File No. 100514 Brown Boulevard in San Francisco. 5 ... · File No. 100514 Petitions and...

File No. 100514

Petitions and Communications received from April 13, 2010, through April 19, 2010, forreference by the President to Committee considering related matters, or to be orderedfiled by the Clerk on April 27, 2010.

From concerned citizens, submitting opposition to re-naming Third Street to "WillieBrown Boulevard" in San Francisco. 5 letters (1)

From SF Ocean Edge, regarding the Beach Chalet soccer fields project in Golden GatePark. 2 letters (2)

From Planning Department, submitting Notice of Preparation of an EnvironmentalImpact Report for 121 Golden Gate Avenue. Copy: Each Supervisor (3)

From Emael Haasalum, regarding "Celebrate San Francisco" at the Mission CulturalCenter for Latino Arts from September 8,2010, to October 9,2010. (4)

From Greg Ganji, requesting traffic be redirected along the Great Highway, south ofSloat Boulevard, so that one lane is open going south, and one lane is open goingnorth, until the permanent solution is completed. (5)

From Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board, submitting the Annual Reporton Eviction Notices from March 1, 2009, through February 28, 2010. Copy: EachSupervisor (6)

From Monika Weiler, regarding MUNI. (7)

From Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector, submitting the March 2010 InvestmentReport. Copy: Each Supervisor (8)

From Sarah Slaughter, regarding proposal for a Trader Joe's at the Noe/Market StreetCenter. (9)

From Joshua Arce, regarding the Sunset Reservoir Solar Project. (10)

From Gabe Parsons, regarding the new digital body scanners at all major airports. (11)

From concerned citizens, submitting opposition to approval of the Conditional UseApplication on property located at 725 Taraval Street. File NO.100382, 2 letters (12)

From Friends of Redwood Park, urging the Board of Supervisors to uphold theEnvironmental Impact Report for 555 Washington Street. File No. 100443,Approximately 2200 letters (13)

From concerned citizens, submitting opposition to the Environmental Impact Report for555 Washington Street. File No. 100443, 12 letters (14)

From concerned citizens, submitting opposition to the Municipal TransportationAgency's proposed changes to parking meters in the City. 12 letters (15)

From concerned citizens, submittinq opposition to the proposed cell tower at MiralomaCommunity Church. (16)

From Matt, submitting opposition to public power in San Francisco. (17)

From Office of the Controller, submitting results of the follow-up review for anaudit of the Hertz Corporation. Copy: Each Supervisor (18)

From concerned citizens, submitting concerns with the approval of an 18-hole Disc Golfcourse at McLaren Park. 2 letters (19)

From Francsico Da Costa, regarding the Lennar Corporation. (20)

From Tommy Escarega, submitting an amendment to the Board of Supervisors VotingRights Resolution. (21)

From Office of the Controller, regarding the Community-based Long-term Care FiscalAnalysis. (22)

From S.F. Labor Council, submitting resolution urging the California Labor Federation tooppose Proposition 16 on the June 8,2010, ballot. Copy: Each Supervisor (23)

From the Gray Panthers, urging the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission tooppose Proposition 16: Copy: Each Supervisor (24)

From Annie Paradise, regarding the Bayview Library. (25)

From Southeast Jobs Coalition, submitting support for the Hunter's View TenantsAssociation and Hunter's View residents seeking further, more meaningful engagementin the rebuilding of their community. (26)

From Antonio Robles, submitting opposition to the project located at 2462 - 2th

Avenue. File No.1 00151, Copy: Each Supervisor (27)

From US Army Corps of Engineers, regarding providing recipients with the choice ofwhether to continue to receive paper copies or to start receiving electronic mailnotification of Public Notices. (28)

From Malcolm Dudley, regarding the Masonic Auditorium hearing on May 4, 2010. (29)

From David Mendenhall, regarding "Meatless Mondays" in San Francisco. (30)

From Recreation and Parks Department, regarding the extensive renovation of GarfieldSwimming Pool. (31)

From concerned citizen, submitting opposition to California Pacific Medical Center's"Master Plan" for St. Luke's Hospital and the new Cathedral Hill facility. (32)

Chuck Harris<[email protected]>

04/16/2010 11:55 PM

To [email protected]

cc

bee

Subject Renaming 3rd Street

Please do not rename 3rd street. It's called third as it comes out of downtownwhere it's 3rd. I'm a Dogpatch homeowner and I like the connection of therelation to SOMA and Downtown. It's a little like branding when you do thiskind of thing anyway. Why not call it Pepsi street.

I get that he deserves recognition for his contribution, but keep it to asmaller street. Why not keep it in Mission Bay and dedicate a smaller street.

Chuck Harris

Hello,

Holly Trytten<[email protected]>

04/14/201010:35 PM


ee [email protected], [email protected]

bee

Subject Attn: Street Renaming Proposal

The proposal of naming 3rd street to Willie Brown Jr. Boulevard hasseveral issues:

- The numbered naming system of the north/south streets will no longer beconsistent.

- The name 'Willie Brown Jr. Boulevard' is long and awkward. Imagineliving on that street and being continually required to write that down asyour address. Imagine having to give your address over the phone. Assomeone who just purchased a place in Dogpatch, I'm hugely relieved thatmy place isn't on 3rd street.

- Frankly, a lot of people are not fond of Willie Brown. While I don'thave much opinion of him either way, amongst many people he's a somewhatcontroversial figure. Surely there are other more important figures wecould name our streets after.

- Naming a street, landmark, or building after someone who is still aliveseems a bit questionable.

I strongly feel that if 3rd street is renamed, it will be doing theresidents who live along that street a great disservice. The streets willbecome less navigable and for no good reason. If we want to showappreciation towards Willie Brown, surely we can find a better way to doit.

Another option is to move to a model where a street is not actuallyrenamed, but given an additional 'honorary' name or names. If youhappen to visit Chicago sometime, you'll see honorary names spr'inkledeverywhere. For example:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a~v&q~cache:4ideXNkvYROJ:www.chicagoancestors.or

g/downloads/honorary.pdf+honorary+street+narnes+chicago&hl~en&gl~us&pid~bl&srci

d~ADGEESiIXZY5td5ED-16KEFViO-969p4YIKQic22vzAak43proOQkPQXHnnWDIjveYvoOLw625aj

SU2Nf8fqAQxbHE7130In twuRxNiMDhNDC59yGhaanacrlt8ChRHfQhiZjPm4Qpd&sig~AHIEtbSBG

IRgocr9LD38v8lDgkDR8rbe7g

If you look at the doc, you'll probably note that the honorary names havegotten a bit out'of hand.

What's to stop the renaming of streets in San Francisco from getting outof hand? PLea se don't do this. I' d prefer my tax dollars go to better use.

Sincerely,Holly Trytten

Board ofSupervisors/BOS/SFGOV

04/15/201004:08 PM

Chuck Harris<[email protected]>

04/14/201011 :00 PM

To Sophie MaxweIi/BOS/SFGOV, Jon Lau/BOS/SFGOV, AliceGuidry/BOS/SFGOV,

cc

bcc

Subject Renaming 3rd Street


cc

SUbject Renaming 3rd Street

Please do not rename 3rd street. It's called third as it comes out of downtownwhere it's 3rd. I'm a Dogpatch homeowner and I like the connection of therelation to SOMA and Downtown. It's a little like branding when you do thiskind of thing anyway. Why not call it Pepsi street.

I get that he deserves recognition for his contribution, but keep it to asmaller street. Why not keep it in Mission Bay and dedicate a smaller street.

Chuck Harris


04/15/2010 03:22 PM

Dick Millet<[email protected]>

04/15/201010:13 AM

To BOS Constituent Mail Distribution,

cc

bcc

Subject 3rd Street name

To . [email protected], [email protected],david chiu <[email protected]>, eric L mar<[email protected]>, Board of Supervisors<[email protected]>, Board of Supervisors<[email protected]>, Board of Supervisors<[email protected]>, Board of Supervisors<[email protected]>, Board of Supervisors<[email protected]>, Board of Supervisors<[email protected]>, Board of Supervisors<[email protected]>, [email protected],[email protected]

cc

Subject 3rd Street name

Dear Supervisor:On the subject of renaming 3rd Street to Willie Brown Blvd. "I'M

AGAINST".I find it foolish, unimportant, a waste of money!! If San Franciscans want tonameanything in his honor, let's make it a citywide wish and let's wait till he'sDEAD.

SINCERELY, Richard C. Millet, Potrero Hill

Andrea Firpo<[email protected]>

041151201007:59 AM


cc

bcc

SUbject Fw: I do not want Third Street's Name Changed ....

Andrea Firpo900 Minnesota Street, #314San Francisco, CA 94107408.483.5299

--- On Thu, 4/15/10, Andrea Firpo <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Andrea Firpo <[email protected]>Subject: I do not want Third Street's Name Changed....To: [email protected]: Thursday, April 15, 2010, 7:52 AM

As a new home owner in Espirit Park, in the Dogpatch community, I would like to keep Third Street as it is aWillie Brown.

Thank you.

Andrea Firpo900 Minnesota Street. #314San Francisco, CA 94107408.483.5299

..SF Ocean Edge"<[email protected]>

04/15/201012:30 PM

To <[email protected]>

cc <[email protected]>, "Bevan Dully"<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>,

bcc

Subject Testimony re Beach Chalet soccer fieids project, Rec andPark Commission, April 15th

Mark BueLL, PresidentRecreation and Park CommissionMcLaren Lodge, GoLden Gate Park5e1 Stanyan StreetSan Francisco, CA 94117-1898

cc: BOSPursuant to San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance Section 67.16, Minutes, pLeasefind beLow my written pubLic testimony of 15e or fewer words that I amrequesting be incLuded verbatim in the pubLished minutes of the Recreationand Park Commission's ApriL 15,2e1e meeting. PLease aLso forward viae-maiL my 15e-word testimony to aLL Recreation and Park Commissioners priorto commencement of the Commission meeting.

Katherine Howard, SF Ocean Edge.

This hearing today is not about soccer. It is about the future of GoldenGate Park. Will Golden Gate Park be continuously fragmented intosmaller and smaller pieces, until it is no longer recognizable as the parkenvisioned by its creators?

What is that vision? In 1873, William Hammond Hall said, " Apark..should be an agglomeration of hill and dale, meadow, lawn, woodand coppice, presenting a series of sylvan and pastoral views, calculatedto banish all thought of urban objects...."

This describes the Recreation Field. This is the essence of Golden GatePark.

You are called on today to uphold the vision of the Park as it wasconceived and as it has been beloved by San Franciscans for over 140

years.

Fix the natural grass playing fields. Find other playing fields for soccer.But, please, do not destroy Golden Gate Park.

..SF Ocean Edge"<[email protected]>

04/14/201012:41 PM

To "Bevan Dufty" <[email protected]>, "Bevan Dufty"<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>,

ccbcc

SUbject Telegraph Hill Dwellers Resolutlon- requesting an EIR forthe Beach Chaiet soccer fields

1 attachment

~,.;21I 1tI;U!

THD resoiution.pdf

MayorGavin NewsomBoard of SupervisorsRecreation and Park CommissionRecreation and Park General Manager

Attached please find a resolution from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, expressing concern over the impactof the Beach Chalet soccer field project on Golden Gate Park and recommending that a fullEnvironmental ImpactReport becompleted for this project.

cc:California Preservation FoundationCoalition for San Francisco NeighborhoodsCoalition to Save Ocean Beach I Friends of Sutro ParkFriends of Lands EndGolden Gate Audubon SocietyHALS - Historic American Landscape SurveyIn Defense of AnimalsPAR - Planning Association for the RichmondSFAA - San Francisco Amateur AstronomersSan Francisco Animal Welfare and Animal Control CommissionSan Francisco Architectural HeritageSan Francisco BeautifulSan Francisco TomorrowSan Francisco Tree CouncilSierra Club, Northern California ChapterSPEAK - SunsetiParkside Education and Action CommitteeSDNC - Sunset District Neighborhood CoalitionWest of Twin Peaks Central Council

TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS

Golden Gate Park

Beach Chalet Soccer Fields

Resolution of concern about environmentalimpacts and requesting a full EIR

Motion adopted unanimously by the Board of Directors ofTelegraph Hill Dwellers on April 13, 2010:

Resolved, that the Telegraph Hill Dwellers are concerned aboutthe impacts of the Recreation and Park Department's proposal tointroduce the highly urbanized artificial turf fields into GoldenGate Park, removing topsoil and replacing natural plantings withfake grass, increasing paving in the Park, degrading wildlifehabitat, increasing traffic to the Park and through theneighborhoods, decreasing the quality of the night sky, infringingon the wild nature of Ocean Beach, and changing the overallcharacter of the western edge of the park from a sylvan retreatto a developed sports complex. THD recommends that a fullEnvironmental Impact Report be completed on this project sothat the public can be informed of the extent of this project, theimpacts can be better understood, and alternatives can beproposed.

f!;,oS II -f"·f- co BL.CF iVi="nSAN FRANCISCO BOt,!\[) OF ,-, . ,.. L~

PLANNING OEPARTMENTs/\f!ZDIGilPR 16 PrJ 4! 18

April 14, 2010 1650 Mission StSuite 400San rrancsco,CA 94103·2479

Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board of SupervisorsCity Hall1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244San Francisco, CA 94102

Subject: Distribution of Notice of Availability of an Initial Study to the Board ofSupervisors121 Golden Gate AvenueDepartment File No. 2005.0869E

Dear Ms. Calvillo!

Enclosed please find 12 copies of the Notice of Availability of the 121 GoldenGate Avenue Initial Study. Please note that this document does not pertain to anyitem currently calendared before the Board, but is being distributed pursuant tothe San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 31. A Draft EnvironmentalImpact Report (EIR) is being prepared for this project.

If you have any questions related to this project's environmental evaluation,please call me at 575-9072,

Sincerely,

Environmental Planner

enclosures

www.stplannlnq.orq

Reception:415,558,6378

Fax:415,558.6409

PianningInformation:415,558.6377

To Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and Interested Parties:1~5jl Mission Sl.Suite 400San Francisco,GA 94103·2479

ZulO APR 16 K~rd+i4,lilJ10

Ale

SAN FRANCISCOPLANNING

CASE NO 2005.0869E:121 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE BYNOTICE OF PREPARATION OEAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

RE:

PlanningInformation:415;558.6377

A Notice of Preparation (NOP} of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above-referencedproject, described below, has been issued by the Planning Department. The NOP/Notice of PublicScoping Meeting is either attached or is available from Jeanie Poling, whom you may reach at (415)

575-9072 or at the above address. It is also available online at http://www.mea.sfplaruiing.org.Thisnotice is being sent to you because you have been identified as potentially having an interest in theproject or the project area.

