the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction or on the left side of the podium as well. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please speak to staff during the break. or call the office tomorrow morning. the office is located at 1650 mission street. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government in television, cable channel 78, and a dvd of this meeting is available for purchase directly from asset dtb. had you for your attention. at this point in time, we will conduct our swearing in processing. if you intend to testify in any of our hearings, he's stand, raise your right hand, and say "i do have" after you have been sworn in or offered. any member of the public may speed without taking this both pursuant to the sunshine ordinance in the administrative code. thank you. if you intend to speak, please stand and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> thank you

an open notice of a standing committee of the board, the majority of the board members who are not members of the standing committee can attend only as observers. >> i am sorry, we are on 9320e. >> it does or not reference augmented committees. what do we do when members do not vote? if you are a member of the committee, but you are not attending. is that clear enough? that is the question that i wanted to ask. >> this is about the location of the meeting. the augmented committees are covered under the committee's action, which does specified that the parliament and members are not voting members, but they may participate in the discussion. does that address your question? >> do we need the part that says that provided that the board members who are not members of attend as observers? it does not have anything to do with location. >> it discusses what constitutes a majority. board members who are attending the meeting are not for the purposes of that meeting contributing to the majority. >> can we not say that? if we put in the party apart only being reserve risk -- observers, can we say t

other items related to the board of appeals -- there will be some changes in the composition of the board in december. former president tanya peterson resigned. she is the executive director of the san francisco zoo. she has been doing an excellent job there and will be focusing full time on that position, an important position. last night, current president goh resigned from the board of appeals. she will be sitting for next week's hearing, but has announced she is moving to beijing to take a new position which sounds exciting. we wish her the best, as well as commissioner peterson. during the years i have been observed -- observing them on the board, i am impressed by their integrity and attention to detail. i wish them both the best in their endeavors. in terms of replacement commissioners, ms. peterson was appointed by the mayor, who has nominated rich hillis from the office of work force development. he left that office last year and is now the executive director of mason center. he has been nominated and will be undergoing a review and approval process for that. president goh was a

the oversight board will not have the ability to approve changes to those redevelopment plans consistent with how this board has acted previously for all plans. this board will approve those changes, if supervisor chu: thank you. i want to comment. in terms of the time line, we spoke to the february 1 deadline, and that is sending we're moving quickly on. today's legislation truly a firms to the successor agencies will be to receive assets and obligations to the redevelopment agency, specifically indicating that affordable housing assets come in addition to the low and moderate-income housing fund, close to moe, and the others go to the department of administrative services under the city administrator. talks about the requirements for payment and performance, authorizes the oversight board, rescinds the redevelopment as ignition for treasure island, and makes findings under ceqa. it is laying out the framework under which we can address how it is we are going to be structuring 3 development activities going forward. i think that conversation about what we're going to be doing with affor

and confirmed by the board of supervisors. the other three will be appointed, one by the superintendent, one by the chancellor of the california community college system, and one by the largest special taxing entity which is part. -- barty. . the members have a fiduciary duty to the particular interests, this includes holders of bonds and also parties to a contract with the redevelopment agency. the second interest artie entities themselves. the most critical of which i believe are the approval of the recognized obligation payment schedule which is the list of contracts and obligations that the agency is required to continue forward with. they will be the body that approves those. he will ensure that the enforceable obligations are met and will oversee the disposal of assets that are not for governmental purposes to terminate or amend contracts related to existing obligations if it is in the best interest of the tax amenities. there is also a long list of other duties that i won't go over. it was included in an faq. the resolut

that is not the point we're advocating as part of the board. what we're advocating is to look somewhere between that two cents and 4 cents, between full restoration of the capital programs and limited or no restoration. key questions we have asked in evaluating were that recommendation should be between two cents and 4 cents is, the first question is, is it fair to have the $90 million in capital programs funded through general fund department bills? the second question is to what degree should the rate fairness board, in its recommendations, be sensitive to the current fiscal condition, fiscal constraints of the general fund department? in both cases, we believe there should be a balance between the two. it is basically a balance of the trinity debt. what the refairness board believes is in adding back then i'm million dollars in capital programs, where do we at and how do we add is, first, to make sure there is a public-sector benefit. second, do have and use of implementation. we believe that this city-owned facilities are easier to implement

the mayor should appear before the board. we will leave it to the legislators to work out the details. we have taken very much the same approach of this charter amendment, and we can't forecast what the best process would be. we can't forecast if this step should come before this that, it is hard to predict those things. we wanted to take a step back and say that in the charter, what we're asking for your support, is requiring the board of supervisors to wait 60 days before adopting an ordinance that may result in significant net loss for jobs in san francisco. simply saying that sometime in the year 2012, 2013, 2012, that the board of supervisors should do what we did at question time, talk about details, work out a process, and that would be through the ordinance. if we set up a process in the charter, we can never change it except for another charter amendment. what if we find out that we need to reorder two steps in the process, we don't have the legislative flexibility to be able to do that. why don't we do this whole thi

director: does the board wished to hear from the department? i do not know if that is necessary, but i just wanted to -- president goh: are they part of a settlement or not? i guess not. >> commissioners, the department does not have a specific position in this case. you a couple of the decision and require us -- you uphold the decision and require us, there would be a prenotification requirements, which is what is mr. paul is concerned about specifically. commissioner garcia: and i think it is our content to strike the two. director: public comment, is there anyone in the public wishes to speak on this item? ok, directors, it is yours. president goh: ok, we need a motion, pursuant to the agreements made by the parties. commissioner peterson: a stipulation. president goh: does somebody want to make a motion? commissioner garcia: you just made a motion. president goh: i did not. secretary pacheco: on that motion, [reading roll] thank you. the vote is

