this is a discretionary action for the board to make. however, for this process, pursuant to board rule 5.22, the committee as a whole could, by a majority vote of all of its members, adopt additional rules not in conflict with the board rules, as it may consider necessary for the conduct of consideration of any business before you today. the board could approve a process with six boats and subsequently conclude the board rules. that concludes my presentation. in legal counsel are available to answer your questions. supervisor chiu: thank you. is there any initial discussion before we proceed to public comment? supervisor daly: find you, mr. president. first, let me thank our clerk for the work she has done over the last weeks. with that said, let me say that the process that is laid out in front of us, colleagues, i find a bit cumbersome. it is interesting. if you look at two very recent posts on the "the san francisco bay guardian," "the san francisco weekly," it seems they agree on this point. one author writes that it makes it difficu

the first is to introduce a motion for action before the board. walls are clear and contained in the previously adopted board rules, and the preferred approach is that the board said as a committee as a whole, which requires six votes. this requires greater flexibility for the board, affording the same functions, including the ability to hear public, and to enquire and recommended action to the board. the second is to determine the meeting organization and how and when public, it will take place. the recommended process includes a public hearing and has public, and built into the process at the beginning of the hearing. under the ralph m. brown act, the public must be given the opportunity to, before or during a legislative body's consideration of an item, so public, and may take place prior to the nomination process, after nominations have been made and clothes, or both. the proposed process meets the requirement, suggesting public comment occur at the beginning, but the board can choose to open public comment at any time during the process or to

item three, the process continues until the board members stop making nominations. he or she must be sequestered until their nomination is completed. the rest of the paragraph has to do with the sequestering of the p.r.a. it should not be in this dock canment. are you -- are you fine if we remove that from this paragraph as that was your request to move all of the pmplet r.a. items from here. all of the p.r.a. items from here. >> i'm not sure what your question is. >> on page two item three -- >> under principles or procedures? >> under principles. >> which paragraph? >> item three. pending nomination procedures, supervisor daly. toward the end during the period the communication between the sequestered board members and the chamber may not take place. you requested we remove all of the items that require an eight-vote threshold as well as those that apply to the political reform act. >> that's not what i requested at all. you were working off your document, not mine. all i requested was the file in front of us could be stripped of anything that would require the thr

the board has an option of the committee of the board for purposes of confirming a successor mayor. the committee of the hole could be charged by emotion with conducting a public hearing and affording to the board in motion for the appointment of the successor mayor. there is considerable flexibility to the rules regarding how the board should structure the process. we're the board rules and the rules of order allow the flexibility, we can speak by motion with in those roles and within those rules of order. the shell of the processes their turn to where the skits complicated it is on the conflict. politics, now go not like we have ever not dealt with this before. if you are nominated, all of a sudden you have a conflict. which have fallen the information about the california political reform act in writing so that we can follow along and make sure no one violates state law. in terms of having this process, we are now two weeks after the election you're talking about where we have a meeting. five weeks after the election. we are using time that we don't have and we really don't need t

>> it would be in the board rules. if you adopt the process today, it is six votes, because it outlines the existing board rules and the roberts rules of order. supervisor daly: what about the other? >> there is an opportunity for the board as a committee as a whole -- supervisor daly: which is 11 members. >> 11 members. president chiu: it will require six votes, but after that, as supervisor elsbernd noted, we would be changing the roberts rules of order. for discussion? supervisor campuos? supervisor campos: i guess my two cents is i do not know if there is consistent application of the rules going on. the whole point of 5.2 to is that the committee can adopt processes and procedures -- the whole point of 5.22, and i do not understand how in the spirit and intent of the rule that is being decided that notwithstanding the six-vote threshold of 5.22 that there is still an eight-vote threshold. i do not really think that is consistent with the spirit of the rule. i would respectfully state that that is a misreading. pres