RecepUon:415.558;6378

Fax:415.558.6409

Project Description:

The approximately 14,156-square-foot project site is located on the southwest comer of Golden GateAvenue and Jones Street in the Downtown/Civic Center Neighborhood (Block 0349 and Lot 001). Theproposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 40-foot high, two-story building that containsthe St. Anthony dining hall/social services; and the construction of a 99-foot-high, ten-story buildingcontaining approximately 109,375 gross square feet (gsf). The new building would contain the St.Anthony Foundation dining hall/philanthropic services and 90 affordable senior housing units. No offstreet parking would be removed or provided with the project. There would be pedestrian entries on bothGolden Gate Avenue and Jones Street. Constructed in 1912, the existing building is a historic resourcebased on its association with known historical events and a contributor to Uptown Tenderloin NationalRegister Historic District.

The Planning Department has determined that an EIR must be prepared for the proposed project prior toany final decision regarding whether to approve the project. The purpose of the EIR is to provideinformation about potential significant physical environmental effects of the proposed project, to identifypossible ways to minimize the significant effects, and to describe and analyze possible alternatives to theproposed project. Preparation of an NOP or EIR does not indicate a decision by the City to approve or todisapprove the project. However, prior to making any such decision, the decision makers must reviewand consider the information contained inthe EIR.

Written comments will be accepted until the close of business on May 14, 2010. Written comments shouldbe sent to Bill Wycko, San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco,CA 94103.

If you work for an agency that is a Responsible or a Trustee Agency, we need to know the views of youragency as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is relevant to your agency'sstatutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the EIRwhen considering a permit or other approval for this project. We will also need the name of the contactperson for your agency. If you have questions concerning environmental review of the proposed project,please contact Jeanie Poling at (415) 575-9072.

www.sfplanning.org

bee

[email protected]

04/15/201007:21 PM

1 attachment


cc [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], "supervisor chris daly"

Subject Celebrate! San Francisco'": September 8th· October 9th

ECO FRiENDLY VERSION of CELEBRATE SAN FRANCISCO· call for submissions.doc

Hello there San Francisco Board of Supervisors:

I hope this email finds you all doing well.

On September 8th from 6:00 - 9:30 PM, Celebrate! San Francisco~ willopen with a Private Viewing for project participants, sponsors and thepress at the Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts (MCCLA).Celebrate! San Francisco~ will take place during Latino Heritage Monthand as MCCLA's annual Mes Latinoamericano Exhibition. Given therelatively short lead time, we are particularly invested in buildingexcitement around the project with like-minded individuals andorganizations. We recently requested that Mayor Gavin Newsom attend thePrivate Viewing on September 8th and are awaiting his reply. It is ourhope that his involvement will help raise awareness and appreciation ofthe creative communities working in San Francisco.

I include the Call for Submissions we are using so that you may have abetter understanding of the Exhibition; please feel free to forward itto people who may be interested; I have added it as an attachment justin case you want a printer-friendly version. Just to let you know, weare also looking for project sponsors; should you have any interest orsuggestions, ~ welcome discussing the matter with you in person at yourearliest convenience. It is our sincere belief that now more than ever,San Francisco would benefit greatly from an event that showcases ourculture and civic pride. We hope that you can share in our enthusiasm.

Thank you for your time and energy.

Gratefully,emael

Project Director.Celebrate! San Franciscom

415-503-7586

Celebrate! San Franciscom

CALL for SUBMISSIONS: OPEN THROUGH JULY 10th.FIELDS of INTEREST: ART, BUSINESS, DANCE, DESIGN, FILM, MUSIC, SOCIALCHANGE

In addressing the countless concerns the world has today, Celebrate! SanFranciscolli (also referred to as "the Exhibition") is offered as acreative solution to the negativity presently plaguing mainstream mediaoutlets. The Exhibition is a pilot project that will launch in SanFrancisco at the Mission Cultural Center in September of 2010 focusingon two very simple questions: How are locals celebrating the humanexperience given present circumstances; and, what transformations aretaking place in local communities/industries that would best serve alarger audience?

In times of uncertainty and crisis, most people tend to support thetried and tested formulas of the past rather than invest the time indeveloping new strategies to pressing social circumstances. Thishowever h~s still not offered us a way out of present global conditions.Celebrate! San Francisco~ favors a world where new visions andstrategies are made possible. By meaningfully engaging the dynamictalent from the diverse creative industries in this city, we hopegallery visitors will have greater cause to celebrate the life andculture of San Francisco.

COMPONENTSGallery: 19+1~20

Nineteen projects/pieces are sought for inclusion in the gallerycomponent of the Exhibition. Innovation, collaboration, play,risk-taking and beauty are strongly encouraged.One play/listening station will be included as a permanent installation(pending sponsorship). OJ's are strongly encouraged to propose line-upsor listening parties during normal gallery hours for the duration of theExhibition.

The Exhibition will be taking place during Latino Heritage Mouth. Thenumber 20 is inspired by the Mayan numeral system which is vigesimal(i.e., base-20). THE EXHIBITION IS OPEN TO ALL PEOPLE.

Important DatesJuly 10: Call for Submissions closes at 11:59 PM.July 17: Decisions are sent out.September 1-3: Drop off work.September 8: Private Viewing.September 9: Exhibition opens to the public.September 15: Reception for Exhibition Participants.September 22: Theater available from 6:00-9:30 PM for proposedProgramming. *September 29: Peak Experiences* Panel discussion moderated by D. ScotMiller.October 6: One Day I Will* David Molina hosts an evening of music andperformance.October 9: Exhibition Closes

*Event titles and schedule subject to change before going to press.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTSSubmissions received after JULY 10 will not be considered. All workmust be completed in 2010. Email your resume/CV and cover letterdescribing your work, interest in the Exhibition and any requirements toemael, Project Director, at [email protected]. Please limitproject proposals to two pages. Although links to your work arepreferred, other arrangements can be made to view your work if requestedbefore June 19. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Celebrate! San Franciscorn is emael's first project since completing hisbook, the last american icon, in 2008. He has spent the last two yearsmeditating on art, commerce and love, emerging from the experience witha call for celebration. The five pointed green star is his service markand logo, representing his personal mantra: "Put your money where yourheart is." For past examples of emael's work, please visitwww.loveemael.com. Thank you.

Greg Ganji<gganji@hotmail,com>

041151201008:19 PM

To <board.of.supervisorsgpsfqov.orq>

cc

bcc

SUbject Great Highway closure south of Sloat St

Hello,I'm writing with a request to redirect traffic along Great Highway south of Sloat Stso that one lane is open going south and one lane is open going north. Currently 2lanes are open northbound and no southbound lanes are open due to the winter storms.This problem can be temporarily fixed easily and quickly, and so many San Franciscanswould appreciate it. It's a huge inconvenience to have to head southbound on GreatHighway, then have to take the lengthy detour at Sloat, especially during heaviertraffic hours. It just seems unfair that noone seems to care enough about usresidents in the outer avenues that need this precious roadway open to get aroundefficiently. PLEASE HELP! I simply ask that someone from DPT take a look, andput up some cones or whatever to redefine traffic flow to allow traffic to movein both directions, until the permanent solution is completed.Thank youGreg Ganji

The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. Getbusy.

City and County of San Francisco

BDS-l \Residential Rent Stabilization and

Arbitration Board

April 13, 2010

Angela CalvilloClerk of the BoardBoard of Supervisors, Room 2441 Carlton B. Goodlett PlaceSan Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Rent Board Annual Report on Eviction Notices

Dear Ms. Calvillo:

OJr/

<,,Iio

Pursuant to Section 37.6(j) of the Rent Ordinance, Chapter 37 of the SanFrancisco Administrative Code, the Rent Board is providing its annualreport on the number of eviction notices filed with the Department. Duringthe period from March 1,2009 through February 28, 2010, a total of 1,269eviction notices were filed with the Department. This figure includes 106notices given due to failure to pay rent, which are not required to be filedwith the Department. The number of notices filed with the Department thisyear represents a 11.3% decrease from last year's total filings of 1,430. Thelargest decrease was in Ellis eviction notices which decreased by 78% from192 to 43 notices. Temporary capital improvement eviction noticesdecreased by 38% to 21 notices and owner or relative move-in evictionnotices decreased by 27% to 116.

The list on the following page gives the total number of eviction noticesfiled with the Department, the stated reason for the eviction and theapplicable Ordinance section.

24-Hour Information Line TEL. (415) 252-4600FAX (415) 252-4699

:~

Fax Back Service (415) 252-4660INTERNET: http://sfgov.org/rentboard

25 Van Ness Avenue, #320San Francisco, CA 94102-6033

@

Rent Board Annual Eviction Report

Number Reason· Ordinance Section

10672

399287

37131623

116o

3321o

432

2774

1,269

non-payment of renthabitual late payment of rentbreach of rental agreementcommitting a nuisanceillegal use of rental unitfailure to renew agreementfailure to permit landlord accessunapproved sub-tenantowner/relative move-incondo conversion saledemolish or remove from housing usecapital improvement worksubstantial rehabilitationEllis (withdrawal of unit)lead remediationroommate evictionother or no reason givenTotal Eviction Notices

37.9(a)(l)37.9(a)(l)37.9(a)(2)37.9(a)(3)37.9(a)(4)37.9(a)(5)37.9(a)(6)37.9(a)(7)37.9(a)(8)37.9(a)(9)

37.9(a)(10)37.9(a)(11)37.9(a)(12)37.9(a)(13)37.9(a)(14)

37.9(b)

The increase or decrease since last year for each just cause (excluding categories for which theDepartment did not receive at least ten notices in both years) is as follows:

Just Cause Reason 2008/09 2009/10Percent DecreaselIncrease

Ellis withdrawal of unit 192Capital improvement 34Owner or relative move-in 159Habitual late payment 83Illegal use of rental unit 42Nuisance 311Roommate eviction 28Demolish or remove from housing use 34Failure to permit landlord access 16Breach of rental agreement 357Unapproved sub-tenant 18

567 Annuelbvictionkeportns-In - 4/13/09Senior Staff Shared Folder/Annual Eviction Report/4/l0

4321 .

1167237

287273316

39923

-78%-38%-27%-13%-12%

-7%-4%-3%0%

+12%+28%

Rent Board Annual Eviction Report

During the period March I, 2009-February 28,2010, tenants filed a total of 450 Reports ofAlleged Wrongful Eviction with the Rent Board. Of the 450 reports filed, 54 reports or 12%involved school-age children, with 36 reports or 8.0% relating to evictions occnrring during theschool term. Of the 450 total reports, 37 reports specifically objected to no-fault evictions, and 5of these 37 reports or 13.5% involved school-age children, with all 5 reports relating to evictionsoccurring during the school term.

This eviction report can also be found on our web site under "Statistics", Annual EvictionReport. A monthly breakdown of all eviction filings by category is also enclosed with this report.Please call me at 252.4650 should you have any questions concerning this report.

Very truly yours,

De~d2(-Executive DirectorRent Stabilization andArbitration Board

Mayor Gavin NewsomSupervisor David ChiuSupervisor Michela Alioto-PierSupervisor John AvalosSupervisor David CamposSupervisor Carmen ChuSupervisor Chris DalySupervisor Bevan DuftySupervisor Sean ElsberndSupervisor Eric MarSupervisor Sophie MaxwellSupervisor Ross MirkarimiCommissioner David G. GruberCommissioner Brooks BeardCommissioner Deborah HendersonCommissioner Jim HurleyCommissioner Amelia YarosCommissioner Polly MarshallCommissioner Cathy MosbruckerCommissioner Neveo MosserCommissioner Bartholomew MurphyLibrary Documents Dept.

567 AnnualEvictionReport09-1 0 - 4/13/09SeniorStaff Shared Folder/Annual EvictionReporU4/1O

Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration BoardCity & County Of San Francisco

Annual Eviction Notice Report311/2009 Through 2128/2010

No-Pay

Late Pay

Breach

Nuisance

Illegal

Agreemt.

Access

Sub

Own-ace

Condo

Demol

CI

Rehab

W-Draw

Roommate

Lead

Other

Development

Total

Mar

9

11

30

24

1

o

o1

7

o

6

oo

o4

1

5

o

99

Apr

13

5

32

18

1

1

o3

11

o1

oo

o1

o2

o

88

May Jun

9 12

11 4

26 40

16 24

2 1

2 0

1 1

2 1

9 7

o 0

1 3

1 0

o 0

o 4

3 1

1 0

4 4

o 0

88 102

Jul Aug

9 7

8 6

38 36

32 18

10 9

2 1

2 1

3 1

12 5

o 0

2 3

1 3

o 0

4 0

1 3

o 0

3 2

o 0

127 95

Sep Oct

11 8

6 6

56 46

14 30

o 5

o 0

o 4

1 3

14 18

o 0

4 2

o 3

o 0

5 4

1 2

o 0

8 10

o 0

120 141

Nov

8

2

16

23

1

o

1

2

6

o4

oo

5

1

o

2

o

71

Dec Jan- -9 4

4 7

31 19

23 16

3 0

o 3

1 4

3 0

12 8

o 0

2 1

1 11

o 0

5 11

4 2

o 0

14 8

o 0

112 94

Feb

7

2

29

49

4

4

1

3

7

o

4

1

o

5

4

o

12

o

132

Total

106

72

399

287

37

13

16

23

116

o

33

21

o

43

27

2

74

o

1269

MonikaWeiier<[email protected]>

041161201008:19 AM

To "[email protected]"<[email protected]>

cc

bcc

Subject Fix Muni Now

Attention: Supervisor Sean R. Elsbernd

Good morning,

This email is in response to the article in the Thursday issue of The Exsaminer.

I persinally know a Muni train operator who works a seven day week, so he can get compensateddouble Over Time for the two days he is supposed to be off. By his own account is annual gross incomeis about $140k. I would love to have his job. It is incoprehensable to me that something like this is goingon, regardless of the fact that Muni has been in the red for many years. I wish you the best of luck withthe Fix Muni Now project.

Thank youmailto:[[email protected]

CONFIDENTIALITY - Thise-rnall message andanyattachments thereto are for thesole use of the intended recipient(s) andcontains a private, confidential communication protected bythe attorney client privilege andthe attorney work product doctrine. Anyunauthorized review, use,disclosure ordistribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, pleasecontact the sender by reply e-mail anddestroy all copies ofthe original message. Thank you.