[applause] a member of the board of education and from your administration, mr. newsom, hydra mendoza. [applause] the assessor for the city and county of san francisco, phil teng. the treasurer of the city and county of san francisco, jose cisneros. [applause] the public defender and the man that first whispered to george, you should be the d.a., jeff hadachi. one of the judges with whom we have worked for years, lilian singh. [applause] and of course the woman who was your lifeline from here to hong kong when you were trying to escape this awesome responsibility, rose pack. [applause] fire chief of the city and county of san francisco, joanne hayes white. and a man whose work as an architect in three or four administrations, a man that i got from the board of supervisors years ago, he became deputy chief of staff and then chief of staff under mayor newsom, steve koba, chief of staff. and as always, you're in good hands of public safety, but only if there is a police chief, and there is one here, the acting police chief, jeff godong. [applause] the controller, a m

with that, the board unanimously a vote voted 11-0 . we will make our final selection by closing business today. as to have heard, the department will present a draft policy that would add a similar commission at a hearing that is supposed to be next week. so, while you will not consider the broader policy today, you can decide if you like to apply a similar condition to those before you today. that was last year. and this year the board heard of one percent signed requirement. the planning commission considered this ordinance on october 27. this week a committee board president did introduce the changes requested by the commission. the major modifications include the activation of the large ground source spaces with public art works and expanding the requirement to be city-wide. these were made after the city's office and mayor's office conducted additional our reach that requirement requested. this would only required on-site are four residential buildings that are over 3000 square feet. our department surveys potential pipeline projec

it was passed unanimously by the board in 2008. do you remember the recommendation of the small business commission on the health care security ordinance passed by the full board unanimously in 2008? >> yes. the small business commission did take its vote and unanimously chose not to make a recommendation to you to approve the health care security ordinance. when matters come before the commission, if there is not an opportunity to be able to have input, dialogue, exchange, working with the legislative sponsor and recommendation, the option for the commission is a straight up or down recommendation. that does not mean -- if the commission does not approve, that does not mean that the board of supervisors can still move forward and improve the ordinance just as it did. supervisor kim: did you say they took no recommendation or a negative recommendation? >> and negative recommendations. supervisor kim: thank you. my next question is for mr. elliott. i appreciate you listen to the considerations. small-business owners are not the only

president goh: welcome to the december 14, 2011, meeting of the board of appeals in. the presiding officer this evening is president goh. joining her is vice president garcia and commissioner fung. commissioner peterson has resigned for the board and commissioner hwang is absent for the evening. when a vacancy exists on the board, the board may overrule the action of the department by a vote of three members. four votes are not required to overrule a departmental action in. that is why we are able to meet with only three members present. if the absence commissioners vote could make a difference, the board will allow the absent commissioner to participate in the vote. we are also joined by deputy city attorney francesca who will provide the board with any needed legal advice. at the controls is the victor. and i am sylvia gold steam. we are joined our representatives who have matters before the board. jarvis murray is here representing the division of taxis. john fong is here representing the department of mapping. and anthony greco is representing the department of bui

my name is floyd, and i am a member of the executive board of local 798. i want to speak in favor of the selection of naomi kelly and to congratulate her and wish her all the best. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> joshua with brightline. i wanted to join in my support for ms naomi kelly as city administrator. it is very exciting. she is incredible. i first worked with her a year ago. i got a call saying the mayor wanted to implement the city's new local hire law, and i had to work with stakeholders. he asked if i had time to sit down, so we sat down. she talked with a number of this community advocates, how to make that work. she engaged all the city departments, billions of dollars worth of work. had a very effective committee in place. i think it is a testament to her leadership in doing that. in our first year the new local hiring law, we now have a law that is working, in place, and it covers $60 million worth of construction that is going up right now, with another $300 million for the construction that is open for bids right now. the reason wh

we are joined our representatives who have matters before the board. jarvis murray is here representing the division of taxis. john fong is here representing the department of mapping. and anthony greco is representing the department of building inspection. at this time, could you please go over the meeting guidelines. >> the board request that you turn off all phones and pagers so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the presentations are as follows -- appellants, permit holders, and the department representatives have seven minutes and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include these comments within the seven or three-minute periods. members are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes to address the board with no rebuttals. to assist the board and the accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked, but not required, to submit a speaker card when you come up to speak at the podium. cards and hence are availa

