the board has the option to spent the recommended periodicals arrest last year the board did award to all of those who submitted bids whether or not they were that responsive. the prices that were submitted are in line most of them are the same as last year with some minor increases. if the board choose to follow the past practice and award to all of the periodicals who submitted bids then the board would consider adding the following. the san francisco bay view for the african-american community and the daily for the chinese community and for the hispanic community and in the nandz side western addition and the view. and i'm here to respond if you have questions >> colleagues any questions at this time. thank you chair you farrell there are there's a periodical in the san francisco the imperial lighted they're not mentioned here >> they did not submit a bid. i can check >> thank you. and then just looking at the list of the same. i think it would be important to have a spanish paper as well. so i would be open to including the non responsive biders as well >> supervisor bred. >> i ju

we don't think that the board of appeals is a proper forum to challenge a project. it's too late in the game and is very onerous and expensive and a delaying procedure. i think this legislation has a fair balance. i think it deserves to be incorporated into yesterday's or the full legislation. thank you. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. kathrin howard, sf [speaker not understood] golden gate park preservation alliance. the appeal idea to the board of appeals really doesn't work. the board of appeals has planning building code [speaker not understood] cost of permit issues, but there's no permit required to cut down trees in a park. sadly you can bulldoze an entire park and clear-cut it without any permits. we took the beach [speaker not understood] project to the board of appeals for the coastal permit and during that hearing they made it clear they would not consider anything to do the c-e-q-a or environmental issues. ~ deal with the board of appeals no cost money for hearing the same as it would here. so, it would cost in terms of tvm staff. so, i think it's a li

i appreciate the health service board members. a lot of what you do is really driving kind of the questions that i have. i still would like to know more of how the profit margin is addressed and how the rate setting process is finalized, but i see us as a board -- this is our job to make sure we have the fairest rates and that's why i think as a board member, this has been an issue i've raised with many others from the community. thank you. >> supervisor avalos. >> i want to acknowledge the work of the hss board in negotiating with kaiser and rates. i know i did meet with kaiser yesterday. i wasn't totally satisfied with the measures of transparency they were offering. they seemed more perspective than what was really -- we were asking for last week was to get into the gist of the 5.25 percent or 3.84 percent if that's what we want to discuss outside of the apa fees. i was looking -- a friend of mine sent me a message about oklahoma where in oklahoma city hospitals are posting surgery prices on line and they're creating a bidding w

the commission. and again this is more... as a board we do not engage in this process the way that we could and so if we are looking at an organization that will help not only our early care but our early education, we want to have representation that is reflective of the board. and you know, i think that year after year, we trust that you are sending us good people that is not the question. the question is how long have people been on so that there is, we can think about other folks or different representation or you know support people that have been on the board or whatever it is, i am just... so i just want to get a better understanding, because we have never really desecretaried this from the school board's perspective and i understand it a little bit more. i want to make sure that my colleagues understand the importance and value of this cpac appointments as well. so, like where she has been on for ten years, and well, i guess that she could not be on for ten years because she would have been six years if she was doing her last th

and you actually have to go to the board of supervisors. in order to qualify that is open space while i basically support the planning department's reasons for denial of it and the reasons for the background report and probably did not understand the significance of the subdivision and then reviewed it and faced with the fact with the buildings that are san francisco and they were not ones that the city would approve today under the discretionary review. and it was the project and the architect design tried to meet those guidelines and from the standpoint of what they are already faced and with the green space. >> sorry, i am just double checking your time has run. >> i am sorry. >> i did want to comment one of them. site permit, i think may give more merit to... (inaudible) the project sponsor. >> i can't hear your point. >> i think that the site permit may be more right of being able to pursue with the subdivision and the project than is being said. if you were not buying the argument that was given, then i would strongly urge you to conti

and the board sent it back, and we did not reconvene during recess in august, now i'm talking the board of supervisors and the health services board, the only rate that you can give for open enrollment would exclude kaiser? kaiser would not be an option next year. >> the whole packet would have to be rebuilt because the rates would change. >> so we couldn't provide by open enrollment? >> no. the only way if the package is rejected is to come back with a new rate package in august and that would be the absolute latest that we can possibly go. those two options really are a new rate from kaiser which health service system and health service board do not believe we will get from kaiser. there are kaiser representative here if you want to question them on that or to redo the rate package without kaiser and there is no one i hope that is actually considering that. just dropping 40 thousand people would be devastating medically to the people who are accessing care. >> the legal implications of violating the federal mandate. we'll get to that. >> i want to express a little bit of frustration.