.:

Newlin RankinlTTXlSFGOV

04/16/201009:19 AM

~Monthly Portfolio Report 03312010.pdf

Newiin RankinChief Investment OfficerCity and County of San FranciscoCity Hali - Room 1401 Dr. Cariton B. Goodlett PlaceSan Francisco, CA 94102-4638415/554-4487 (phone)415/518-1540 (cell)415/554-5660 (fax)[email protected]

To Greg Wagner/MAYORISFGOV@SFGOV, Board ofSupervisors/BOS/SFGOV@SFGOV, PaulineMarxlTTXlSFGOV@SFGOV, Jose

ec

bee

Subject March 2010 Investment Report

Office of the Treasurer & Tax CollectorCity and County of San Francisco

Pauline Marx, Chief Assistant TreasurerNewlin Rankin, Chiel Investment Officer

JOse Cisneros, Treasurer

Investment Report for the month 01March, 2010 Aprii 16, 2010

The Honorable Gavin NewsomMayor of San FranciscoCity Hall, Room 2001 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett PlaceSan Francisco, CA. 94102·0917

The Honorable Board of SupervisorsCity and County of San Francisco

City Hall, Room 2441 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

San Francisco, CA. 94102·0917

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This correspondence and its attachmentsshow the investment activity for fiscal year-to-date of the portfoliosunder theTre~surer's management.

(In $ millions uniess specified)Fiscal Year to Date Month Endin 3i31/2010

INCOME Pooled Fund All Funds Pooled Fund All FundsInterest ReceivedTotal Net EarningsEarned income Yield (in %)Current Yield to Maturity (In %)

34.24 36.8832.30 34.181.33% 1.32%

n/a n/a

6.124.02

1.46%1.35%

6.194.17

1.44%1.34%

'3,'13'13,7333,737

133,7503,412

679

·····.-------'3-;5'173,5743,577

123,5893,252

...........__ ... _J3~L.__._...__..

"..".~.,,-,-,--_. niinlanlanlanla

3,193679

nlanlanlanlanla

3.018680.... __....'"'-,,-"'.~

PRINCIPALCu"rreni"'So'okVaiue-;Amortized Book ValueMarketValue **Accrued InterestTotal Value (Markel Value + Accrued Interest)Average Daily Balance

.i\verag,,-",'ge.o!£'!'rtfolio (i~c1.~YsJ.. .

• OriginalBook Valueonpurchasedate•• Less Cashin Bank Accounts

In accordancewith provisions of California State Government Code Section 53646,we forward this report detailing theCity's investmentportfolio as of 3/31/2010. These investments are in compliancewith California Code and ourstatementof investmentpolicy, and provide sufficient liquidityto meetexpenditure requirements for the nextsix months.

Very truly yours,

cJose CisnerosTreasurer

cc: Harvey Rose, Budget AnalystBen Rosenfield, ControllerController -Internal Audit Division: Tania Ledlju

Oversight Committee: J. Grazioii, Dr. Don Q, Griffin, Ben Rosenfield, T. Rydstrom, R. SullivanTransportation Authority - Cynthia Fang, San Francisco Public Library - 2 copies

City Hall Room 140,1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA., 94102

(415) 554w4478

March31, 2010 City& County of San Francisco

Pooled Fund Maturities

2

$1,600,000,000

$1,400,000,000

$1,200,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$600,000,000

$400,000,000

$200,000,000"'----'~--~---

$0 +---l-..J----,-__-r-r-'

ra rreasov

°TI.GP

liB Public Time Deposits

I!III Commercial Paper

o Collateralized CDs

t:lAgency

0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-12 12-24 24-36 36-48 48-60

Month Time Buckets

Given that interest rates are so low from 1 day to 1 year on the yield curve, we have allocated more maturities to the 1-3year part of the curve,

Change in Asset Allocation 03/2005 to present

The chart below shows the total size of the Pooled Fund and the relative investments by type,

$4,500,000,000

$4,000,000,000 +-----------------

$3,500,000,000 +--------

$3,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$500,000,000

$0

~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~#~###~~~~~~#~~~##~#

I I3Agency e'rreeeury occlteterehzedCDs 0 TLGP iii PublicTimeDeposits _Commercia! Peper IS Negotiable CDs I

March 31, 2010 City & County of SanFrancisco

All Funds

3

LvestmentType ICollateralized CD's

Commercial Paper: DiscountCommercial Paper: Interest BearingCommercial Paper: Interest Bearing, Actl365

Par Value %3.4%

$ in millions

I Current BookPar Value I Value

125.00 125.00

Federal Farm Credit Bank: Discount Notes

Federal Farm Credit Bank: FixedFederal Farm Credit Bank: FloatFederal Home Loan Bank: Discount NotesFederal Home Loan Bank: FixedFederal Home Loan Bank: FloatFederal Home Loan Bank: Float MonthlyFederal Home Loan Bank: Multi StepFederal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.: Discount NotesFederal Home Loan Mortgage.Corp.: Fixed

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.: Float, Monthly, Actl360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.: Float, Quarter, Actl360Federal National Mortgage Assn.Federal National Mortgage Assn.: Multi StepFederal National Mortgage Assn.L Discount NotesNegotiable Certificates of Deposit

8.2% 305.28 308.53

9.6% 355.37 355.32

2.8% 102.75 102.70

16.3% 607.60 609.63

1.9% 70.00 70.00

12.9% 481.00 482.26

Public Time Deposit: Monthly Pay

Public Time Deposit: Quarterly PayTreas. liquidity Guarantee Program: FixedTreas. liquidity Guarantee Program: FloatTreasury Bills

Treasury Notes

1.8%21.3%

1.3%9.2%

11.3%100,0%

65.10792.31

50.00343.00420.00

3,717.40

65.10803.54

50.07

342.69422.52

3,737.37

Par Value of All Funds

4

TLGP

FHLMC

Treasury Notes

FNMA

Federal Home loan Bank

Federal Farm Credit Bank

Collateralized CD's

TreasuryBills

Public Time Deposit

Commerclal Paper

AgencyCollaterlized COCommercial PaperPublicTimeDepositIlGPTreasury

100.00 200.00 300,00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

$ln millions

Trailing 12 Month Key Interest Rates

"·~""'·""5 Year Treasury Note

-3Month Libor

-3Month T Bills

3/31/2009 6/29/2009 9/27/2009 12126/2009 3/26/2010

March 31, 2010Inventory by Market Value

Run Date: 4/12/2010 2:53:46pM

City.&County of San Francisco 5

Investments Outstanding AsOfDate: .3/31/2010

ASset{{®!l'slc;\{i,.~~~;_'i ;i::1:r:! :; i;;iClirren~!'~i:i., CUI'r.~ntBook ,·',.h _M.r~~f;\ .., " . MKT/Book _, .Un Gain/LOSS . ",'(laid i. - '1TREASURY BILLS F : 343,000.00 342,694.97 342,705.00 100.00 % -10.90 0.17 %

TREASURY NOTES F ,420,000.00 422,517.96 422,259.38 99.94 % ' -92.98 0.75 %

TREASURY LGP F : 792,310.00 803,542,89 807,158.54 100,45 % 4,083.74 1.50 %

TLGP FLOATER F : 50,000.00 50,074,05 50,195,31 100.24 % 121.26 039 %

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK F , 355,370.00 355,321.43 353,958.40 99.62 % -1,356.22 1.84 %

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASS : 480,996,00 482,261.99 481,730.40 99.89 % -531.59 1.60 %

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK F : 305,275.00 308,533.87 307,432.60 99.64 % -883.30 1.45 %

FHLMC Bonds F : 607,600.00 609,629.69 608,332.56 99.79 % -1,297.13 1.84 %

FHLB MULTI stEP F : 102,750.00 102,696.71 102,874.78 100.17 % 178.08 1.17 %

FHLMC FLOAT QTR 30/360 F : 70,000.00 70,000.00 70,153.13 100.22 % 153.13 0.76 %

PUBUC TIME DEPOSIT F : 65,100.00 65,100.00 65,100.00 100.00 % 0.00 0.83 %

COLLATERALC OSF : 125,000.00 125,000.00 125,000.00 100.00 % 0,00 1.30 %

AvantGard APS2

Asset Allocation

Page8 of 9


RunDate: 4/12/2010 2:53:46 PM

Investments Outstanding AsOf Date: 3/31/2010

City & County of San Francisco 6

Fund: 100 POOLED FUNDS

42383 804.22.10 912795UN9 03/25/2010 .000000 75,000,000.00 75,000,000.00 1,925.00 5,775.00

04/22/2010 .132014 74,992,300.00 100.000000 SUNGARD 0.00

42386 B6.10.10 912795UT6 03/24/2010 ,000000 200,000,000.00 199,937,504.00 5,466.67 0.00

06/10/2010 .123033 199,946,700.00 99.968752 SUNGARD -14,662.67

42393 B 031011 911795V99 03/31/2010 .000000 50,000,000.00 49,812,500.00 530,56 0.00

03/10/2011 ,383399 49,817,488.89 99.625000 $UNGARD -5,519.45

Inv Type: 11 TREASURY BILLS .ooooao 325,000,000.00 324,750,004.00 7,922.23 5,775.00

.165047 324,756,488.89 99.923078 -20,182.12

42298 T 0.875 02 28 11 912828KE9 09/04/2009 .875000 50,000,000.00 50,203,124.00 38,043.48 23A36.50

02/28/2011 .632110 50,179,687.50 100.406248 SUNGARD 0,00

42325 T 1 08 3111 912828LVO 10/29/2009 1.000000 100,000.00 100,468.75 86.96 152.34

08/31/2011 ,825969 100,316.41 100.468752 SUNGARD 0.00

42326 T 1 OS31 11 912828LVO 10/29/2009 1.000000 99,900,000.00 100,368,283.25 86,869.57 167,802.78

08/31/2011 .834541 100,200,480.47 100.468752 SUNGARD 0.00

42341 T173111 912828LG3 11/19/2009 1.000000 120,000,000.00 120,637,497.60 198,895.03 0.00

07/31/2011 .603979 120,801,562.50 100.531248 SUNGARD -164,064.90

42352 T 1.125 12 15 11 912828KA7 12/09/2009 1.125000 50,000,000.00 50,218,752.00 165,350.27 0.00

12/15/2011 .745625 50,378,906.25 100.437504 SUNGAAD -160,154.25

42382 T 1.5 07.15.12 912828LB4 03/23/2010 1.500000 50,000,000.00 50,390,624.00 157,458.56 0,00

07/15/2012 1.112438 50,580,218.40 100.781248 SUNGARD -50,782.25

Inv Type: 12 TREASURY NOTES 1.068007 370,000,000.00 371,918,749.60 646,703.87 191,391.62

