. you know these items better than i do common -- than i do, and i think maria would like to speak. 5 i think lauren has a little more to say. i live in the neighborhood. there are bunch of people who signed the petition, so it is not only three of us. i would like to request of measurement for the dwelling and for the time frame, and i really do not understand why the three antennas, because we already have one. there is going to be one across the street, and at&t is planning another one on the building again, so i have no problem with the mobile phone. i call my mom very little times i have all lost cause, so i think it is completely fine. we are happy with the reception, and i just want to mention, the only protest, and i want to say one more thing. we have another antenna, and i am saddened about the fact but they build an antenna near the school without informing the parents, and at

let's be more specific. the president says it begins with american manufacturing, suggesting the government plays a role. so as a manufacturer, what can government do for you? >> first of all, it's the right focus. manufacturing has a multiplicative effect job wise. jeff, you pointed that out in your talk. three-quarters of the technology in this country emanates services, then use it in providing services in the full life cycle of products. you get to the next innovation quickly after you've gone down a learning curve on making something. it's the right focus to start with. i'm a little more on the partnership side. i'm a little more on the regulate us properly and get out of the way, kind of guy. i think we know how to design and build things if there's not too much getting in the way of us doing that. i think right now there's a little bit of tensionha on the y side, whether it's energy and andrew can talk a lot about it, and so can jeff, or on the labor side where i have a big speech and fda -- there's a

supervisor campos: is there something specific we need to do? >> if the commission can just direct as to prepare the letters, the requests to go to our representatives, and the chair to authorized to sign the letter, that would be all we need. supervisor campos: colleagues, would there be any objection? i think that makes sense, and we should do that as quickly as we can. >> ok. supervisor campos: i have something that is not specific to committee choice aggregation, but something with respect to the california public utilities commission to there was an interesting editorial today in the "san francisco examiner" that talked about a piece of legislation that was introduced by senator yee that is trying to address the issue of the revolving door of the employees between the california public utilities commission and the utilities that the commission actually regulates. what the bill does is it changes the current law that basically has a one-year prohibition against current cpuc staff or commissioners going coming in a, from the puc and then turn

the government wins almost all of those cases and they're all of course case specific. what we're talking about here are thousands, maybe, certainly hundreds of government decisions that will all be set aside at once. and that will be a big waste. especially when what i said in my testimony are some of them who are going to preserve -- who will now go free or have to go back to square one, there's a lot of ti lots of time. >> the cost may not be right up your ali, but you want to take a little whack at it. >> i did put it in my prepared system. which also deals with due process, which is where they didn't have a quorum, not to throw a monkey wrench into this, but there were questions at the fcc, it's also our view that the commission's inability to exercise certain powers because of the method by which its members have been selected should not affect the validity of the commission's administrative actions to this date. to buckley bolero, that looks like it may cast some doubt on and politicibili applicability of those. >> this is something you all may weigh in on. histo

this is a very specific kind of proposal that came out of where? it is not backed up by any specific policy document, except that we're all in favor of affordable housing. if you want to look at it from the housing element, is backed up. on the other hand, someone testified -- i do not think it is unfair to say that there might not be other instances where advancement of this kind of proposal can be inserted, either in area plans for implementing plans, and other places like that. secondly, i think there are references throughout here that historic preservation projects and historic districts or water should be subject to looking at other general plan elements. of course, we always look at 101.1. the specific reference to being compatible or not in conflict, or other general plans, i think is slightly unfair at this point, because there is no comparable historic preservation element at this time. if we had a comparable historic preservation element, i would feel more comfortable. then, when we were considering rec and park project, we could say the

so buffett rule, you didn't mention anything specific in your budget. you didn't outline what kind of specific buffett rule you would like. do you have concerns if the senate presses ahead with the buffett rule, we have one person who has dropped in such a bill. i co-sponsored it, senator whitehouse. i'm sure the chairman will have a great deal of wisdom on what to do here and the committee. would you have any problems with us putting some specifics on the table? >> well, it always depends on the specifics but we're broadly comfortable with the approach senator whitehouse laid out in his proposal. now, you can do it different ways but no concerns about not going ahead with something in that broad neighborhood. >> good. okay. one final -- well, my time's up. okay. thank you. >> go ahead. >> okay. just one final point. this is a place the administration and i have disagreed and that is on 250,000 versus a million. i know the revenue concerns with 250,000. the problem is in my state, i imagine in certainly senator menendez, senator kerry, senator cantwell'

i encouraged them to look to those who are actually succeeding in specific hospitals with specific practices and then look to their local hospitals. in other words, i agree on washington. it seems that it's only if we look at the actual hospitals in our own communities here in lexington, back in new york, wherever, and actually apply some of these techniques that we all talk about in specific hospitals that we even stand a chance to do some of this. do you agree with that assessment? >> well, the key, when you look at model centers, mayo clinic or places like that, it's really more of a lump sum bungled payment as opposed to fee for service. when you go to hospitals that make money by doing more and more tests and doing unnecessary tests at the end of life and so forth the dartmouth atlas tracks that. we know the bad offenders. they're in the big cities. you go to the midwest, ohio state, uk, mayo clinic and then you get places that are delivering higher quality of care for much less cost. and those are the future. i think medicare is going to be changing, starting to do moribund ld payment

we started to focus on the lands in three specific areas. first and foremost, most of our lands find it is for the operation of the water, power, in sewer systems. the piece of land that functions as a watershed, treatment plant, and an electric substations. that is the primary purpose of this organization that requires lands. but we do look at the lambs as well as their secondary uses. that is where the leases and permits, where we do issued the leases and permits for people to use them for a secondary purpose, it might be a playing field or a trail. the second area is -- what is the disposition of the land? no longer needed for the primary or secondary purpose, do you still retain those lands? under what conditions do you do that? the third thing is, when do you recall -- acquire lands? there is a property that wasn't in fill in the alameda watershed. for what quality purposes and water supply purposes? you look for those opportunities to acquire those lands. the framework is not intended so as to perform -- proposed to amend or revise the