the advice is if the committee wants to bring it before the full board, which is where the action would be taken to approve an item, that what the committee should do if they want to procedurally bring it before the full board is to pass it on without recommendation. that is appropriate under the terms of chapter 31. supervisor mar: i am reading subsection 8.3. it says that while the appeal is pending the city shall not carry out -- we did not carry out -- or consider approval of the project -- and we did not consider approval of the project because it was made clear at the beginning of the hearing. is that correct? >> that is correct. supervisor mar: i have follow-up questions for mr. cooper. it is very subjective whether this project eir -- appellants are climbing in reality it is a program eir. i need more specifics about how you would distinguish that what is being considered has adequate analysis, as supervisor mercury mentioned. the appellant highlights there was not sufficient analysis to constitute a project-level review. that is on page 11. they go on to mention it did not have

but the land use committee this week and the full board had a lot of planning items. the land use committee did hear the 800 booker t. washington mixed use development. at that hearing, they considered legislation introduced by supervisors mirkarimi, mar, and avalos, that would create a special use district and amend the height from 40 to 50 feet. you heard this legislation and associated project on april 28. there was a great deal of discussion about whether the height limit should be 45 feet or 55 feet, and your decision was to approve a 55-foot project. this week, the land use committee took public comment and forwarded the item with no recommendation because there is a pending ceqa appeal, so they could not take any recommendation on that. at this time, there is both a pending ceqa aseu -- a cu appeal before the board. the committee also heard the western so what community stabilization policy. supervisor kim is the risk -- the sponsor of the resolution, whereby the board would encourage the planning commission to a corporate policies and objectives of the western

the amount of $34,515 for the temporary relocation of the board of supervisors meetings. >> madam chair and members of the budget and finance committee, i am the deputy director of administration, clerk of the board. on february 2, a hearing was held at the budget and finance committee. placed on committee reserves, funds in the amount of $51,054, pending additional details and the temporary relocation. based on a new quote and estimates for media services, the revised costs or between $34,515 for poorer meetings -- for four meetings. san francisco government tv slide, please. >> can we have the overhead display, please? thank you. >> the budget and finance committee directed the clerk of the board to temporarily relocate to room 416. if room 416 proves to be an adequate, then the north light south courts would be utilized and the cost of the relocation would be $34,515 that would be incurred. although the north and white south courts are not available on all of the meeting dates, and the event occurs on august 9, and for the regularly scheduled meetings of september 6 and october 4, room 416 we need to be used at no additional costs

and to the city attorney just indicating there were several boards and committees that did not meet that standard and according to that particular board rule that they will be closed out and the deputy city attorney is creating legislation for the board's consideration. you're welcome. >> thank you, supervisor. >> given that we do have an agreement between our clerk and the budget analyst on the project closeout can we take those without objection? we'll do that without objection. thank you very much for your presentation. we won't be requiring that you come next week. >> thank you to all members of the colleagues. >> thank you. from my understanding we were requested top switch out on page 2 line 4 $56.72. however because there is a legal requirement for noticing for fees, we're not able to make that change because it hasn't been noted at the higher level. i believe the total dollar value to the city would be something about $1,500 or so. but given that we have some noticing requirements that would not be met if we changed that, can we go ahead and take a motion t

> i would like to ask the chair of the board of directors to answer this question because he was part of the process and how they did the outreach to get the committee members to fill out applications. >> to answer your question, i worked on the board development committee, and we had a very thorough process in which we have applications that were funneled to the community. they were able to get participation from business and property owners, and also community outreach. we wanted the perspective of individuals in the community, a longtime resident of the fillmore district, a community person. this is from the japan town community, and also, a man living in the film more center. we did work very diligently to make certain that we had a fair level of the nondiscriminatory approach. >> it is important that we do everything that we can to uphold this conclusion, for the people who are not property owners or business owners. i appreciate this and you'll get to expand this inclusion effort to list the participation. what about those who are not merchants of the fillmore? >> to answer that, we meet the fourth wednesday of every month, and we have begun t

commission and hpc, we removed all of the proposed amendments to historic resources so it is not a historic resources. this week, the committee recommended approval to the full board. the land use committee also had a required hearing on the interagency plan and implementation committee. it is an annual report. i believe you had this report last month and a related item later today. it is purely informational, so the committee took no action. at the full board tuesday, the housing element was before them. the board had already heard the appeal of the eir and upheld the eir ceqa document without public comment or board debate. the housing element was also approved with the 8-3 vote. the western sonoma community stabilization policy, urgent resolution sponsored by supervisor kim, that what urge this commission to incorporate policies and objectives from the stabilization policy into the western sonoma community plan when that item comes before you. the stabilization policy development developed by the task force would establish a metering of development, with the goal of achieving the desired balance of affordable housing and market. housing as well as an overall ba