.758154 372,241,171.53 100.518581 ~375,001.40

42165 J P MORGAN CHASE TL 481247AKO 03/24/2009 2..200000 25,000,000.00 25,490,975.00 161,944.44 371,975.00

06/15/2012 2.046890 25,119,000.00 101.963900 UPRICE 0.00

42166 GENLELEC CAPCORP 36967HAN7 03/24/2009 2.250000 35,000,000.00 35,743,750.00 41,562.50 558,600.00

03/12/2012 2.065123 35,185,150.00 102.125000 SUNGARD 0.00

42170 MORGAN $fANLEYFDIC 61757UAF7 03/16/2009 2.000000 25,000,000.00 25,421,875,00 12,500,00 384,125.00

09/22/2011 1.938237 25,037,750.00 101.687500 SUNGARD 0,00

42177 SAC2,37506.22.12 06050BAJO 04/14/2009 2,375000 50,000,000.00 51,226,562.50 326,562,39 541,562.50

06/22/2012 1.930142 50,685,000,00 102.453125 SUNGARD 0.00

42181 C 2.125 04.30.12 TL 17313UAE9 04/02/2009 2.125000 25,000,000.00 25,457,650.00 222,829.86 340,150,00

AvantGard APS2 Page 10f9



Run Date: 4/12/2010 2:53:46 PM

Investments />sOf Date: 3/31/2010

04/30/2012 1.966916 25,117,500.00 101.830600 UPRlCE 0.00

42182 BKOF THEWEST.BNP 064244AA4 04/02/2009 2.150000 5/000,000.00 5,095,312.50 1,194.44 68,362.50

03/27/2012 1.962752 5,026,950.00 101.906250 5UNGARD 0.00

42183 BKOF THEWEST.BNP 064244AA4 04/02/2009 2.150000 20/000,000.00 20,381,250.00 4,777.78 273,250.00

03/27/2012 1.962877 20,108/000.00 101.906250 SUNGARO 0.00

42191 BAC 2.1 04.30.12 TL 06050BAG6 04/02/2009 2.100000 25,000/000.00 25,460,375.00 220,208.33 - 367,375.00

04/30/2012 1.974869 25,093,000.00 101.841500 UPRICE 0.00

42195 GE 1.625 01.07.11 T 36967HAG2 04[16/2009 1.625000 25,000,000.00 25,239,150.00 94/791.67 71,650.00

01/07/2011 1.230907 25,167,500.00 100.956600 UPRlCE 0.00

42196 GE 1.625 01.07.11 T 36967HAG2 04/16/2009 1.625000 25,000,000,00 25/239,150.00 94,791.67 73,400.00

01/07/2011 1.235002 25,165/750.00 100.956600 UPRICE 0.00

42197 C 1.625 03.30.11 TL 17314JAAl 04/16/2009 1.625000 50,000/000.00 50,508,250.00 2,256.94 283,250.00

03/30/2011 1.390825 50/225,000.00 101.016500 UPRlCE 0.00

42198 GS 1.625 07.15.11 T 38146FAF8 04/16/2009 1.625000 50/000,000.00 50,563,350.00 171/527.95 358,850.00

07/15/2011 1.439098 50,204,500.00 101.126700 UPRICE 0.00

42211 USSA CAPITAL CO 90390QAA9 04/28/2009 2.240000 16,000,000.00 16,250,000.00 995.56 124,400.00

03/30/2012 1.962025 16,125,600.00 101.562500 SUNGARD 0.00

42258 CITIGROUP FOGINC G 17313YACS 06/29/2009 1.250000 50,000,000.00 50,289,062.50 204,860.72 332,062.50

06/03/2011 1.295193 49,957/000.00 100.578125 SUNGARO 0.00

42259 OTIGROUPFDGINCG 17313YACS 06/29/2009 1.250000 50,000,000.00 50,289,062.50 204,860.72 332,.062.50

06[03/2011 1.295193 49,957,000.00 100.578125 SUNGARD 0.00

42274 GEllGP 3 12 09 11 36967HA09 07/30/2009 3.000000 50,000,000.00 51,669,750.00 466,666.67 67,250.00

12/09/2011 1.609053 51,602,500.00 103.339500 UPRICE 0.00

42299 HSBC 3.125 12 16 11 4042EPAA5 09/16/2009 3.125000 50,000,000.00 51,765,050.00 455,729.17 0.00

12/16/2011 1.341284 51,969,550.00 103.530100 UPRlCE -204,500.00

42317 C 1.625 03.30.11 TL 17314JAAl 10[22[2009 1.625000 35,000,000.00 35,355,775.00 1,579.86 0.00

03/30/2011 .777608 35,423,500.00 101.016500 UPRICE -67,725.00

42328 MS2.25 3 13 12 61757UAP5 11/04/2009 2.250000 20,000,000.00 20,406,250.00 22,500.00 0.00

03/13/2012 1.316899 20,431,800.00 102.031250 SUNGARD -25,550.00

42331 MSTLGP 2.25 03 13 61757UAP5 11/06/2009 2.250000 50,000,000.00 51,015,625.00 56,250.00 0.00

03/13/2012 1.310906 51,084,000.00 102.031250 SUNGARD -68,375.00

42332 GETLGP2.125 1221 36967HAV9 11/06/2009 2.125000 25,000,000.00 25,328,125.00 147,569.44 74,375.00

12[21[2012 1.789291 25,253,750.00 101.312500 SUNGARO 0.00

42379 GS 3.25 06.15.12 TL 38146FAA9 03/22/2010 3.250000 50,000,000.00 52,134,800.00 478,472.22 0.00

06/15/2012 1.229916 52,652,847.22 104.269600 UPRlCE ~80/200.00

42380 GETLGP 2% 09.28.20 36967HBB2 03/22/2010 2.000000 25,000,000.00 25,339,843.75 4,166.67 0.00

AvantGard APS2 Page 2 of 9



RunDate:4/12/2010 2:53:46 PM

Investments

09/28/2012 1.405839 25,366,000.00 101.359375

tnv Type: 15 TREASURY LGP 2.124099 781,000,000.00 795,670,993.75 3,398,599.00 4,622,700.00

1.519904 791,958,647.22 101.878488 -472,506.25

42242 MORGAN STANLEY FDIC 617S7UANO 03/19/2009 .454250 25,000,000.00 25,097,656.25 5,678.00 57,331.25

03/13/2012 .382131 25,040,325.00 100.390625 SUNGARD 0.00

42306 Union BankTLGp Flo 905266AAO 03/Zl/2009 .453750 25,000,000.00 25,097,656.25 5,041.67 63,931.25

03/16/2012 .393499 25,033,725.00 100.390625 SUNGARD 0.00

tnv Type: 16 TLGPFLOATER .454000 50,000,000.00 50,195,312.50 10,719.67 121,262.50

.387814 50,074,050.00 100.390625 0.00

42315 FHLB 2 10 29 12 3NC 3133XVC66 10/29/2009 2.000000 35,140,000.00 35,172,943.75 296,737.78 32,943.75

10/29/2012 2.000000 35,140,000.00 100.093750 SUNGARD 0.00

42349 FHLB 1.85 12 21 12 3133XW6C8 12/21/2009 1.850000 100,000,000.00 99,625,000.00 513,888.89 0.00

12/21/2012 1.850000 100,000,000.00 99.625000 SUNGARD ~375,000.00

42372 FHLB 1.875 3NO Fix 3133XXJ4O 03/25/2010 1.875000 50,000,000.00 49,734,375.00 15,625.00 0.00

03/25/2013 1.875000 50,000,000.00 99.468750 SUNGARD M265,625.00

42378 FHLB 2.75 NC Imonth 3133XXH91 03/26/2010 1.820000 100,000,000.00 99,375,000.00 25,277.78 0.00

12/26/2012 1.820000 100,000,000.00 99.375000 SUNGARD -625,000.00

42388 FHLB 1.87503.22.13 3133XXN37 03/24/2010 1.875000 50,000,000.00 49,890,625.00 23,437.50 0.00

03/22/2013 1.902594 49,965,208.33 99.781250 SUNGARD M69,375.00

rnv Type: 22 FEDERAL HOME LOANBANK 1.864235 335,140,000.00 333,797,943.75 874,966.95 32,943.75

1.868349 335,105,208.33 99.599554 -1,335,000.00

42208 FN MA 31398AWY4 04/29/2009 1.700000 50,000,000.00 50,046,875.00 358,888.89 46,875.00

04/29/2011 1.700000 50,000,000.00 100.093750 SUNGARD 0.00

42295 FNMA 2.15 09 10 12 31398AZA3 09/10/2009 2.150000 52,546,000.00 52,857,991.88 65,901.44 164,863.08

09/10/2012 2.053284 52,693,128,80 100.593750 SUNGARD 0.00

42333 FNMA 1.625% 2.5NC6 3136FJRFO 11/10/2009 1.625000 75,000,000.00 75,070,312,50 477,343.75 70,312.50

05/10/2012 1.625000 75,000,000.00 100.093750 SUNGARD 0.00

42335 FNMA 1.753 23 11 31398AVQ2 11/19/2009 1.750000 50,000,000.00 50,562,500.00 19,444.44 0.00

03/23/2011 .598014 50,770,000.00 101.125000 SUNGARD -207,500.00

42338 FNMA 1.75 3 23 2011 31398AVQ2 11/20/2009 1.750000 20,000,000.00 20,225,000.00 7,777.78 0.00

03/23/2011 .571204 20,314,600.00 101.125000 SUNGARD -89,600.00

42350 FNMA FIXED 1.75 3NC 3136FJZTl 12/28/2009 1.750000 100,000,000.00 99,843,750.00 452,083.33 0.00

12/28/2012 1.750000 100,000,000.00 99.843750 SUNGARD -156,250.00




Run Date: 4/12/2010 2:53:46 PM

42353 FNMA 3NC6 1.80% fix 31398AB50 12/21/2009 1.800000 58,450,000.00 58,194,281.25 292,250.00 0.00

12/21/2012 1.772500 58,496,760,00 99.562500 SUNGARD ·302,478.75

42366 FNMA 3NC1.5 IX 1.80 31398AF23 02/08/2010 1.800000 50,000,000.00 49,953,125.00 132,500.00 0.00

02/08/2013 1.800000 50,000,000.00 99.906250 SUNGARD -46,875.00

42367 FNMA 3NC1.5 1X 31398AF23 02/08/2010 1.800000 25,000,000.00 24,976,562.50 66,250.00 0.00

02/08/2013 1.817201 24,987,500.00 99.906250 SUNGARD ·10,937.50

Inv Type: 23 FEDERAL NAnONAL MORTGAGE ASSN 1.782921 480,996,000.00 481,730,398.13 1,872,439.63 282,050.58

1.598979 482,261,988.80 100.152683 ·813,641.25

42312 FFCB 2.02 4 20 12 2 31331GTK5 09/28/2009 2.020000 50,000,000.00 50,046,875.00 451,694.44 0.00

04/20/2012 1.804704 50,268,000.00 100.093750 SUNGARD -221,125.00

42342 FFCB Bullet 3.875 8 31331Yl86 11/19/2009 3.875000 50,000,000.00 52,125,000.00 193,750.00 0.00

08/25/2011 .784911 52,705,000.00 104.250000 SUNGARD -580,000.00

42370 FFCB 1.67 11 19 12 31331JDNO 02/19/2010 1.670000 75,000,000.00 74,859,375.00 146,125.00 0.00

11/19/2012 1.696475 74,947,500.00 99.812500 SUNGARD ·88,125.00

42373 FFCB 2 Year Bullet 31331JGD9 03/09/2010 .950000 17,050,000.00 16,991,390.63 11,698.19 0.00

03/05/2012 1.051355 17,017,870.22 99.656250 SUNGARD ·24,679.87

42374 FFCB 2 Year Bullet 31331JGD9 03/09/2010 .950000 58,000,000.00 57,800,625.00 39,794.44 0.00

03/05/2012 1.043195 57,899,982.22 99.656250 SUNGARD -93,235.00

42385 FFCB 1.875 12.07.12 31331G2R9 03/26/2010 1.875000 37,000,000.00 37,185,000.00 219,6B7.50 0.00

12/07/2012 1.532399 37,543,422.08 100.500000 SUNGARD ·148,370.00

Inv Type: 28 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.971547 287,050,000.00 289,008,265.63 1,062,749.57 0.00

1.360480 290,381,774.52 100.682204 ·1,155,534.87

42190 FHLMC 3 5NCl 312BX8WF5 04/21/2009 3.000000 50,000,000.00 50,078,125.00 666,666.67 78,125.00

04/21/2014 3.000000 50,000,000.00 100.156250 SUNGARD 0.00

42206 FH LM C 3128XBWF5 04/21/2009 3.000000 30,000,000.00 30,046,875.00 400,000.00 46,875.00

04/21/2014 3.000000 30,000,000.00 100.156250 SUNGARD 0.00

42207 FH LMC 3128XBWF5 04/21/2009 3.000000 50,000,000.00 50,078,125.00 666,666.67 78,125.00

04/21/2014 3.000000 50,000,000.00 100.156250 SUNGARD 0.00

42322 FHLMC 1.67 4 30 12 3128X9LHl 10/30/2009 1.670000 75,000,000,00 75,070,312.50 525,354.17 70,312.50

04/30/2012 1.670000 75,000,000.00 100.093750 SUNGARD 0.00

.42346 FHLMC 1.125 12301 3128X9PW4 12/30/2009 1.125000 50,000,000.00 49,781,250,00 142,187.50 0.00

12/30/2011 1.130071 49,995,000.00 99.562500 SUNGARD ·213,750.00

42347 FHLMC 1.125 12 211 3128X9PG9 12/21/2009 1.125000 54,000,000.00 53,865,000.00 168,750.00 0.00

12/21/2011 1.125000 54,000,000.00 99.750000 SUNGARD H135,OOO.OO




Run Date: 4/12/2010 2:53:46 PM

42351 FHLMC Fixed 1.75 3N 3128X9RH5 12/28/2009 1.750000 100,000,000.00 99,750,000.00 452,083.33 0.00

12/28/2012 1.750000 100,000,000.00 99.750000 SUNGARD -250,000.00

42356 FHLNC 1.125 6 111 3128X8P22 11/20/2009 1.125000 28,600,000.00 28,751,937.50 107,250.00 0.00

06/01/2011 .712000 28,779.470.72 100.531250 SUNGARD -27,533.22

42371 FHLMC 1.8 2 25 13 3 3128X9ZK9 02/25/2010 1.800000 75,000,000.00 74,718,750.00 135,000.00 0.00

02/25/2013 1.800000 75,000,000.00 99.625000 SUNGARD -281,250.00

42377 FHLMC 1.8 03 25 13 3128X9S50 03/25/2010 1.800000 75,000,000.00 74,554,687.50 22,500.00 0.00

03/25/2013 1.800000 75,000,000.00 99.406250 SUNGARD -445,312.50.

Inv Type: 30 FHLMC Bonds 1.887835 587,600,000.00 586,695,062.50 3,286,458.34 273,437.50

1.868045 587,774,470.72 99.845994 -1,352,845.72

42282 FHLB 1.5 3NC1step- 3133XUM83 08/27/2009 1.500000 50,000,000.00 50,031,250.00 70,833.33 31,250.00

08/27/2012 1.500000 50,000,000.00 100.062500 SUNGARD 0.00

42283 FHLB 1.5 3NCl step- 3133XUM83 08/27/2009 1.500000 4,300,000.00 4,302,687.s0 6,091.67 2,687.50

08/27/2012 1.500000 4,300,000.00 100.062500 SUNGARD 0.00

42318 FHLB 0.75 9 29 11 2 3133XUVP5 10/20/2009 .750000 48,450,000.00 48,540,843.75 2,018.75 144,138.75

09/29/2011 .807171 48,396,705.00 100.187500 SUNGARD 0.00

Inv Type: 38 FHLB MULTI STEP 1.146556 102,750,000.00 102,874,781.25 78,943.75 178,076.25

1.173498 102,696,705.00 100.121442 0.00

42354 FHLMC 3nc1 float st 3128X9DK3 09/10/2009 .755940 50,000,000.00 50,109,375.00 22,048.25 109,375.00

09/10/2012 .755940 50,000,000.00 100.218750 SUNGARD 0.00

Inv Type: 40 FHLMC FLOATQTR 30/360 .755940 50,000,000.00 50,109,375.00 22,048.25 109,375.00

.755940 50,000,000.00 100.218750 0.00

42212 BANK OF SANFRANCIS 05/18/2009 1.600000 100,000.00 100,000.00 404.44 0.00

05/17/2010 1.600000 100,000.00 100.000000 USERPR 0.00

42277 CD FIRST NATL BANK 07/31/2009 1.750000 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 22,118.06 0.00

07/31/2010 1.750000 5,000,000.00 100.000000 USERPR 0.00

42316 UBOe PTD0.7 10 13 10/13/2009 .700000 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 73,888.89 0.00

10/13/2010 .700000 50,000,000.00 100.000000 USERPR 0.00

42365 FIRSTNATL PTD01 1 01/18/2010 1.000000 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 20,277.78 0.00



City & County of San Francisco .11

RunDate: 4/12/2010 2:53:46 PM

Investments

01/18/2011 1.000000 10,000,000.00 100.000000 USERPR 0.00

lnv Type: 1010 PUBUC TIME DEPOSIT .828111 65,100,000.00 65,100,000.00 116,689.17 0.00

.828111 65,100,000.00 100.000000 0.00

42203 BOA COLLATERIZED 04/14/2009 1.450000 100,000,000.00 100,000,000.00 680,694.44 0.00

04/14/2010 1.450000 100,000,000.00 100.000000 USERPR 0.00

42294 BofACDO.72090 09/02/2009 .720000 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 15,000.00 0.00

09/02/2010 .720000 25,000,000.00 100.000000 USERPR 0.00

lnv Type: 1012 COLLATERAL C Ds 1.304000 125,000,000.00 125,000,000.00 695,694.44 0.00