i agree with the board. i think that land sales were expected to be a part of the revenue for phase two i agree that i think it's a great example of our project that has experience increased cost as moving forward with time. i think it's something that we should be expecting. as much we can say whatever within phase two of the budget is important and not pouring that into phase one. >> last two things, i'm wondering if this board should approve the in accrues -- increase to legal services. i'm wondering if staff should just live within the budget. i understand cost of legal fees and and i'm just wondering about these cost. i under the reserve for the board of reserves. and that approval would come from the board. i no e that most would come to the board due to the size of the contracts that are given. i think that given the fact that we have not identified all of the revenue for this cost increase, i would feel better that we have somewhat control over the the contingencies. are there anymore comments before

i'm the board's executive director. we are joined by representative from the city before the board tonight. scott is here representing the planning department and the planning commission. duffy is here, senior building inspector representing building inspection and marcos and permit bureau and i believe we'll be joined by urban forester representing the department of bureau of urban forestry and the director of san francisco entertainment commission and rebecca from the arts commission. at this time mr. pacheco if you can go over the boards meeting guidelines and conduct the swear in process. >> the board request that you turn off all phones and pagers so they will not disturb the proceeding and please carry on conversation in the hallway t board rules and presentation are as as follows.. department representative each has seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 3-7 minute periods. members of the public not affiliate

if the board was to say no, the health services board would take it up again and you would come up with potential options. or maybe one with kaiser with whatever rates they would come up with within the next few weeks. this has been negotiated for 6-9 months. from my perspective that they are going to come up with different rates is a little bit humorous. that being said, that would be the structure and process and then would you put together your actuarial assumptions with whatever rate the package system directs to do.o there is a couple things to consider is when you look at the kaiser rate. i have found a statement in my report that states all the that these are fair and reasonable. they maybe slightly higher than you would like, but in terms of an actuarial range of cost. it's a reasonable rate. to consider that this rate needs to go down substantially given where we are now and they are no longer, they were constrained by the federal rules, etc. there is a whole a lot of things that you can have happened. it's not an unreasonable rate. if you charge me to go back and say get somet

the board of appeals is for street trees or coastal permit. there's no permit need to cut down trees in a park. i can do that without a permit. we took the beach project and the board of appeals said they wouldn't deal with sequa it's on the tape. the brvlz cost money for each appeal i think there's an economic injustice hero. the board of appeals don't have a background in environmental or historic issues. the chance of them being to value issues it's so far from happening just as on sequa issues they'll defer to the e r os opinion pr and in terms of costs you have a hearing there and here it's the same costs it's on tv and that's not a good option. the public needs a public hearing from the e r o payroll it's an inclusive public process. if a tree falls in a effort and no one's around does it make a sound and the analogy is what happens if - i can't tell you the number of times people learned l about issues i had insomnia and i watched sftv and that's where i learned about. i assume that's why you guys are on tv now. it's about time people ne

jones regarding the appealability to the board of appeals. and my question basically is there was one speaker, at least, who said the environmental action would not be appealable to the board of appeals, but one would expect any project would have appeals if there are permits which they themselves would be appealable. >> that's correct. when staff is presenting and we were saying there was an alternative method for appealing these sorts of changed projects, we were saying that generally those would be change projects [speaker not understood] exemption that have a building permit. so, the building permits could also be appealable. also, you might find it interesting as well as the public the fee for appeals to the building permits is much less than it is for a dr hearing. it's $175 and there is a fee waiver process for those who are in need and cannot afford the $175. >> that's good to know. and then the subject of the hearing at the board of permit appeals could then also mention as part of their appeal environmental concerns, or the fact -- >

the board of appeals posted. we honestly believed that we did not need to respond to this letter signed in the manner prescribed in order to strengthen our case for gaining a fair and realistic timeframe given our individual and special needs of a one year eviction notice, a time frame by the way that has always been promised to buy our landlord adil shaikh. by not responding to this notice, -- who in the past had successfully assisted us with an illegal eviction from a prior landlord. after the window timeframe for responding to the notices had expired on may 25th, we received two eviction notices signed from mr. shaik. we were told at that time that because we had not responded to the notices in time, they could not be of service to us. we feel we lost a valuable ally in this process. so it's been proven in the past to help us. why again did we not respond to the notice? the sign posted in part reads any person who deems his interest or property shall be affected by work performed. to us that phrase is crucial.