these items are in the hands of the board. supervisor campos: as i indicated with respect to the environmental issues, i do not believe that there was sufficient basis to put the commission planning how's findings on the exemption. that said, i have a problem with the fact that this conditional use was issued. i came in here with an open mind thinking there was a way for us to get to a resolution. the fact remains that the october 15, 2009 conditional use required the american power to do a number of things on the very basic level for the safety of this site. there was a requirement and along the lines that has been indicated that appropriate permits be obtained and all of those have been obtained which is problematic. at the same time, they were supposed to provide certain plans as was noted by the planning department, there was no confirmation and no project implementation report to require to ensure the safety of the site. there was no assurance that basic public safety, things like the conditions, issues a graffiti and a nu

if you plan to speak in front of the board, please stand up. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony or about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> thank you. a president peterson, members of the board, we have one housekeeping number, appeal number 10-097, item 8, the property at 1400 grant avenue. the parties have jointly request that this matter be returned -- be rescheduled. president peterson: so moved. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, if he could call the roll. >> on that motion from the president to reschedule item 8, appeal number 10-097, to january 19, 2011 -- [roll call vote] the vote is 4-0, the matter is rescheduled. >> thank you. moving to item number one, public comment. is there any member of the public here who would like to speak on any item that is not on the agenda? >> good afternoon. i would like to address part of my speech to the deputy attorney. he recently provided a memorandum on october 6, 2010, regarding the board of appeal. imagine home rule. -- you ment

the chair? >> i could explain that part of it. rockets rules of order state this is board members have more freedom when they're voting for an vid crull rather than against an individual. that being said, the custom is this i take the rule. a supervisor then states who they're supporting rather than who they're voting against. i prefer the other way to the president, to -- to call -- to colleagues because i think that if you have multiple nominees it is a yes of "there's nothing that prohibits us from taking voting on same nominee, correct? if they fail -- if we're still in the rounds of voting, we could try again and see if this is six. my concern about -- about multiple names is -- you could see it in the history of elections for board president, you could get stuck on a lot of four three, three two votes. you know that sort of thing. i think that -- you know, that's a process by which you have to have people involved. the difference here on this vote rather than a board president vote is if you have members sequestered, you don't have the ability to -- to figure it out.

i hope you make the right decision whether it is the old board or the new board. i think you have more experience, and if you are thinking about what is in the best interest and not particular egos, i would support this board making the decision. president chiu: next speaker. >> as far as i can see, this is not a terribly partisan decision to be made right now. unless the mayor decides not to be sworn in as lt. gov, it doesn't seem to me that we should assume lightly. the board is going to have a crack at deciding to the interim mayor is going to be. and given that that is the case, why shouldn't they do it in a transparent and collaborative process starting now? it should not be made hastily but should start now and be one of the board gets the benefit from the input of the public, certainly if you decide there is a fair process that you want to adopt and take suggestions from different folks about what a fair process would be, as long as it is happening over the next few weeks, i favor that to any delay in this very important vote. how to speak on behalf of the m

there hasn't been a discussion about whether it needs to be the old board or the new board. . as we began this process, my hope is that the focus is not on individuals and the focus is not on the players, but the focus begins with the process. i think the process will ultimately determine the ability of any person if the person is elected to be able to do the job. my hope is that today, we're not here to talk about or focus on individuals. but we are talking about creating a process. i think the process is one that should be as transparent as possible. one that maximizes public input , and one that gives the public a trust, and sense of trust in what this body is doing. with respect to the new board or the old board as legal counsel indicated, the board has the legal authority to act. the sooner we make a decision, the better it is. the better it is not only for the individual that is selected in terms of putting together a transition team and putting together plans for that transition, but the better it is for the city in terms of creating and providing some certainty, some cl

and there is no right of the board of supervisors. otherwise, we're giving seekwa the ability to be subordinate to the law we're creating. that's the situation we're creating. >> i would respectfully disagree with that characterization and with respect to the appeal and your statement that somehow this creates an additional appeal prose, what we have tried to do from the beginning with the city attorney's office is to incorporate the appeal into the existing land use appeal to the extent that there is any -- and that's been the intent and remains the intent -- to the extent that that's an issue, we are certainly happy to provide clarifying language to make sure that's the case. >> let me throw out another suggestion, if you want to inner corporate it into the appeal to come to the board of supervisors, make this a factor that is part of the conditional use. make it a part of the second appeal that can already come to the board but you're creating a third scenario. if it's truly about incorporating it into what's already here, then actu