1.304000 125,000,000.00 100.000000 0.00

--Subtotal 1.5n037 3,559,636,000.00 3,576,850,886.11 12,073,934.81 5,817,012.20

1.348603 3,511,350,505.01 100.483614 ~5,524,711.61

Fund: 9704 SFUSD BONDS 2006B

42362 6011311 912795UXl 01/14/2010 .000000 18,000,000.00 17,955,000.00 13,013.00 3,503.00

01/13/2011 .339159 17,938.484.00 99.750000 SUNGARD 0.00

lnv Type: 11 TREASURY BILLS .000000 18,000,000.00 17,955,000.00 13,013.00 3,503.00

.339159 17,938,484.00 99.750000 0.00

42264 T 1.125 06.30.11 912828lF5 07/21/2009 1.125000 30,000,000.00 30,215,625.60 84,841.16 121,875.60

06/30/2011 .962195 30,093,750.00 100.718752 SUNGARD 0.00

42359 T 1.25 11 30 10 912828J5O 01/08/2010 1.250000 20,000,000.00 20,125,000.00 83,791.20 0.00

11/30/20l0 .372619 20,183,035.71 100.625000 SUNGARD ~31,250.00

InY Type: 12 TREASURY NOTES 1.175180 50,000,000.00 50,340,625.60 168,632.36 121,875.60

.725517 50,276,785.71 100.681251 -31,.250.00

42361 RF 2.75 12 10 10 7591EAAAl 01/15/2010 2.750000 11,310,000.00 11,487,544.38 95,899.37 0.00

12/10/2010 .354116 11,584,240.48 101.569800 UPRICE -66,457.56

lnv Type: 15 TREASURY lGP 2.750000 11,310,000.00 11,487,544.38 95,899.37 0.00

.354116 11,584,240.48 101.569800 -66,457.56

42384 FHLB 1.42 fixed 2.5 3133XXME4 03/26/2010 1.420000 20,230,000.00 20,160,459.38 5,585.73 0.00

AvantGard APS2 Page 6 of9

March 31, 2010Inventory bll' Market Value


Run Date: 4/12/2010 2:53:46 PM

09/24/2012 1.451121 20,216,221.12 99.656250

Inv Type: 22 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 1.420000 20,230,000.00 20,160,459.38 5,585.73 0.00

1.451121 20,216,221.12 99.656250 -54,165.82

42159 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT 31331GLLl 02/06/2009 2.800000 18,225,000.00 18,424,335.94 89,302.50 272,235:94

01/28/2014 2.886754 18,152,100.00 101.093750 SUNGARO 0.00

Inv Type: 28 fEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 2.800000 18,225,000.00 18,424,335.94 89,302.50 272,235.94

2.886754 18,152,100.00 101.093750 0.00

42360 FHLMC5.75 0115 12 3134A4JTl 01/14/2010 5.750000 20,000,000.00 21,637,500.00 242,777.78 0.00

01/15/2012 1.056940 21,855,220.00 108.187500 SUNGARD -217,720.00

Inv Type: 30 FHLMC Bonds 5.750000 20,000,000.00 21,637,500.00 242,777.78 0.00

1.056940 21,855,220.00 108,187500 -217,720.00

42355 FHLMC 3nc1 float st 3128X9DK3 09/10/2009 .755940 20,000,000.00 20,043,750.00 8,819.30 43,750.00

09/10/2012 .755940 20,000,000.00 100.218750 SUNGARD 0.00

Inv Type: 40 FHLMC FLOATQTR 30/360 .755940 20,000,000.00 20,043,750.00 8,819,30 43,750.00

.755940 20,000,000.00 100.218750 0.00

Subtotal 1.945096 157,165,000.00 160,049,215.30 624,030.04 441,364.54

1.041213 160,023,051.31 101.441859 -369,593.38

Grand Total Count 82

AvantGard APS2 Page 7 of9

March31. 2010

(EIS / ERNEIS)

City & County of San Francisco

CIT Y / C 0 U N T Y 0 F SAN F RAN CIS C 0MR. NEW LIN RAN KIN 415 - 554 - 4 4 S 7

EARNED INCOME SUMMARY07/01/09 THROUGH 03/31/10SORT KEYS ARE FUND

FUND: 100 POOLED FUNDS

PAGE: 1RUN: 04/01/10 14:15:57

13

INV PURCHASE COUPONNO. DATE RATE DESCRIPTION

TICKER /MATURITY

DATE

SHARES /SCHEDULEDPAR VALUE

INCOMESCHEDULED YIELD/ DATE RECEIVEDBOOK VALUE 365 SOLD/MAT THIS PER

TOTAL/RETEARNINGS

41862 10/23/0741916 12/07/0741916 12/07/0741937 01/09/0841938 01/09/0841939 01/09/084B94 03/31/0842044 07/16/0842055 07/31/0842065 08/26/0842076 09/18/0842095 10/29/0842107 11/03/0842110 12/04/0842117 12/09/0842119 12/09/0842120 12/09/0842121 12/09/0842126 12/22/0842127 12/22/0842128 12/22/0842130 12/30/0842131 12/30/0842132 Ol/02/0942133 01/02/0942B4 12/31/0842135 12/31/0842ga 01/23/0942149 01/23/0942150 01/23/0942151 01/30/0942163 03/06/0942165 03/24/0942166 03/24/0942170 03/16/0942171 03/02/0942172 03/02/0942177 04/14/0942178 04/i4/0942181 04/02/0942182 04/02/0942183 04/02/0942184 04/13/0942190 04/21/09

4.6250 T NOTE.4760 F H L B FLOATER.2220 F H L B FLOATER.2220 F H L B FLOATER QTR ACT.2220 F H L B FLOATER QTR ACT.2220 F H L B FLOATER QTR ACT

2.0000 T NOTE3.9000 MISSION NATIONAL BANK PU2.7500 FIRST NATIONAL BANK CD

.7700 FFCB FLOATER QTR

.1810 F H L B FLOATER MONTHLY1.4800 T BILL1.0000 MISSION AREA CREDIT UNIO1.2000 F N M A DISCOUNT NOTE2.3200 US BANK COLLATERAL2.3900 US BANK COLLATERALIZE CD2.3900 US BANK COLLATERALIZE CD2.3900 US BANK COLLATERALIZE CD4.1200 F N M A4.1200 F N M A4.1200 F N M A4.3300 F N M A4.3300 F N M A4.3300 F N M A4.3300 F N M A4.8750 T NOTE4.8750 T NOTE1.9700 F H L M C1.9700 F H L M C1.9700 F H L M C2.3000 FHLMC Bonds1.3200 COLLATERAL C Ds2.2000 J P MORGAN CHASE TLGP2.2500 GENL ELEC CAP CORP FDIC2.0000 MORGAN STANLEY FDIC GTD4.0000 T - NOTE4.0000 T - NOTE2.3750 BAC 2.375 06.22.12 TLGP2.1250 JPM 2.125 12.26.12 TLGP2.1250 C 2.125 04.30.12 TLGP2.1500 BK OF THE WEST.BNP 2.152.1500 BK OF THE WEST.BNP 2.151.2000 FEDERAL FARM CR BKS GLOB3.0000 FHLMC 3 5NCl

07/31/0911/23/0911/23/0911/23/0911/23/0911/23/0902/28/1007/16/0907/31/0910/26/0912/28/0910/22/0911/02/0908/17/0911/23/0912/08/0912/08/0912/08/0905/06/1305/06/1305/06/1307/28/1107/28/1107/28/1107/28/1108/15/0908/15/0901/23/1201/23/1201/23/1201/30/1209/02/0906/15/1203/12/1209/22/1.1.08/31/0908/31/0906/22/1212/26/1204/30/1203/27/1203/27/1210/13/1004/21/14

5~100~000.00

50~000,OOO.00

15~000~000.00

50 ~ 000,000.0050,000,000.004,500,000.00

25,000,000.00100,000.00

5,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,000.00

100,000.0050~000~000.00

15,000,000.0050, OOO~ 000. 0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0020,000,000.0050,000,000.0030,000,000.0020,000,000.0050~000,000.00

25,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0025,000,000.0035,000,000.0025~000,OOO.00

25~000,OOO.00

SO~ 000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0025,000,000.005,000,000.00

20,000,000.00·50,000,000.0050,000,000.00

5,100,000.0049,984,700.0014,995~410.00

50,010,000.0050,010,000.004,500,900.00

25,151,367.19100,000.00

5,000,000.0050;000,000.0025,000,000.0049,264,111.11

100,000.0049,573,333.3315,000,000.0050, 000, 000. 0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0051,050,000.0051,050,000.0020,420,000.0050,947,850.0030,568,710.0020,376,080.0050,940,200.0025,707,031.2551,414,062.5050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0025,119,000.0035,185,150.0025,037,750.0025,005,434.7850,010,869.5750,685,000.0024,992~250.00

25,117,500.005,026,950.00

20,108,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.00

3.888 MATURED.711 07/10/09.545 09/23/09.386 09/23/09.386 09/23/09.386 09/23/09

4.913 09/14/093.639 MATURED2.788 MATURED

.781 MATURED

.177 09/23/091.716 10/09/091. 022 MATURED1. 227 MATURED2.352 MATURED2. 423 MATURED2.423 MATURED2.423 MATURED

-1.168 11/06/09-1.168 11/06/09-1.168 11/06/09

-15.946 07/28/09-15.946 07/28/09-15.849 07/28/09-15.849 07/28/09

.376 07/21/09

.376 07/21./091. 962 10/23/091.962 10/23/091. 962 10/23/092.293 10/30/091.338 MATURED2.0412.0591.935

.512 MATURED

.512 MATURED1.9175.839 11/06/091.9611.9571.9561.217 07/13/092.997

52,394.5337,228.3326,304.1262,380.5562,380.555,614.25

322,071.39173.33

46,215.27195,708.33

10,681.25735,256.95

347.23426,666.67337,366.67833,180.55833,180.55833,1.80.55-20,000.00-20,000.00

-8,000.00134,650.00

80,790.0056,920.00

142,300.00-103,699.07-207,398.14738,750.00738,750.00738,750.00862,500.00165,000.00275,000.00761,250.00500,000.0064,877.72

129,755.43593,750.00519,590.28265,625.00106,006.94424,027.78150,000.00750,000.00

16,508.568,759.14

16,784.1244,477.3444,477 .34

4,002.96253,914.36

149.5611,458.33

125,124.1210,206.25

231,645.84347.22

78,333.33140,166.67531~ 111.11531,111.11531,111.11

-209,064.33-209,064.33-83,625.73

-600,946.76-360,568.05-238,884.11-597,210.27

5,298.8710,597.74

306,444.44306,444.44306,444.44380,138.8957,750.00

384,844.36543,825.10363,757.0721,744.7343,489.45

729,517.70511,764.69369,794.2673,850.40

295,351.3720,000.00

1,125,000.00

March 31,2010

(EIS / ERNEIS)


CIT Y / C 0 U N T Y 0 F SAN F RAN CIS C 0MR. NEW LIN RAN KIN 415 - 554 - 4 4 8 7

EARNED INCOME SUMMARY07/0~/09 THROUGH 03/31/10SORT KEYS ARE FUND


PAGE: 2RUN; 04/01/10 14:15;57

14

INV PURCHASE COUPONNO. DATE RATB DESCRIPTION

TICKER /MATURITY

DATE


INCOMESCHEDULED YIELD/ DATE RECEIVEDBOOK VALUE 365 SOLD/MAT THIS PER

TOTAL/NETEARNINGS

42191 04/02/0942195 04/16/0942196 04/16/0942197 04/~6/09

42198 04/16/0942199 01/18/0942203 04/14/0942205 04/15/0942206 04/21/0942207 04/21/0942208 04/29/0942211 04/28/0942212 05/18/0942214 05/18/0942215 OS/28/0942217 05/05/0942235 06/04/0942236 06/04/0942237 06/01/0942238 06/02/0942238 06/02/0942239 07/13/0942241 06/U/0942242 03/19/0942243 06/30/0942244 06/25/0942245 06/25/0942246 06/25/0942247 06/25/0942255 06/30/0942256 06/30/0942257 06/30/0942258 06/29/0942259 06/29/0942260 07/10/0942261 07/20/0942262 07/16/0942263 07/16/0942269 07/23/0942270 07/23/0942272 07/23/0942273 07/23/0942274 07/30/0942275 07/28/09

2.1000 BAC 2.1 04.30.12 TLGP1.6250 GE 1.625 01.07.11 TLGP1.6250 GE 1.625 01.07.11 TLGP1.6250 C 1.625 03.30.11 TLGP1.6250 GS 1.625 07.15.11 TLGP2.6500 FIRST NATIONAL BANK P1.4500 BOA COLLATERIZED1.2000 UBOC COLLATBRIZED3.0000 F H L M C3.0000 F H L M C1.7000 F N M A2.2400 USSA CAPITAL CO1.6000 BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO CD1.2500 F N M A MULTI STBP BOND2.5000 F H L M C2.1250 FHLMC 2.125 5 4 12

.1100 1 of 2

.1100 2 of 22.8750 ffch 2.875 5 6 13

.8750 T 0.875 5 11

.8750 T 0.875 5 112.0000 FHLMC 2 7 13 11 2NC3mo

.1200 F H L B

.4543 MORGAN STANLEY FDIC GTD

.5000 FHLB MULTI STEP0.0000 B 7 23 09 1 of 40.0000 b 7 23 09 2 of 40.0000 b 7 23 09 3 of 40.0000 b 7 23 09 4 of 44.3750 T 4.375 12 15 104.3750 T 4.375 12 15 104.3750 T 4.375 12 15 101.2500 CITIGROUP FDG INC GTD TL1.2500 CITIGROUP PDG INC GTD TL2.0000 FHLMC 2 3 16 112.1250 FHLB 2.125 7.20.12 2nc3m0.0000 FHLB disc 08.06.090.0000 FHLB disc 08.06.090.0000 B 8 20 090.0000 B 8 20 090.0000 B 8 20 090.0000 b 8 20 093.0000 GB TLGP 3 12 09 114.5000 T 4.5 11 15 10

04/30/1201/07/1101/07/1103/30/1107/15/1101/18/1004/14/1010/13/0904/21/1404/21/1404/29/1103/30/1205/17/1011/18/1103/23/1205/04/1207/08/0907/08/0905/06/B05/31/1105/31/1107/13/1107/07/0903/13/1206/30/1007/23/0907/23/0907/23/0907/23/0912/15/1012/15/1012/15/1006/03/1106/03/1103/16/1107/20/1208/06/0908/06/0908/20/0908/20/0908/20/0908/20/0912/09/1111/15/10

25,000,000.0025,000,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0010,000,000.00