so i ask the board to take a look at k-13, which is on page 117. now you might say, this is only a $0,000 expenditure, and the purpose of it is to have leadership development in partnership with an outside organization, as it says, but there's a term being used in this that i don't typically use so i'm wondering about it. the term is a critical friend. a critical friend to the principal. i'd like you to look at that and see how much of the money is being spent for that and how much is going for the leadership development that was intended by this. additionally, i would like to ask you to take a look at k-14 on page 119. it's curious to me, i would like to know, this is about an excel program at wester. who was in charge at webster before this resolution? what evaluation of their services ended up demanding this mid year change? or was there no one in charge before? it seems rather odd that you would be doing this in the middle of the year. and then i'd like you to take a look at k-26. k-26 on page 143. and this is money for a consultant to guide a s

to me, the board of supervisors number is well reported by the data. what we have seen, the male role number certainly could escalate to the level of the cap proposed historic fleet and has not been that high. and the winner is a well-under the proposed cap. we're looking at an election four years from now and then four years after that. as i supported the last time around, i think 1.75 is more precarious. obviously, we're trying to submit something that meets our goals and would find support at the board. is there procedure for providing a choice? we think 1.75 should be the number, 1.975 would be acceptable. >> not like that, no. you cou staff has recommended and adopted again with the different numbers and send them both. >> is that a serious complication? >> i would prefer you do it that way, because we have lots of numbers, lots of races under our belts. we don't have the kind of data that we need to make a decision. it might be that the next mayoral race with a non- incumbent takes place, it is quite a distance down the road. the last time we had

of the board, and the board shall a from the certification of the final eir if the board finds that the final eir is accurate and objective and that its conclusions are correct. it the board or worse as the planning commission's certification of the eir, it should remain in the final eir to the planning commission for further action consistent with the board fighting. the question at hand is the adequacy of the apartment document according to ceqa, not on the merit of the projects themselves. the board of that opportunity later to consider other aspects of the project beyond environmental effects. the eir covers two into related projects. the city and county of san francisco and the america's cup event authorities proposed to host the 34th america's cup sailing races in san francisco bay in 2012 and 2013. the proposed the development of pure 27 as the harman crews terminal -- pier 27 as the herman cruise terminal. the draft eir was published on july 11, 2011, and the planning commission held a hearing on august 11. 245 written comments, the document published on december 1, 2011, inc

the entire board is to be commended for working together. we do not pull any punches, but what is really exciting is how well we came in as professionals, working for the benefit of children. and i know in a political town, this is tough to do, but you made me proud to serve as your supervisor. i want to start the meeting, not to bomb everyone out, but i want to let you know that i am going to keep my remarks brief. i want you to know that when you look at what governor brown has proposed, things could have been worse. i want to tell you that things are worse. taking deeper cuts into the school systems across the state, it is really derailing all of the hard work that all of us have put into developing all of these great things. this is what everyone is it -- this is the effect everyone is having in our schools. the outlook really does not look very good. in fact, this looks very bad. with the proposed budget there is no cost of living adjustment. what this does is it keeps putting us further and further behind. later on in the agenda we have

and the college board. on the rest of the legislation, starting on page 3 of the legislation, i certainly support the 10,000 contributors and would not necessarily leave this at -70, and this is the deadline for filing the nomination papers. this would give somewhat more time but this depends on the filing deadline. >> did you say more time -- which way? >> the idea is that if the deadline is e -88, someone can file until the end of august, the e-70 deadline to get sufficient, qualified contributions from this number of contributors may be as short as 18 days if they file at the last minute. and there have been instances of that recently. my thought was that if the filing deadline remains this way, giving this to 60 or 28 days to gather significant contributions for the number in value would offer more level playing field to the extent that the deadline is moved back by 58 days and this will change up the whole thing. >> i think he is still using this any way. a question for you. >> i have some other things

the board.eneral fund."those budget cuts...have also reduced the board's ptaff... from 85... to 73. (brochin) "if the board of physicians comes and they say ww have a backlog of two years."(brochin) "and they're doing the best they can, then we need to find room in the budget to add one more investigator or two more invvstigators or two mooe investigators and start expiditing this."but dr. sharfstein...says expanding the staff... is not necessarily the solution. (sharfstein) "you don't want to throw more human resources at a dysfunctional process. you want to be able to fix the process and know the right amount of human resources to put there."doctors can be reprimanded.... put on probation... or have their medical licenses either suspended....or revoked.when the board finally imposes snactions against doctors...it's posted on their website. but a review by maryland's department of legislative services... says nothing is posted... if a doctor...is merely charged... even though that probe could t

i was wondering if we could do a memoriam for the entire board for him. that being the case, i have two items. first of all, i'm introducing a resolution related to the 2010 united supreme court case citizens united which ruled in favor of unlimited corporate spending to influence elections and policy decisions which essentially granted corporations the same free speech protections as human beings. there have been dozens of cities across the country including new york city, oakland and los angeles that have passed resolutions to call on congress to limit corporate influence and members of both houses of congress have proposed amendments to the constitution. today my resolution would propose that we support this nationwide movement in asking for a constitutional amendment related to the rights of corporations in relation to campaigns and elections and essentially to overturn the citizens united decision. i also of course want to take a moment to welcome our newest colleague, supervisor olague. as obviously you and i know, we've worked together on many occas