i know the board oversees elections. given this broad look at the situation and the reference to --estment, what do you name think the biggest challenges in all are andtury how are you qualified to adjust those challenges >? of enforcingacity the mission of the act that will be what i could do. there is the workforce challenges. all of these are very difficult problems. there's lot more i can mention. this is the extent that it allows people to do this so that they can resolve and meet these other challenges. quacks the challenges are great. is actuallyrole pretty narrow. andact is pretty specific the rights that it confers and the powers that it gives the board. amount to tremendous be done. it is a very small slice of that. we all have to do our part. i am committed to doing the part that has been assigned to the board. thank you for moving forward. we appreciate your willingness to serve. here gone into paris before the end of the second world war and to help him win this. thiswere going to impose and beat them. it was

i'd like to formally thank the board of directors for this opportunity. i believe by supporting the phase one budget how this would effect my business and the community. number one as a disabled business owners this will enable me it's i want to thank the small business program. i personally want to thank really fast director kaplan making us feel like we matter in this process thank you. >> i apologize i've got a conflict so i'm running out so thank you everyone. >> thank you director metcalf. >> it's safe to say we've all come too few so with that let's move forward. thank you. >> good afternoon board. i'll keep my comments very brief. i'm also the cochairperson for the san francisco african american chamber of commerce construction advisory committee we want to commended this board for the participation that we're seeing on this package it's very difficult on packages that large and that complex to get dve participation and for you guys to exceed the participation on it you need to be commended and commended over and over again. we want to see you guys

the board ultimately and the mayor ultimately decide who gets appointed so the board any decide you that's not a good way to go but that's not an option >> okay. and if you could let us know which area i'm assuming the voices board part and the second question i had about the resolution was the lack of an expiration of a fireman. i know the rules in the past we had a situation where we couldn't necessarily remove anyone from a specific committee because there were no expiration date and i know that i'm assuming that most task forces because their for a specific purpose don't necessarily need an extradition date because once they complete their purpose the work is done and we move on. but in this particular case with the idea of potentially looking into naming other terminals i think this may be a longer are term task force than that we would anticipate and i just wanted to know what their colleagues thought and i as the author of this legislation about potentially adding an expiration to the term >> when i read it was clear that it was a time - let's see - after 3 months from the initial m

, both in the section of our board meeting. it was to afford him the courtesy to talk to his own board and the people he needed to talk to before we could inform our board. and that was unfortunately a time lag of about 6 weeks. and he of course wanted to give proper notice and that's why he will not be officially joining us until june 1st. >> any other questions? okay. well thank you all very much. i hope we'll see you many many times in our press conferences and our dealings with our new director and the great success that i'm sure he will bring for the success here at the fine arts museums. thank you. [ applause ]

i want to thank you for attending the board meetings and all the members of the board of supervisors. this is the first time the board of supervisors has stepped up and learned about how complex our rates are. as you know, with health care reform they have only been made more complex. i'm very proud of the rate package before you today. it represents the 2 years of work in the county care and represents your decision to take on risk by flex funding blue shield which has kept the rates down. i think it's important to point out that the city's cost are only increasing by 0.7 percent. i think anyone would jump for this increase rate in the country. for employers when you include vision and dental, their rate is higher because they have few people in kaiser actually. their's is 2.3 percent. still lower than the national average, lower than calipers and saving the city tense of millions of dollars over the years and as well as saving our liability. i want to recognize as the supervisor ferrel, elisa, when i got diagnosed stepped up and has been running as fast as she can. we wouldn't have

rules that the board may accept jurisdiction in the cases where the board findshat the city intentionally caused the requestor in being late in filing an appeal. the distribution lists demonstrates that the city failed to provide the requisite notice. and in making this request, we understand that this is a difficult situation, both west field and kettle corn have been diligent and have acted in good faith. for the reasons that we do not understand, west field did not receive notice of the permit application, this apparent error is at odds with the experience with the mobile food program because west field has received timely notices of other similar applications to dpw, as a consequence of this error, west field was denied due process, it consists of notice and an opportunity to it be heard and west field has been denied both. and notwithstanding that both parties have been diligent and as between the two, they have received the benefit of this and have been able to obtain the permit and to operate as it was unable to raise the concerns about the permit. kettle