100,000,000.00100,000,000.00

30,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0016,000,000.00

100,000.0029,825,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,000.0022,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,'000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0035,000,000.0019,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.00

25,093,000.0025,167,500.0025,165,750.0050,225,000.0050,204,500.0010,000,000.00

100,000,000.00100,000,000.00

30,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0016,125,600.00

100,000.0029,825,000.0050,540,000.0025,000,000.0024,997,402.7849,994,805.5622,043,923.6149,916,453.2124,958,226.6150,000,000.0049,996,833.3325,040,325.0050,000,000.0049,995,138.8949,995,138.8949,995,138.8924,997,569.4452,718,557.8952,718,557.8926,359,27,8.9549,957,000.0049,957,000.0035,309,400.0018,976,250.0049,995,625.0024,997,812.5049,994,127.7849,994,127.7824,997,063.8849,994,127.7851,602,500.0052,929,008.15

1.9701.2281.2321.3871.4352.687 MATURED1.4701.217 MATURED2.9972.9971.6981.9531.6221. 240 11/18/091.055 03/23/102.103 11/04/09

.112 MATURED

. 112 MATURED2.841 09/25/092.965 07/08/09

30.866 07/09/091.984 10/13/09

.122 MATURED

.525

.499 12/30/09

.127 MATURED

.127 MATURED

.127 MATURED

.127 MATURED1.821 11/02/091.821 11/02/091.821 11/02/091.2941.294

.700 03/16/102.359 01/20/10

.152 MATURED.. 152 MATURED

.153 MATURED

.153 MATURED

.153 MATURED

.153 MATURED1.5811. 740 09/28/09

262,500.00294,531.25294,531.25776,388.89607,118.05148,694.44737,083.33603,333.33450,000.00750,000.00425,000.00330,524.44

817.78186,406.25484,305.56264,H9.31

2,597.225,194.44

200,291.6644,953.9042,621.89

250,000.003,166.67

112,380.47125,000.00

4,861.114,861.114,861.112,430.56

327,175.12327,175.12163,587.56267,361.11267,361.11168,933.33225,625.00

4,375.002,187.505,872.225,872.222,936.125,872.22

537,500.00156,419.84

371,079.18231,953.75232,713.65522,909.36541,042.41147,958.31

1,103,611.10346,666.66675,000.00

1,125,000.00637,500.00236,546.58

1,217.78141,875.87387,547.47181,510.42

534.721,069.44

147,583.3328,381.6621,105.50

250,000.001,000.00

98,706.26124,305.56

3,819.443,819.443,819.441,909.73

326,130.62326,130.'62163,065.31485,485.01485,485.01168,933.33225,625.00

4,375.002,187.505,872.225,872.222,936.125,872.22

548,699.73156,419.84

March 31,2010 City & County of San Francisco 15

CIT Y / C 0 U N T Y 0 F SAN F RAN CIS C aMR. NEWLIN RANKIN 4 1 5 - 5 5 4- 4 4 8 7

(EJ:S / ERNEIS) EARNED INCOME SUMMARY07/01/09 THROUGH 03/31/10SORT KEYS ARE FUND


PAGE: 3RUN: 04/01/10 14:15:57


TICKER /MATURITY

DATE


SCHEDULEDBOOK VALUE

I~O~

YIELD/ DATE RECEIVED365 SOLD/MAT THIS PER

TOTAL/NETEARNINGS

225,883.1559,548.6121..908.9712..143.35

136 ..506.45167 ..204.49324,558.42445 ..833.33

38,341.673,966.673 .. 966.673 .. 966.671,983.331,354.17

105,500.00603,519.89496,444.44248,222.22182,670.14373,758.13297,041.67577,000.88

3 ..208.333,208.333 ..208.331 ..604.17

100,278.16139,350.00139,350.00139,350.00139,350.00460,389.9222,089.0414,196.30

296,737.78165,277.78121,076.74174 ..761. 96162,500.00

1.362.069.44525.354.17124,506.62

4,934.02351.36

225,883.1537,187.5021,908.9710.. 954.49

137,695.32167 ..204.49324,558.42375,000.00

32,250.003 .. 966.673 ..966.673 ..966.671 ..983.331.354.17

90,500.00564,869.50496,444.44248,222.22213,915.75390,625.00297.041.67577,000.88

3,208.333,208.333,208.331,604.17

112.309.221.39,350.00139,350.00139,350.00139 ..350.00

61 ..722.2222 ..089.0414,196.30

124,506.624,934.02

337.02

08/19/0908/19/0909/10/0909/09/0911/02/09

91,388.89249,618.06160,490.62

01/28/10 162 ..500.0002/25/101,362 ..069.44

11/02/0903/22/10MATUREDMATUREDMATUREDMATURED

11/02/0911/02/0911/02/0911/02/09

1. 606 11/02/091.782

15.8978.8119.0045.8113.1581.5001.500

.103 MATURED

.103 MATURED

.103 MATURED

.103 MATURED

.066 MATURED

.7302.0592.353 02/25/102.353 02/25/10

.6361.3284.5472.241

.056

.056

.056

.056

.5344.6574.6574.6574.6571.8051. 500 MATURED

.500 MATURED2.001

.710

.774

.8081.2904.3381.6712.395 01/27/10

.035 MATURED

.829

52,929,008.155 ..000,000.00

50,304,008.1550,304,008.1525,152,004.0850,010 ..190.2250,010,190.2250,000 ..000.00

4,300 .. 000.0049,996,033.3349,996 ..033.3349,996,033.3324,998,016.6749 ..998,645.8325 ..000,000.0052 ..693,128.8050 ..000,000.0025,000,000.0050,179,687.5051,969,550.0050,462,000.0050,199,218.7549,996 ..791.6749,996,791.6749 ..996,791.6724,998,395.8325 ..033,.725.0027 ..009,525.0027,009,525.0027,009,525.0027,009,525.0050,268 ..000.0012 ..500 ..000.0016 ..715,000.0035,140,000.0050,000,000.0035,423,500.0048,396,705.0049,962,500.0099,648,000.0075,000,000.0020.625 ..736.50

174,995,065.98100 ..316.41

50,000,000.005,000,000.00

50,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.004,300,000.00

50,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0052,546,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000 .. 000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000 ..000.0025,000 ..000.0025,000,000.0025,000.000.0025,000,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,000.0012,500 ..000.0016,715 ..000.0035,140 .. 000.0050,000,000.0035,000,000.0048,450 ..000.0050,000.. 000. 00

100,000 ..000.0075,000 .. 000.0020,665,000.00

175,000,000.00100,000.00

11/15/1007/31/1008/15/1208/15/1208/15/1207/31/1107/31/1108/27/1208/27/1209/17/0909/17/0909/17/.0909/17/0909/10/0909/02/1009/10/1209/24/1209/24/1202/28/1112/16/1104/20/1202/15/1210/29/0910/29/0910/29/0910/29/0903/16/1210/17/1210/17/1210/17/1210/17/1204/20/1210/06/0912/07/0910/29/1210/13/1003/30/1109/29/1110/28/1111/21/1204/30/1204/27/1211/27/0908/31/11

4.5000 T 4.5 11 15 101.7500 CD FIRST NATL BANK OF NO1.7500 T 1.75 8 15 121.7500 T 1.75 8 15 121.7500 T 1.75 8 15 121.0000 T 1 7 31 111.0000 T 1 7 31 111.5000 FHLB 1.5 3NC1 step-up1.5000 FHLB 1.5 3NC1 step-up0.0000. B 09 17 090.0000 B 09 17 090.0000 B 09 17 090.0000 B 09 17 090.0000 B 9 10 09

.7200 B of A CD 0.72 09 02 102.1500 FNMA 2.15 09 10 12 3NC12.0000 FHLB 2 9 24 12 3NC6MO2.0000 F.HLB 2 9 24 12 3NC6MO

.8750 T 0.875 02 28 113.1250 HSBC 3.125 12 16 11 TLGP1.8750 FNMA 1.875 04 20 20121.3750 T 1.375 2 15 120.0000 B 10 29 090.0000 B 10 29 090.0000 B 10 29 090.0000 B 10 29 09

.4538 Union Bank TLGP Float 034.5000 FFCB 4.5 10 17 124.5000 FFCB 4.5 10 17 124.5000 FFCB 4.5 10 17 124.5000 FFCB 4.5 10 17 122.0200 FFCB 2.02 4 20 12 2.5NC61.5000 CA GO CP 10 06 09

.5000 CA GO CP 12 07 092.0000 FHLB 2 10 29 12 3NC6mo

.7000 USOC PTD 0.7 10 13 101.6250 C 1.625 03.30.11 TLGP

.7500 FHLB 0.75 9 29 11 2NCI s1.0000 FHLB 2nc3m Step1.6250 FRLB 1.625 11 21 121.6700 FRLMC 1.67 4 30 12 2.5NC1.6500 FHLMC 1.365 04 27 12 2.50.0000 B 11 27 091.0000 T 1. 08 31 11

07/28/0907/31/0908/18/0908/18/0908/18/0908/19/0908/19/0908/27/0908/27/0908/20/0908/20/0908/20/0908/20/0908/26/0909/02/0909/10/0909/24/0909/24/0909/04/0909/16/0909/16/0909/16/0909/17/0909/17/0909/17/0909/17/0903/23/0909/23/0909/23/0909/23/0909/23/0909/28/0908/24/0910/06/0910/29/0910/13/0910/22/0910/20/0910/28/0911/02/0910/30/0910/27/0910/29/0910/29/09

422764227742278422794227942280422814228242283422844228542286422874229342294422954229642297422984229942300423014230242303423044230542306423074230842309423104231242313423H42315423164231742318423194232042322423234232442325

March 31, 2010 City & Countyof San Francisco 16

CIT Y / C 0 U N T Y 0 F SAN F RAN CIS C 0MR. NEW L I, N RAN KIN 4 1 5 - 5 5 4 - 4 4 8 7

(EI5 / ERNEIS) EARNED INCOME SUMMARY07/01/09 THROUGH 03/31/10SORT KEYS ARE FUND


PAGE: 4RUN: 04/01/10 14:15:57


TICKER /MATURITY

DATE


SCHEDULEDBOOK VALUE

INCOMEYIELD/ DATE RECEIVED

365 SOLD/MAT THIS PERTOTAL/N.ETEARNINGS

354,586.40500,000.00109,440.23

44,878.721,028,286.11

268,668.12181,506.36477,343.75119,500.00111,405.9373,765.5542,264.39

264,712.62151,775.37

7,875.00142,817.64168,750.00198,259.78513,888.89452,083.33452,083.33127,174.14

43,795.42287,940.91216,775.7574,625.811,085.008,711.11

60,250.0020,277.78

132,500.0066,843.0774,000.00

148,268.92135,000.0015,625.0010,971.8937",030.164,061.12

22,500.0025,277.7813,480.398,526.06

13,945.04

4,061.12

8,333.33

63,793.76

74,000.00

194,727.509,831.251,085.008,711.11

60,250.00

198,259.78

119,500.00301,388.8973,765.55

119,583.33238,043.46516,666.67

7,875.00

336,679.5602/09/10 500,000.00

161,250.0012/22/09 44,878.7203/22/101,028,286.11

396,875.0066,406.25

.8381.9841.317

.6612.6461.3111.7921.6361.113 02/01/10

.601

.696 02/01/10

.574

.600

.785

.061 MATURED1.1331.129

.790 03/08/101.8571.7551.755

.640 02/19/10

.7741.779

.780

.717

.031 MATURED.057 MATURED.981 02/26/10

1.0141.8601.8782.412 03/26/101.7611.8771.6291.0231.015

.087 MATURED1.5641.538

.9341.2201.118

100,200,480.47100,000,000.00

20,431,800.0050,545,277.97

U1,773,200.0051,084,000.0025,253,750.0075,000,000.0052,552,500.0050,770,000.0052,592,852.5020,314,600.00

120,801,562.5052,705,000.00

174,992,125.0049,995,000.0054,000,000.00

100,480,468.76100,000,000.00100,000,000.00100,000,000.00100,757,812.50

50,378,906.2558,496,760.0050,000,000.0028,779,470.7229,998,915.0049,991,288.8972,300,000.0010,000,000.0050,000,000.0024,987,500.0039,996,000.0074,947,500.0075,000,000.0050,000,000.0017,017,870.2257,899,982.2299,995,938.8875,000,000.00

100,000,000.0052,652,847.2225,366,000.0050,580,218.40

99,900,000.00100,000,000.00

20,000,000.0050,000,000.00

100,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0075,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0050,000,000.0020,000,000.00

120,000,000.0050,000,000.00

175,000,000.0050,000,000.0054, 000,000.00

100,000,000.00100,000,000.00100,000,000.00100,000,000.00100,000,000.00

50,000,000.0058,450,000.0050,000,000.0028,600,000.0030,000,000.0050,000,000.0072,300,000.0010,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0040,000,000.0075,000,000.0075,000,000.0050,000,000.0017,050, 000. 0058,000,000.00

100,000,000.0075,000,000.00

100,000,000.0050,000,000.0025,000,000.0050,000,000.00

08/31/1111/09/1203/13/1210/31/1006/18/1203/13/1212/21/1205/10/1206/29/1103/23/1106/29/1103/23/1107/31/1108/25/1112/24/0912/30/1112/21/1101/31/1112/21/1212/28/1212/28/1212/15/1112/15/1112/21/1209/10/1206/01/1112/31/0903/11/1007/26/1101/18/1102/08/1302/08/1302/26/1311/19/1202/25/1303/25/1303/05/1203/05/1203/25/1003/25/1312/26/1206/15/1209/28/1207/15/12

1.0000 T 1 08 31 112.0000 FHLB 3NC3 Ix 2% fixed co2.2500 MS 2.25 3 13 121.5000 T 1.5 10 31 102.1250 FFCB Bullet 2.125 6 18 12.2500 MS TLGP 2.25 03 13 122.1250 GE TLGP 2.125 12 21 121.6250 FNMA 1.625% 2.5NC6 Ameri3.8750 FHLMC 3.875 6 29 111.7500 FNMA 1.75 3 23 113.8750 FHLMC 3.875 6 29 11 Bull1.7500 FNMA 1.75 3 23 2011 Bull1.0000 T 1 7 31 113.8750 FFCB Bullet 3.875 8 25 10.0000 B 12 24 091.1250 FHLMC 1.125 12 30 11 2NC1.1250 FHLMC 1.125 12 21 11 2NC