that we have at least a sponsor's if not more to present this pension proposal to the board going through the rules committee and eventually the full board for the ballot. having said that, i want to emphasize that this proposal is comprehensive. it looks that not only the numbers that have been talked about with all of the press and all of you, the looks of the programs that we have put in place. and we have been contributing to a program that we have not been able to afford in a number of years. and also do it in the fashion that provides a dignified attention to those that have contributed many of their years of this wonderful city. i am proud to say that in working on this, we also have the choice about whether or not we would do it as a government or do it as a collaboration of people that were concerned about working families in this city. and making sure that we talked to everybody and had every voice heard. we start in january up to now 4.5 up to five months of a concerted effort to reflect a comprehensive approach. it reflects a dialogue that is transparent. it reflects labor leaders, officials, the

committee. angela calvillo the clerk of the board. as you recall in january, the committee directed me to repair a budget that provide for the five core functions in the budget, to maintain records both curn and historical to provide access to the record to the public, provide for the administration and operations necessary. to support the board and its official duty including legislative and analyst services. in addition the board has described other responsibilities to our department which require budgetary and administrative resources such as the assessment appeals board, the youth commission, the sunshine ordinance task force, and the clerking of the revenue bond oversight committee. please neat while the proposed budget necessary states necessary funds resources for these core service area, we have recognized the city's financial constraints and included cost savings where savings would not negatively impact the public these services. now to the details. thank you sfgtv. i've included a six-slide power point in the online packet.

there will be no order without representation in the assembly. >> does the committee advisory board, all of these folks have been invited already. >> they would like to come. >> terrific. >> thank you for that update. >> is there any relationship on that side? >> this could be as easy as the person trying to be conscientious who was going to do the suicide or the firearm, he wanted it right by police station. we don't know. >> thank you. >> are there any academy classes in the budget for next year. if there is none this year or next year? >> the supervisor is it the exigency of the circumstances. they were finding some way to do and backs. they are very genuine and they appreciate the reality of the circumstance. >> -- if they don't find any academy classes. i'm glad they are sincere and i hope that they act on that. there putting the city in potential risk of losing officers. how many recruits have we sent in and how many do we get out of a class, something like 30. >> laterals, we have a better graduation rate. there are a lot of police officers right now because the cities have no

the initial recommendations were issued in march after review by our committee on community development. as you recall, that committee has been restructured to reflect up with its by both the mayor and the board of supervisors. the committee first submitted the set of recommendations at a 30% level. when we learned that congress was probably going to not significantly decrease allocations, we presented the committee with a 20% allocation by moving some of the organizations that we have cut back into the portfolio and decreasing some of the reductions we have previously made. as i think i indicated to your offices earlier, we were asked by the committee to not make simple across-the-board reductions but instead to make strategic reductions and increases that reflected our ability to best serve the neediest of the population. i think that when you look at what we chose to decrease and what we chose to replace, we did try to preserve those services for homeless residents, for victims of domestic violence. we also chose to focus our services in areas that would avoid duplication with other departments. we have been an active participant in the ongoing cbo task force that has been bringing togethe

procedurally, what i would like to do is move this item to the four board as a committee report, so it can be placed on the agenda. there would be no vote today on the full board, and then in the ensuing couple of weeks -- because there is no board meeting next week -- create opportunity to gather this input and see if any changes need to be made on july 12. commissioner kim: i see no opposition to that motion. we will move forward this item with recommendations as a committee report to the full board. it will be heard, i believe, -- today, and voted on, on tuesday, -- commissioner elsbernd: there will be no vote this afternoon and tuesday would be a potential opportunity for further amendments to be made. if that happens, it would be continued to the board meeting on tuesday, july 19, at which there would be an opportunity for members of the public to comment once again. so no vote this afternoon. the earliest it could be voted on is the 12th. more likely, the 19th. commissioner kim: thank you. move forward with the recommendations to the full board. thank you. we are returneand turne