it would be made by members of the board, so any contact with boards would be problematic, but if the mayor's office does not want to cooperate -- supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. president chiu: colleagues, any further discussion? colleagues, why do we not take a vote on what was it. amendment by supervisor daly on what was presented by the clerk? madam clerk: [roll call] there are six ayes. president chiu: it passes. colleagues, any discussion on this as amended? a roll call vote on the underlying proposed process of amendment. madam clerk: supervisor avalos? president chiu: it is an eight-vote situation because we need to change it. madam clerk: [roll call] there are sixayes. -- there are six ayes. president chiu: seeing that it requires eight votes, and there were not, it does not pass. supervisor elsbernd: i'd like to move that go back. president chiu: supervisor elsbernd as a motion to move it back. supervisor daly: perhaps counsel can help me? >> i believe that would be called before the clerk. a parliamentary question. president chiu: it has been claimed to be parliamentary, s

this is not before the board. i will make sure that after we finalize this document that it will be made available to each of your offices and to the public. >> if i might note a couple of things. i don't think that the motion that president shoe has introduced with the motion, the supervisor avalos has introduced, there is a way that we can find a middle ground that actually gets to this. up to the extent that we can all be on the same page, that is to the benefit of this process. the one concern that i have some, this is to counsel, is that i understand that would council was doing through some of what i've seen in terms of the proposed process seized or rules is trying to make sure that in the process of making the selection that we don't run foul of the legal requirements that we have to comply with. it is important to be mindful. at the same time, compliance with those legal requirements this not necessarily require that the process or rules be followed but that in fact there are different ways in which compli

the board's legal assistant is the boards except to director. >> the board requests to turn off all cell phones, beepers, and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, and department respondents each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for but a. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven and three minutes. those who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes to address the board, with no rebuttal. to assist in proportion of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to staff when you come up to the lectern. speaker cards and pans are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcome your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction service cards on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please speak to staff during a break or after the meeting, or call the office tomorrow morning.

at the september meeting of the board, the board chose of every year. while anticipating a complicated month in september, scheduling board and committee meetings, i figured that i would bring this to you now so that we would comply with the deadline. the last board meeting was the 15th. this seems like a timely moment to consider this. what i brought you, in the spirit of full disclosure, normally this is taken up in the same meeting where you evaluate my performance. but because there was a change requested by the board in the time line for making the determination, you already have done my performance evaluation on june 29. at this time the committee gave a score of 4.5, which is between good and outstanding in our rankings system. at the time the committee chose to defer action compensation given that the budget was still going on. so, it really is not my intent, and i do not think it would be appropriate, to rehash the poor performance evaluation memo, but there were a number of things that happened this year that were of great significance. between

[laughter] >> good afternoon, members of the board. i will begin live report by recognizing our staff with the outstanding service and contributions made to the agency, a city, and county of san francisco. neville, please come to the podium. patricia, could you also join him? neville is a principal in administrative analyst for the opposition support section and is responsible for managing the budget and security grant program. he has been with this agency for over 25 years. patricia has been with the agency for over nine years. in october, the san francisco police department hosted the 2010 san francisco bay area urban shield exercise of an. during this event 29 local and international teams participated and were tested and evaluated for preparing the rigid preparest this to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and emergencies around the bay area. one of these was held at our own facility. there due diligence and a willingness to work extended hours the assisted in making the urban shield exercise a success. as a team they both worked c

there is the board of appeals which will hear about 95% of the appeals. and anything else that requires either a mument appeal entitlement -- multiple entitlement is to the board of supervisors so what the h.p.c. did is basically said they wanted to mirror over the current board of appeals processes which allows any interested party in a project to appeal something to the board of appeals, a variance, a d.r., a permit, what not. so within 30 days of their action, c of a can be appealed to the board of appeals or the booed of supervisors. and that's it. it's that simple. so that's all they changed it to. and then the last section i want to talk about is 1014. it's on page 33 to 34. and this is a section that directly relates back to the nomination and initiation process. this deals with what the city can and cannot do when a building is pending designation. when it has been initiated but not necessarily been formally designated by the board of supervisors. and it's also commonly known of as 180-day clock. basically, currently when a building is initiated b