.8750 T 0.875 1 31 111.8500 FHLB 1.85 12 21 12 3NCl1.7500 FNMA FIXED 1.75 3NCl IX1.7500 FHLMC Fixed 1.75 3NCl 1X1.1250 T 1.125 12 15 111.1250 T 1.125 12 15 111.8000 FNMA 3NC6 1.80% fixed

.7559 FHLMC 3ncl float step-up1.1250 FHLNC 1.125 6 1 110.0000 B 12 31 090.0000 B 3 11 101.0000 FHLB 1 07 26 11 1.5NClmo1.0000 FIRST NATL PTD 01 18 111.8000 FNMA 3NC1.5 IX 1.801.8000 FNMA 3NC1.5 IX2.1000 FHLB 2.1 2 26 13 3NClmo1.6700 FFCB 1.67 11 19 12 2.75N1.8000 FHLMC 1.8 2 25 13 3NC11.8750 FHLB 1.875 3NC3 Fixed

.9500 FFeB 2 Year Bullet .95 C

.9500 FFCB 2 Year Bullet Fixed0.0000 B 03 25 101.8000 FHLMC 1.8 03 25 13 3NC3m1.8200 FHLB 2.75 NC 1month 1.823.2500 GS 3.25 06.15.12 TLGP2.0000 GE TLGP 2% 09.28.20121.5000 T 1.5 07.15.12

42326 10/29/0942327 11/09/0942328 11/04/0942329 11/03/0942330 11/03/0942331 11/06/0942332 11/06/0942333 11/10/0942334 11/19/0942335 11/19/0942337 11/20/0942338 11/20/0942341 11/19/0942342 11/19/0942345 11/27/0942346 12/30/0942347 12/21/0942348 12/07/0942349 12/21/0942350 12/28/0942351 12/28/0942352 12/09/0942352 12/09/0942353 12/21/0942354 09/10/0942356 11/20/0942357 11/19/0942358 11/19/0942363 01/26/1042365 01/18/1042366 02/08/1042367 02/08/1042368 02/26/1042370 02/19/1042371 02/25/1042372 03/25/1042373 03/09/1042374 03/09/1042376 03/08/1042377 03/25/1042378 03/26/1042379 03/22/1042380 03/22/1042382 03/23/10

March 31, 2010 City & County of San Francisco 17


(EIS / ERNEIS) EARNED INCOME SUMMARY07/01/09 THROUGH 03/31/10SORT KEYS ARE FUND


PAGE: 5RUN: 04/01/10 14:15:57


---~---- ------- ------------~------------

42383 03/25/10 0.0000 B 04.22.1042385 03/26/10 1.8750 FFCB 1.875 12.07.1242386 03/24/10 0.0000 B 6.10.1042388 03/24/10 1.8750 FHLB 1.875 03.22.1342393 03/31/10 0.0000 B 031011

SUBTOTAL (FUND) 100 POOLED FUNDS

SUBTOTAL (FUND) 100 POOLED FONDS

ASSETS

NET

TICKER / SHARES / INCOMEMATURITY SCHEDULED SCHEDULED YIELD/ DATE RECEIVED TOTAL/NET

DATE PAR VALUE BOOK VALUE 365 SOLD/MAT THIS PER EARNINGS

-~------ ---~---------- -------------- ------- -------- -----~----- --------~~--

04/22/10 75,000,000.00 74,992,300.00 .134 1,925.0012/07/12 37,000,000.00 37,543,422.08 1.2,33 7,608.8506/10/10 200,000,000.00 199,946,700.00 .125 5,466.6703/22/B 50,000,000.00 49,965,208.33 1.691 18,521.6703/10/11 50,000,000.00 49,817,488.89 .389 530.56

681 DAYS 3559636000.00 3577350505.01 34,241,925.7932,300,745.04

----------~~-- -------------- ----------- ------------3559636000.00 3577350505.01 34,241,925.7932,300,745.04

FUND STATISTICS ASSETS LIABILITIES

.000

.000

:3,017,691,460.731.4261.328

8,541,803.88

AVERAGE DAILY INVESTMENT BALANCEEARNED INTEREST YIELD THIS PERIODWEIGHTED AVG YIELD AT END OF PERIODTOTAL INTEREST EARNED FOR FUTURE RECEIPT:

March 31, 2010

(EIS / ERNEIS)



EARNED INCOME SUMMARY07/01/09 THROUGH 03/31/10SORT KEYS ARE FUND

FUND: 9703 SFUSD TRANS 08-09

PAGE: 6RUN: 04/01/10 14:15:57

18

TICKER / SHARES / INCOMEINV PURCHASE COUPON MATURITY SCHEDULED SCHEDULED YIELD/ DATE RECEIVED TOTAL/NETNO. DATE RATE DESCRIPTION DATE PAR VALUE BOOK VALUE 365 SOLD/MAT THIS PER EARNINGS

----- -------- ------- ------------------------- -------- -------------- -------------- ------- -------- ----------- ------------42118 12/09/08 2.3200 US BANK COLLATERAL 11/23/09 35,000,000.00 35,000,000.00 2.352 MATURED 787,188.89 327,055.56

SUBTOTAL (FUND) 9703 SFUSD TRANS 08-09- ASSETS °DAYS .00 .00 787,U8.89 327,055.56

-------------- -------------- ----------- ------------SUBTOTAL (FUND) 9703 SFUSD TRANS 08-09- NET .00 .00 787,188.89 327,055.56

FUND STATISTICS

AVERAGE DAILY INVESTMENT BALANCEEARNED INTEREST'YIELD THIS PERIODWEIGHTED AVG YIELD AT END OF PERIODTOTAL INTEREST EARNED FOR FUTURE RECEIPT:

ASSETS

18,521,897.812.352

.000

LIABILITIES

.000

.000

March 31, 2010

(EIS / ERNEIS)


CIT y / C 0 U N T Y 0 F SAN F RAN CIS C 0MR. NEW LIN RAN KIN 415 - 554 - 4 4 8 7

EARNED INCOME SUMMARY07/01/09 THROUGH 03/31/10SORT KEYS ARE FOND

FUND: 9704 SFUSD BONDS 2006B

PAGE: 7RUN: 04/01/10 14:15:57

19

TICKER / SHARES I INCOMEINV PURCHASE COUPON MATURITY SCHEDULED SCHEDULED YIELD/ DATE RECEIVED TOTAL/NETNO. DATE RATE DESCRIPTION DATE PAR VALUE BOOK VALUE 365 SOLD/MAT TRIS PER EARNINGS

-------- ------- _.----------------------- -------- -------------- -------------- ------- -._----- ----------- ------------42156 02/11/09 2.0000 FANNIE MAE 02/11/11 20 ..000,000.00 20 ..000 ..000.00 1. 983 02/11/10 400,000.00 244 ..444.4442159 02/06/09 2.8000 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT 01/28/14 18,225 ..000.00 18,152,100.00 2.889 498,960.00 393,718.1742160 02/06/09 .5190 T BILL 01/14/10 50,000,000.00 49,757,750.00 .520 MATURED 242,250.00 139,541.6742161 02/06/09 .5190 T BILL 01/14/10 20,000,000.00 19,903,100.00 2.818 09/09/09 87,727.78 107,561.1242176 02/06/09 .9000 FREDDIE MAC DISCOUNT 01/08/10 20,000,000.00 19,832,000.00 .920 MATURED 168,000.00 95,500.0042221 05/12/09 1.7500 FNMA 1.75 3 23 11 03/23/11 30,000,000.00 30,359,458.33 8.130 07/21/09 185,525.00 135,243.1442264 07/21/09 1.1250 T 1.125 06.30.11 06/30/11 30,000,000.00 30,093,750.00 .958 149,490.49 200,745.6142355 09/10/09 .7559 FHLMC 3nc1 float step-up 09/10/12 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 .780 77,891.00 86,710.3042359 01/08/10 1.2500 T 1.25 11 30 10 11/30/10 20,000,000.00 20,183,035.71 .375 17,224.0542360 01/14/10 5.7500 FHLMC 5.75 01 15 12 01/15/12 20,000,000.00 21,855,220.00 1.096 3,194.44 50,552.3342361 01/15/10 2.7500 RF 2.75 12 10 10 12/10/10 11,310,000.00 11,584,240.48 .385 9,295.6442362 01/14/10 0.0000 B 01 13 11 01/13/11 18,000,000.00 17,938,484.00 .344 13,013.0042369 02/26/10 2.1000 FHLB 2.1 2 26 13 3NClmo 02/26/13 20,000,000.00 19,998,000.00 2.412 03/26/10 37,000.00 37,000.0042384 03/26/10 1.4200 FHLB 1.42 fixed 2.5 NC 1 09/24/12 20,230,000.00 20,216,221.12 1.231 4,090.85

SUBTOTAL (FUND} 9704 SFUSD BONDS 2006B- ASSETS 641 DAYS 157,765,000.00 160,023,051.31 1,850,038.71 1,534,640.32

-------------- -------------- ----------- ------------SUBTOTAL (FUND) 9704 SFUSD BONDS 2006B- NET 157,765,000.00 160,023,051.31 1,850,038.71 1,534,640.32

FUND STATISTICS ASSETS LIABILITIES

-------------------------------------- ---------------- ------------~---AVERAGE DAILY INVESTMENT BALANCE , 157,200,915.61EARNED INTEREST YIELD THIS PERIOD , 1.300 .000WEIGHTED AVG YIELD AT END OF PERIOD , 1.024 .000TOTAL INTEREST EARNED FOR FUTURE RECEIPT: 376,705.92

GRAND TOTAL 100.00%(C) 680 DAYS 3717401000.00 3737373556.32 1.425 36,879,153.3934,162,440.92

Sarah Slaughter<[email protected]>

04/16/201011 :31 AM


cc

bcc

Subject Trader Joe's threat to Market St.

To whom it may concern,

I am a city resident who lives on 16th St. between Castro and Noe, a blockaway from the Noe/Market Center. I am concerned about the back doorpolitical dealings of the Trader Joe's project. I feel that the City powers arealready assuming that this project is a go, without due diligence.

Most disturbing is the news that the Office of Economic Development isentering into negotiations to have Radio Shack move. This is a smallneighborhood retail formula store. It has been in this location since thebuilding was built. Why would the Mayor's OOED intervene for acorporation, whose owuers are wealthier than the Walmart family? Thetraffic study is not done, the terms of formula retail moving into aneighborhood have been passed over!

The DNTA was supposed to be involved with the review of the trafficstudy before the final scope of project was approved. It was not. Glaringomissions have been noted. One being the delivery trucks. When aredeliveries to take place? There is no loading dock for this building. It isnear a vibrant night life with pedestrians who are coming from bars. Howcan you ask Radio Shack to move if you aren't thinking of ignoring dueprocess?

The traffic report is not including the impact of other intersections thatmost likely will become backed up because of the traffic generated. This isnot a walk/bike store. Groceries are heavy and TJ attracts people from allover the city. They will drive, even neighbors say they will drive becauseof buying heavy bulk items.

The parking lot that was accessible for their patrons is not available. SinceRadio Shack is "in the way" ofTJ, hourly parking is no more in thispopular parking lot. For now there is parking on the street but witness thepopular Wed. afternoon farmer's market and a glimpse of the possiblefuture traffic. Most people walk to this farmer's market as there are no bulkitems for sale, even though there is a traffic snarl from 3 to 7 on Wedafternoons. Also small neighborhood businesses have noted a 2/3 drop inincome on Wed. since this popular market started because people cannotfind parking. And this Farmer's Market is a mostly a walk/bike market.

Also another disturbing note is the climate of animosity that has beendirected to small businesses in the area. The passage of a bill by thecitizens of San Francisco specifically states that the impact of formularetail should not affect the small businesses in the area. There are

businesses via Yelp and Save the Castro that have been attacked after notconforming to Bevan Duffy's "pledge to Trader Joe's" to move to thisparticular space. Phone numbers of employees have been posted andvicious confrontations in the place of businesses by devotees of TraderJoe's have been witnessed. It is a disturbing phenomena. Where is thenon-biased leadership of this city for its citizens and tax payers?

Sincerely a voter, property owner and tax payer for fairgovernment, Sarah Slaughter

Joshua Arce<[email protected]>

04/16/2010 01 :29 PM

To "Ed Harrington ([email protected])"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>

cc "Sup. Carmen Chu ([email protected])"<[email protected]>, "Sup. EricMar(Eric. [email protected])" <[email protected]>. "Sup.

bee Board of Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV

SUbject sunset reservoir iocal hiring report

1 attachment

Sunset Reservoir SolarProject - Ordinance.pdf

General Manager Harrington,

I just wanted to make sure that you're aware of the provision in the attached Sunset ReservoirSolarOrdinance that requires the PUC to "include a summary of compliance with the First Source HiringAgreement" on the Reservoir Project as part of "each PUC budget submission." (see page 7 starting atline 20 to page 8, line 4).

I am CC'ing members of the Board Budget & Finance Committee, as well as project sponsors Sup.Carmen Chu and Eric Mar, to make sure they're prepared to receive this data, data that manystakeholders are curious about. In addition, I'm CC'ing OEWD's Rhonda Simmonsand CityBuild'sGuillermo Rodriguez because they've been working with the Southeast Jobs Coalition and other groups toget community workers out on the project.

Thank you,

Josh

Joshua ArceExecutive DirectorBrightline Defense Projectwww.brightlinedefense.org

sun cycle<[email protected]>

04/13/201002:37 PM


ee


Subject Naked Body Scanners

Naked Digital Body Scanners at our Airports...

For those who are not aware, every major airport in the country is beginningto install and use naked digital body scanners that reveal and record our privateparts to TSA government officials.

This is not only a massive violation of personal privacy, but a direct violationof our constitutional 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonablesearches and seizures.

Once these scanners are installed at over 350 major airports across the USAby the beginning of 2011, you will be treated as a criminal if you refuse tofollow scanner protocol in order to get on a plane. That is, they will then giveyou the temporary reprieve- and I emphasize "temporary", once everyonehas been acculturated- of having to submit to a highly intrusive bodily pat-downas is done when someone is arrested by the police.

This is all being done to psychologically prepare the American people to surrendertheir rights, liberties and freedoms and embrace a fascist Nazi police state headed byHomeland Security and the Pentagon.

Its time to stand up and say "no" to this level of tyranny in our nation. Contact your localairports and airlines and voice your opposition to this insanity. The only "terrorists"are those who are pushing to implement this new illegal policy at our airports.