the authority is an 11-member citizen advisory committee. authority staff nor cac make recommendations as to appointments to that body. that is done to the plans and programs committee and ultimately the authority board. two requirements for cac members is that they beat san francisco residents and that they appear before this committee to talk to bet their interest and qualifications to serve on the committee. the two vacancies we have right now are both from term expectations. first from rosie west and another, jackie sacks. miss saxby is here to speak to her reappointment. i understand ms. west is also interested in being reappointed. she was planning to be here today, but i do not see her. commissioner campos: thank you. why don't we hear from this sex -miss sacks. good morning. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is jackie sacks. i have been involved with the transportation authority since the passage of prop. b in 1989. i was once of 56 individuals tht brought it. i was appointed to the cac in 1997. i am up for my eight reappointment. i have gone this far and i want to continue serving. i feel, with the background that i have, with what has been going on in the city, being disabled, i can d

the budget and finance committee without recommendation. supervisor mirkarimi: i supported the program nearly three years ago, a number of folks here in the board did the same, who have since left of the board. sitting on the budget committee leading up to all of the anecdotal information i have been hearing about the status program led me to believe, like some many of you that i have been hearing through city hall that this program is a failure and that it should be dropped. that makes sense based upon the anecdotal information have been hearing. the has made me take a look at another glance. the material that was submitted to us by the controller was limited in such a way that i did not think that it explained very well why it is not cost- effective or cost neutral. there is no division in the charter language or even in the city of what cost neutral means. it has been practiced, implemented in cities like san diego and los angeles. they have a--- definition of what it means. the limits our ability to be able to measure with the kind of accuracy what one would want. we are not planning any academy class is. it is pretty much mainstream bad. i

the run up to the peak of presidential elections while it was the longest serving member of feet as executive committee after joining the board back in one thousand eighty three he has also stepped down as congress passed president. and in the meantime europe's hottest coach and gravy lash boss has chris's trainer of course he's champions porto and speculation here saying take over as manager of chelsea he has a twenty one million dollars buyout clause in his contract and reports suggest the thirty three year old could pay cash and self however russian and chelsea are reportedly also prepared to pay the sum to nearly in demand coach the last bastion

the city needs. with that, i also want to thank our rules committee of the board of supervisors for making it a very th the appointment process. supervisors kim, elsbernd and farrell have worked with me on the rules committee to make sure that the appointees are transferred -- the transition to correctly. had received by unanimous vote of confidence that is very reflective of how we are administering government here. and the closeness with the board of supervisors. with that, please stand and we will take the oath and if you could raise your right hand and repeat after me, we will go through every one of your names and we will say that the commission you will be serving on that will go through that as well.

tonight, when the house version of this bill was discussed through three committees, when this was debated two years ago, this was not in the house version of the bill. this house advisory board did not exist. when it passed through three committees and here debated on the house floor, went to the senate, we knew the bill couldn't pass so they brought one out that didn't go through a single committee hearing with this in it. and we have here the letter that many members, bipartisan members, dr. fleming, dr. beginning re-- dr. gingrey, myself, many others, bob filner, dr. mcdermott, jim mcgovern. on and on and on. that think this is a bad idea. why do we think it's a bad idea? we believe the people's representative, that would be us, if there's going to be a cut medicare some nameless, faceless board shouldn't have

the board. i am with the wagner llp. i represent the appellants in this appeal. i have raised two issues with regard to notice. there is the ability to move forward on the merits. various committees of the board have heard the substantive merits of the project. with regards to notice, on june 1, just six days ago and just four business days ago, we were provided with a staff report and other substantive materials in support of project approval and the eir in the form of responses to the appeal document here. the planning and zoning law requires a 10-day notice of substantive materials and information regarding any project that would amend a general plan of zoning. the relevant case is on the environmental defense project. also, under the california environmental quality act, commissioners will proceed with any challenge by the board would normally be limited to only those issues that are raised before the close of the public hearing on the project. that provision also states that if be notice provided by law is god-given or an opportunity to organize or respond to stipe given, then in the issue is available for challenge. on those two issues, we request that the board deliberate

the item is before us. i would like to know if there is a motion to move this forward as a committee report to the full board without recommendation. supervisor weiner: so moved. chairperson mar: without objection. thank you, everyone. please call the next item. >> resolution urging the planning commission to incorporate the policies and objectives of the western soma community stabilization policy and community plan. chairperson mar: we have a guest from planning. >> good afternoon. ms. rogers from the planning department. this resolution has not been sent to the planning commission. only the ordinances are sent to the planning commission, with a 90-day hold. the department is concerned with the task force. we agree that balanced development is of the utmost importance. the general plan has policies that encourage a balance between affordable housing and market rate housing, as well as a balance between jobs and housing. that said, the department has concerns about the proposed message to reach that balance. before you is a resolution that relies on the community work, with a rigid emphasis on new developme