the board did pass that item on the first reading. with most of the changes that you had requested, although not all of them. this commission had suggested that there be a funding item for the plan that is not yet in place, although the supervisor has committed to working with us to find the funding for their work. there were other items having to do with the -- who decides on the consistency determination between the proposed medical use and the plan. the supervisor felt that could not go to the public health department but would stay with the planning department to make that decision. but that will go to the board, i believe, next week on further final lead. other items at land use -- the better streets use was there, the pieces of legislation you heard. that was recommended for approval to the full board unanimously. supervisor alioto-pier's legislation regarding ceqa review was continued and will be heard in the next week or two at land use. tuesday at the full board there was discussion of 1818 california st. regarding a mills ac

president kim: any comments or questions from the board? i want to thank you for bringing this resolution for us -- to us. i think it is important that we support our students that are here in the u.s. and have worked very hard. we're grateful that you have brought this to us. roll call. >> [roll call vote] six ayes. president kim: thank you. i am actually going back to eisenhower -- item q. i forgot that we give five minutes of public comment for the first reading items. i believe that there are two speakers? when speaker? -- one speaker? great, two minutes. >> good evening. okay. i want to thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly about the proposal for a new charter school in san and cisco. with me -- sandra it is. with me are some of the volunteers -- san francisco. with me are some of the volunteers. and also, there are a number of other members on the team that could not be here this evening. but we have been working diligently on this. we are eager to work with the committees and all of the commissioners to bring it our alternati

we did not request or supporters to come here and address the board for the convenience of the board as well as the fact that we feel that the community support was adequately reflected during the actual initial hearing. thank you. president peterson: thank you. >> greg? >> good evening. i am a little nervous, here. my name is greg schoepp. i and the sponsor of bay area compassionate health centers. wheat started looking for a location 18 months ago. i found 2139 taraval street in the sunset district. as i began my due diligence, i found out about the agreement. i contacted the san francisco planning department. i started playing rent on the location. i met with supervisor chu and captain schmidt before applying for my permit to let them know why i chose the sunset district and what my purpose was, which was not to open up a pot club. this was to allow safe access to medicine for people in the sunset district. there are many disabled and sick people that cannot travel to get their medicine. the taraval location is on the streetcar line. it has been mentioned how easy it is to get on a

i think that can be dealt with in the full board if it is an issue. lastly, i want to state my support of larry mazzola jr. he brings a skill sets that is not duplicated with the other candidates. comments were made about local hire and those discussions going forward. part of that conversation has to be bought affordable housing stock for working families. you have a spot where you can address that in large numbers. moving forward, that need to be done. working families need someone who will push for them. larry mazzola will be one of those people. his experience working with people from the mission housing corporation, they will be able to help him formulate that argument and move this thing forward. i say, move all of these people forward. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is kevin. i am assistant business manager with electrical local 6. i just want to say that i believe with the current list of nominees, there is absolutely everything covered, as far as height, bulk, open space, inclusion rehousing,

term ending april 20, 2014, to the treasure island development authority board of directors. supervisor campos: as these items deal with appointments to the same body, i thought it would be important to take them together. i want to ask a couple of clarifying questions to the clerk. as i understand it, there are some differences between some of the seats. for instance, a number of the nominations for appointments are basically two items for each individual that we basically reject or approve, and item 13 is simply a confirmation of two of what months, so i wonder if you could say a little bit about what the distinction is and why these are treated differently. >> appointments of directors who are officers of san francisco redevelopment agency are effective immediately unless rejected by a 2/3 vote of the board within 30 days of its nose, pursuant to charter section 113. appointment of directors who are not city officers or are officers of the redevelopment agency are effective on a point of approval by the board. supervisor campos: based on that, my understanding is that for i