voted to revoke the subject wireless box permit, and on april 20, 2011, and the board voted to adopt findings as amended. we will start with ms. ernst. >> thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about wireless equipment on the utility pole. there have been some new materials faxed that they are meeting on march 16. after that meeting, the process could be fixed immediately, and we were told by the department of public works they are not processing any permit requests at this time due to the change in law. they are still not processing the. since the written materials were given to you, we do not know the dates. it is looking like june 1 is going to be the date when the new regulations are put into affect, so we are requesting the spill -- no permanent be delayed until after the city has had kind -- we are requesting the permit be delayed until the city has had time. the reason isn't because of the loss of services that will result -- is because of loss of services that will result if this is removed. for those who have dropped their landlines or wireless phones

on january 19th, 2011, the board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. on march 23rd, 2011, the board voted to grant the rehearing request and to set the rehearing for today. >> i apologize. there is another item i need to address before you began speaking. commissioners, the permit holder has requested that we designate the court reporter's transcript for this matter as the official record for this proceeding and we need a motion. >> so moved. >> is to any public comment? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> thank you. the report will be the official transcript. >> thank you. i am appearing on behalf of the palate. -- on behalf of the appellant. thank you for agreeing to rehear this appeal. this is a complex issue that has far reaching implications for the neighborhoods, quality of life, and safety, particularly given the impact on families, use, children, and seniors. secondly, the pharmacy in this location is unnecessary and undesirable given the number of pharmacies that already exist in close walking distance. that was a letter to you from former super

lacking the four votes needed to pass, the motion failed and the permit was upheld by operation of law. on march 16, the board voted 4- 0-1 to grant the rehearing request and to set the rehearing for today. >> we can start with the appellant or her agent. you will have seven minutes. >> i am representing my mother. i'm not going to go into the history and background. i will bring the main points. we have been at it for long enough. in the brief, i just wanted to point out that the grievance letter is just the presentation of the fact that my mother has no education, no background knowledge. whatever her actions caught, it was about the lack of an education and knowledge in any of the matter. the second one, what i wanted to say, definitely because of lack of education, no schooling, she does not read in english, she can barely speak, she definitely did ask assistance from a third party. the third party ultimately did assist. my mother has never signed this letter. i don't know what happened in the process between the assistance and who took advantage of my mother's lack of knowledge of the process, but it is

i certainly will. >> since we are talking about a special meeting on thursday for the board, why can't we just vote after this discussion at the special meeting on thursday? >> we are talking about a special meeting of not the full board, but the budget committee [unintelligible] >> again, this is just a suggestion. >> so does everybody understand what the option is in order to give the board members of little bit more time to have a discussion around the budget peace? he would have a regular budget meeting on the twenty eighth, we would have a special meeting right after to discuss this one item. it would be brought on may 3 half of the committee as a whole meeting for final vote?

we will have the full vote of the board on may 3. is that correct? after the committee as a whole. the vote on the twenty eighth is the budget committee's recommendation only. in may 3 will be the full board. everybody clear? gray. -- great. if you have to. [laughter] >> just a point of clarification, do we have to make a recommendation to postpone this bill? president mendoza: with regards to this item, we want to postpone the so which is heard on may 3. there will be the interim budget meeting. how do i need a vote on that? we will have a final vote on the denial of this charter. any questions? thank you all very much for this very lively conversation. item i is a board member's proposals. item j. a. request to speak on general matters. -- a request to speak on general matters. many of you have been waiting patiently for this item. i will call your name. a police lineup. we have probably lost a few people. i have over 35 speakers speaking tonight. i am going to ask you keep your comments to a minute and a half. there are a lot of you speaking on very common items, so if you can be

the sole discretion. that will have to be eliminated from this petition. commissioner norton: were we to vote to issue the charter, that would have to be changed? would the board have to amended prior to a vote in favor? >> yes. >commissioner norton: with our other charter schools, do we have language similar to this? is the unusual piece that the languages here in the charter application rather than in the district? >> there is always a section in the petition itself that would describe it. with the understanding of what the district's policy is and what procedures are. >> we have that language and we have discovered that the language is, in fact, in some other mlu's. the language has to be amended and clean up as the charter's come before the district. it has to be consistent with the language of the petition. it should be clear to stay in that it is in the district of the discretion whether or not we want to allow such a concession. commissioner norton: you know, this is a tough one for me. i did support this petition at the curriculum committee. i felt this was -- there were some good things happening for kids. i also did not support a petition when the bo