be great. >> no problem, we'll have that ready for the full board. >> thank you mr. lopez. >> any further questions or comments? okay. thank you very much. we do not have the -- we'll go straight to public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. we can do so without opposition. >> that completes the agenda for the day. >> colleagues, we are adjourned. >> good afternoon. thank you for being here. i just wanted to acknowledge how momentous occasion this is. i want to thank all the members of the board of supervisors for being here, to join me in this announcement along with california pacific medical center officials and, of course, our extraordinary volunteer mr. girardo. i'm happy today to sign this legislation to approve the california pacific medical center's hospital rebuild project and development agreement that the city, through its board of supervisors, just passed this last tuesday. this historic agreement ensures that two brand-new seismically safe hospitals for our city are going to be built, while guaranteeing important health care and other benefits

the chair then move forward this to the full board the next day on tuesday the board passed it on first reading. also was the ordinance called the sequa frurz of the modifications and this was the one that would allow on appeal of the e r o decision the project was not modified do. last week it was reminded to be approved and but didn't have enough votes to pass it so instead this commission passed a resolution that noted your vote on that motion and sent that to the committee. at the committee hearing the committee members expressed joy and there was one speaker in support. the chair move forward it and it was passed on first reading. also the language committee looked at zoning controls requiring conditional use authorization for portions of market street. at the hearing supervisor kim introduced some further amendments to limit the uses. they would be only applied to restaurants and of him you been services and pharmacies that are also, if those uses are format rail. also the controls were limited that have frontage on market street. there were 4 speakers and the committee voted to r

mta /pac recommends that the sfmta board to the board of directors board that the mission bay loop project be expedited and completed as soon as possible. that's our recommendations for this meeting. thank you. >> thank you. members of the board have questions or comments? >> i do have a question on the loop project. did the cac weigh in on an option because it's my understanding there is discussion going on whether it's north or south of channel? and did the cac have an opinion on that? >> we did not weigh in on that potential issue, although we have been -- some of our members have been watching this for years. before the mta decided to go ahead with it, or in the interim read when nothing was. >> >> done we didn't have a presentation on that issue on the meeting though. >> okay thank you. >> thank you for always thoughtful recommendations by the citizens' advisory council. we will consider them seriously. thank you. other comments on the citizens' advisory council? >> no members of the public asked to address you regarding the citizens' advisory council report. moving on to public comme

. >> for more information, >> good evening and welcome to the july 17, 2013 board of appeals, the officer is president chris hwang and she joined by the vice president ann lazarus and commissioners fung and honda and hurtado. >> to my left is the city attorney jesner and will provide the board with any needed legal advice. and goldstein the board's executive director, we are joined by the representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board, scott sanchez sitting in the front row and he is the city zoning administrator and also here representing the planning department and commission. sitting next to him is joseph duffy and he is representing the department of building inspection and also joined by short and forester and representing the public works and john, the manager of the department of public works bureau of street use and mapping. there will be people here as well from the department of public health. at this time, if you would please go over the board's meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all of the

the july 16 board meeting. >> so moved. >> do so without opposition. item 23 is the -- >> item 24. >> yeah item 24 is regarding the stabilization reserve. can i a motion to continue this item. >> so moved. >> okay. can we do so without opposition? mr. clerk do we have any other items? >> that concludes the agenda. >> we are adjourned. >> miss fever. >> mr. haney. >> miss mendoza? >> wins? >> norton. >> lee. >> wo ng. >> here. >> thank you. >> thank you, miss castco. please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> item a. >> none tonight. >> item b. >> superintendent carranza? >> you have rolled the r like a champion. >> good evening, everyone. we did it, this is the final board meeting of the year. >> we have almost does it. >> hopefully soon we will have done it and this represents a kul maition of the exciting work that has been accomplished by the staff and the students and the parents and our community and most certainty this board. i want to thank all of the staff that made this a successful year for our students and as you can imagine while the sch

the board upheld that permit. there was also the first appeal of a park let, and that was at 39 30 to 39 40 judah street, [speaker not understood]. the board ultimately upheld this permit, but there were issues and concerns about concentration of park lets. this would be the third one within two blocks. there are some on the other side of judah on the next block down. there are also concerns about the loss of parking and impact on deliveries and whether or not there will be increased double parking there. i think paul of our department staff [speaker not understood] and he presented at the board of appeals and answered their questions, but they did uphold that park let permit. and two other items, one was a letter of determination i issued for 2101 mariposa, for the slovenian hall, a legal nonconforming use of the venue, but it also requested that there was an existing legal nonconforming use in terms of the commercial kitchen. and that it could be used for food production not related to the operation of the hall.