that job was not up to the voters but the board of supervisors. by a majority vote, supervisors are able to choose the interim mayor. that is when the fun began in city hall. who would he be? >> we needed to protect -- perfect the process so that once the board asked us for that process, we could actually have something in place that was well tested that we could provide to them. >> mayor newsom would be sworn in as lieutenant governor in early january. so the board of supervisors had barely two months after the november election to select an interim mayor to complete gavin newsom's term. but how would the board do this? san francisco's charter guided -- offered little guidance. >> although it was obvious we would appoint an interim mayor, there was no time line for the two to occur. we looked to outside counsel for answers. they researched those questions. while they researched the legal angle, we began the research on the parliamentary level. at the beginning of the calendar year 2010, we started to craft a generic process for a successor for mayor. being a parlia

of the board proposed a process for nomination for mayor, which the board debated, amended, and eventually passed. >> a board member read the nominated may not produce pig in the discussion or vote on the competitor nominees. if the nominee of a board member nominee has been withdrawn, the board member may no longer have a conflict and could return to the room and to dissipate. >> basically, a process that i am proposing is one in which, one, would maximize per dissipation. members of the board of supervisors. it would in franchise as many of our individual electors as possible in the decision making. >> this vote we will be taking is without question the most important vote we will cast as members of the board of supervisors. >> alioto-pier, there are 11 ayes. this motion is approved as amended. >> there was a lot of ambiguity run the process. to have the board to settle on a process felt really good, that we had to tackle that part of it. >> if you are a supervisor, you cannot vote for yourself. if you are nominated for that office, you cannot participate in the discussions, so you have to leave the room. you cannot text people, you cannot get on facebook. you can watch the pr

board, the voice of the people of san francisco. in fact, the three planning commissioners appointed by the board all vote thed against this project because they recognized this was a bad idea. this project is a bad idea from

the same afternoon the full board voted to uphold the certification of the seir on first reading and to approve all actions associated with the project by a 6-5 vote. the project would go before the m.t.a. board and the p.u.c. commission in june for the agencies to ratify their respective portions of the agreement. we had three appeals at the board this week, so that was -- that included the first appeal. the second was the at&t light speed appeal. this item was continued without discussion by the request of supervisor wiener. the board approved a five-week continuance. and supervisor wiener introduced a hearing request on d.p.w.'s order concerning the excavation permits for the installation of what they call the surface-mounted facilities, which are the same things that were under appeal. specifically, the supervisor wanted the hearing to be a discussion with public works, city planning department, the sfmta and the p.u.c. on the extent to which this executive order complies with the general plan and the better streets plan. so that will happen later in june is the tentative schedule

the board votes on the middle school assignment policy, and if you have questions and want to contact us or take a look at our full report of findings and recommendation, it is also available online at ppss.org, and our numbers are on the side as well. good hikes it was really great to see it -- >> it was really great to see some of you. he answered a lot of questions, and it was good to be a parent and to have him there to present answers and questions from the parents. a goo>> do you have any questiou want to ask bowman -- want to ask? is there any member of the public who would like to comment? we have somebody come into the microphone, but maybe we want to hear the staff presentation first.

i continue to thank the board of supervisors for this historic vote that happened in january. ng that, i want to kick off the celebration by doing the appropriate thing, signing the declaration that declares this month asian pacific american heritage month. i would like you to join with me the fantastic group of council generals here. if i can call up to join me -- the council generals from canada, china, japan, korea -- please join me. please come up. if i may, i would like each share of our apa volunteer committee to please come up and board president david chiu. and our new police chief, please come on up, chief greg suhr. please join us. [applause] >> just take a picture. together -- thank you very much everyone. [applause] mayor lee: thank you. thank you, everyone. [applause] >> the mayor wants to know if he can keep his hat? [laughter] [unintelligible] thank you very very much. next, someone who represents another first in our city's history. three years ago, district 3 elected the first chinese- american to the board of supervisors, and immediately after he was sworn in,

and lastly, the board heard the appeal of the conditional use authorization for project 1268, a project you never quite a few times. the board voted to modify the conditional use approved by the planning commission. the project was to be developed -- was to develop four dwelling units. the board added -- this is an rh3 district. they added three conditions. to minimize the height of the proposed elevator penthouse, to minimize the height of the building and to cap the height of the building. i have more information. in terms of interest -- introductions, supervisor david chiu introduced an amendment to the planning code. there are 11 components to this introduction. his amendment would increase the amount of principal-permitted parking spaces, make off streets parking requirements in the van ness a special district, eliminates minimum parking requirements through chinatown makes use and the -- mixed views and the north beach commercial district. and then the restrictions on of street parking rates and extend them to other zoning districts. to increase the permitted use for the corner commercial uses in rto and rn districts. to mod