Gabe Parsons

Market Street

San Francisco, California

Monday, April 19, 2010

We strongly appose the upcoming phone generation station not more than a block from where

we live! ~---------

The effects on our health from being constantly subjected to EMR (electromagnetic radiation)

are not at all determined - and most likely will be very harmfuL What we do know is the periodic

radiation from cell phones held next to one's head, can contribute to brain tumors. While the

generation station is not right next to our head, it is much more concentrated, much more powerful,

and it will be constant. The effect of low dosages of the EMR has not been tested thoroughly let

alone the constant high dosages that we will be subjected to if this station is allowed to continue.

We have children, aging people, and everything in-between in our neighborhood. It feels

really bad and morally wrong to subject my family, neighbors, and friends to this unnecessary risk!

My guess is the politicians & businessmen who stand to gain financially from this station will

NOT be subjected to the levels ofEMR that we will be subjected to.

Finally, at the first part of this year, when the subject first came up, we experienced a

throbbing beating sound in our home intercoms. We have two, and they both exhibited the same

symptoms. This went on for several days, then stopped. I cannot help but suspect it was from this

station.

For these reasons, we strongly appose this phone generation station.

lUih //l/rJ /}Cft! {;;;

;;jlN? ({..~ Av,,-. CfC{[! ~

OJ/\!i.')

31' Ar::. --'-'~.. --~._-- ....•.•.•..- .1'".'{;\il.

The effects on our health from being constantly subjected to EMR (electromagnetic radiation)

are not at all determined - and most likely will be very harmful. Wbat we do know is the periodic

radiation from cell phones held next to one's head, can contribute to brain tumors. While the

cf~We strongly appose the upcoming phone generationt\~&\\fl\Q.0('mdHHt\art:\i1 block from where

we live!

!()O}?;",Sirs:

generation station is not right next to our head, it is much more concentrated, much more powerful,

and it will be constant. The effect of low dosages of the EMR has not been tested thoroughly let/

alone the constant high dosages that we will be subjected to if this station is allowed to continue.

We have children, aging people, and everything in-between in our neighborhood. It feels

really bad and morally wrong to subject my family, neighbors, and friends to this unnecessary risk!

My guess is the politicians & businessmen who stand to gain financially from this station will

NOT be subjected to the levels ofEMR that we will be subjected to.

Finally, at the first part of this year, when the subject first came up, we experienced a

throbbing beating sound in our home intercoms. We have two, and they both exhibited the same

symptoms. This went on for several days, then stopped. I cannot help but suspect it was from this

station.

For these reasons, we strongly appose this phone generation station.

;;)_JI-J'7:f~[!J

2. ?:.S-t- /61!.. ~£/e .tfW0l· L-;, ulviv.../t'--'1-4 ,ItV2'7uV S, f ..L'!2//ru S/*;V~/ G#L,jJ);f. ~ ,p C/T '/. 11. e£fZt L.J I~'Y\~ \'":;- f\-Ji: .~':,.;.:-, GA. ~l...:\~~M;\'?J (1)(-

Board ofSupervlsors/BOS/SFGOV

04/191201012:23 PM

To BOSConstituentMail Distribution,

cc

bcc

Subject File 100443-Uphold EIR Certlficatlon-555 Washington

The Clerk's office is In receipt of the following letters, petitions and postcards In support of the 555Washington proposal and expansion of Redwood Park.In the attachment, please find a sample of the approx. 2200 letters received.All the support Information has been put into the file.

-mFile 100443- 555 Washington -EIR Certification Support.pdf

Complete a Board of SupervisorsCustorner Service Satisfaction form by clicking HERE.

'F········n,~ ~··N···I.D····s- ·O:··~;:" 'n,1 1;,;: ... .\ _:..... J ' ••• : ,r

REDWOOD, PA,RK

TO: SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

FROM: FRIENDS OF REDWOODPARK/

DATE: April 19, 2010 /

RE: CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR FOR 555~ASHIINGTON

Friends of Redwood Park supports the 555 Washington EIR as a thorough and complete

document that provides ample decision making-information for City officials. Weurge

you to uphold certification of the EIR

Attached for your review are more than 2,200 letters, petitions and postcards in support

ofthe 555 Washington proposal and expansion of Redwood Park. The majority are from

local residents and, merchants and community organizations in the surrounding

neighborhoods. Please feel free to contact Friends of Redwood Park chair Sarah

Stocking at 203-2373 if you have any questions.

YES! I support Redwood Park!.,I support a ne,~ pftblic park and revitalizationof theTransamecica Block. Redwood Park will be expandedand. permanently protectedas San Francisco's newest public park. At less than halfthe height ofthe adjacent 'Icensamerica Pyramid, the plan for a slender 400 foothigh-rise residential tower at 555 Washington 6£$ within the context ofthe downtown skyline and adds vitality to our neighborhood'whilenearing sustainable, energy-efficient homes in a new "green" bt.Iilding.TIle added residential use enhances public safety and providesan economic boost to local merchants, while also increasing open space by80%. The redwoods willhe preserved with new rrecs added.The park will be open to thepublic 7 days a week with maintenance permanently provided at no cost to the City.

Please join theJackson Square Historic DistrictAssociation, North Beach Neighbors and the North Beach Chamber ofCommerceand so many others in supporting the 555 Washington plan anda newpublic park fOr our neighborhood!

PRINTED Name

Address

City, State

Zip Code

.Email

Signature

PRINTED Name

Address

City, Stare

Zip Code

Email

Signatute

PRINTED Name

Address

Ciry, State

Zip Code.

Email .

Signature

PRINTEr> Name

Address·

Ciry, State

Zip Code

.Email

Signature

YES! I support Redwood Park!support a new public park and revitalization of the Transamerica Block. Redwood Park will be expanded and permanently protecteds San Francisco's newest public park. At less chan half the height of the adjacent Transamerica Pyramid, the plan for a slender 400 foocigh-rise residential tower at 555 Washington fits within the context ofthe downtown skyline and adds vitality to our neighborhood-hilc creating sustainable, energy-efficient homes in a new "gl:"cen" building. The added residential use enhances public safety and providesn economic boost to local merchants, while also increasing open space by 80%. The redwoods will be preserved with new trees added.he park will be open to"the public 7 days a week with maintenance permanently provided at no cost to the City.

Pleasejoin theJackson Square Historical DistrictAssociation, North Beach Neighbors and the Barbary Coast NeighborhoodAssociation and so many others in supporting the 555 Washington plan and a new public park fir our neighborhoodl

Address

City, State

Zip Code

Email

Signarure

..City, State

Zip Code

Email

Signature

Address

City, State

zip Code

.Email

Signature

i / \

Phone

LJ::-I---'--'.

~I IL

i I - i l iiiT]

1 _I

"I 1

City, State

. Zip Code

Email

Signarure

nPhone' ,

Sponsored by Friends ofRedwood Park

¥

Yr?/3?;?

~~

d--~

Zip:.----

Printed Name: «" ......".-- -

Emaii and/or fax: H~' < I _~ ~

YES! We Support the Plan for 555 Washington Street555 Washington is a pian to revitaiize the City's special Transamerica Pyramid block with a new publlcpark, more open space, and a thriving pedestrian plaza. The pian wiil use the latest environmentailyresponsible "green" building techniques and include sustainable housing located near transit, jobs andshops. 555 Washington includes a new city-owned park totaiing at least 18,000 square feet andOVer 10.000 square feet of new plaza and open space for the public to enjoy.

~r:;;J?~;;e~ /A'/~.:--·.······--------r

Organizatipn/Business: Cp C--AAddress: /0 gc;.::::- .>Z:::oz;e'~ity: 5' '~

') q 0 'Jfi-.Daytime Telephone: d I / 1/1 HomeTelephone: ~__-

/ ~ r> G IkrV~rv'~/):7~ ~('''I

Signature: (<" <" ! Ii ::> (<::: :::>

o i will attend a meeting to support 555 Washington Street. Please send me more informationwhen the meeting is scheduled.

o i will send a letter of support or e-mail to City Hall. Please keep me informed.

I support housing projects that bring tax reveriue int~ San Franci~co, that providemillions of dollars for affordable housing, that revitalize and improve parks, andthat help make parts of the Financial District also a residential neighborhood.

Fe r/UAA/do G-v/'rA//'L tciA L. I,D;#/1/6/:1 N / ZIf0 fj).. J3 rO/TJVJ0/ s1, #-S-/~r-, C,1, 9'1/33~

September 23, 2009

President David ChiuSan Francisco Board of Supervisors1 Carlton B. Goodlett PlaceSan Francisco, California94102

......

-'. "

What is proposed for 555 Washington and Redwood Park, behind theTransAmerica pyramid, is just such a project, In addition, I like the increasedsunlight from the expanded park.

I urge it be approved.

Cc: San Francisco Planning Commission·Members, San Francisco Board of Supervisors

Co<h..lr.Andy aeores

Tom Hart

E:",,,;:uUve Dl,.ctor

Gnbnel Metcalf

Urb"n CQnl<lr DirectorDame FIliPPI

Vic .. Ch"l ..

Lisa Feldsl.:'1nLmdaJo ~Itz

Bob G;;tmbleJim SallI1ilS. Sr

LIbby Selfellydu,l Tan

Tr<ruurerrerrv Mlcheau

,;',hl -,.;:,.', ",S':',~;

'I .. ': ,,-\0.', '. , \.'';'f1 :',r, ""","",/\p,:"l\

,. ; -.,',:;1,\', '. 'I'

8 Decem ber 2009

Mr. Jeffrey Heller, FAIAHeller Manus Architects

221 Main Street, Suite 940

San Francisco, CA 94105

Re: Proposed Development at 555 Washington Street

Dear Mr. Heller:

6~H f-lhsinn $;reel

5.1" FI':III.:;"'<::O, c aurcr r.tc

'J-<'lH.) 5

Ii1S.7UUHJ.n \''!1,),7B!.72!;l\ f

WWW,"!='Uf,'.)(9

Secret<l!)'JeM crese r

lmmodl<lt.. PHt ChelrVince Koenlgman

Advisory CouncilCo-Ch<llrs

P~l SedwayMichael Wilmar

Bo"rd MembersMICh<le1 Alexander

JIm Andrew Jroevro Beker

Fred BlackwellLee Blitch

MiJr'9o BradishPamela Brewster

L<U1'Y BurnettMlcht.ela O:t:;sidy

Emilio CruzO1arm<l\f1e Curta,

Gla DanillerKelly DeillTl1al'1

Shelly DOrMoz Enckson

LUisa EzquerroNorman FongFrank FudemGilliw GillettChrts GruwellDave Hartley

Laurie JohnsonKen Kirkey

rrevrs Kiyolapetricte KJitgaard

Ril<. KunnathEllen Lou

Janis r-teckenzreJohn Madden

.reonte McCNlnMary McCue

John McNultyOms MeanyEzraHersey

Peter MezeyLeroy Morll>hila

DkkMort.enTorniqoie Moss

Mary MurphyPaul Okamoto

Btad PaulTim PaulsonChris Poland

teresa Reaevron Rhett~m Roselti

. Victor scetoO\i~Hsln Shoo

Rapt>ael SperryBill Stotler

Michael rettzMIchael Theriault

Jenes Trw::yWill Travis

Jeff TumlinBrooks Walker; HI

Debra WalkerPaul Zeger

On behalfofthe members of the SPUR Project Review Committee, we would like to

thank your team for bringing the proposed development at 555 Washington Street to

our group for consideration and review at our November 2009 meeting.

The mission of the SPUR Project Review Committee is to consider projects that are of

citywide importance and to evaluate them according to criteria related to land use,

public realm interface, building design and environmental effects, In all cases, we are

seeking a combination of excellent planning and design solutions that will ensure the

positive contribution of each project to a safe, visually appealing, and vibrant urban

setting for the people who live and work in San Francisco,

In general, after our review and discussion, the committee was impressed with both the

design and intended use ofthe 555 Washington Street project. We provide the

following specific comments for your information and action:

Land Use

Located on the southwest corner of Washington and Sansorne streets, the project

proposes a 38-story (400' height) building providing market-rate residential and

ground floor restaurant and retail. The development comprises 248 residential units,

including in lieu fee for the equivalent of42 affordable units, expansion of adjacent

Redwood Park, donation of Redwood Park to the City as publicly owned/privately

maintained open-space, and environmentally sustainable design and upgrades for the

entire block, including the Transamerica Pyramid.

The committee strongly supports high-rise development at this location, which is

directly adjacent to the 858 foot Transamerica Pyramid. The committee agrees that the

project, within the downtown high-rise district, will provide a contextually sensitive

balance to the Transamerica Pyramid and may re-energize the immediate environs.

The proposed expansion of both area and hours of access for Redwood Park is a very

welcome improvement to the City's downtown green-space.

2 of 4

Public Realm Interface and the

Promotion of a Pedestrian-Oriented Environment

Overall, the committee agrees with the orientation of the building, its integration with

Redwood Park, Mark Twain Alley and the Transamerica Pyramid. The extensive shadow

studies of the slender silhouette of the proposed 400 ft. building, as compared to the form

allowed by the Planning Code, satisfy the committee that a taller, more slender building

is more desirable for this location.

We are especially pleased with the proposal to unbundle parking and to tailor the parking

usage to occupancy requirements, starting initially at .50 per unit capacity and requesting

a maximum of .80 spaces per unit. Valet parking integrated with stackers, Car Share

inclusion, and bike parking are all enthusiastically approved by the committee.

There was some discussion among the committee members regarding the integration of

the Park with Mark Twain Alley and the proposed restaurants within the development.

We agree that the Park and restaurants will do much to improve the pedestrian

environment, though we encourage the project sponsors to review whether the proposed

"pop-out" area of the restaurant within 555 Washington into the Park is necessary. We

also agree that this restaurant space is perhaps large enough to accommodate more than

one tenant.

The committee also expressed a desire to preserve the plaque commemorating Bummer

and Lazarus, Emperor Norton's dogs and fixtures of popular culture in the early 1860's.

currently located within the Park.

Building & Landscape Design

The committee agrees that the proposed building design makes a strong positive

statement for the neighborhood. The graduated cylindrical shape and the proposed clear

glass skin present a complementary balance to the iconic Transamerica Pyramid which

shares the block. We are impressed with the thoughtful design and attention to detail.

We encourage the project sponsors to commit to the use of high-quality materials,

especially for the glass envelope. A light, transparent glass is essential to counter balance

the concrete structure of the adjacent Pyramid.

As stated earlier in this review, the committee is very pleased with the proposed redesign

and expansion of Redwood Park. We believe the generous giftto the City of the Park and

its maintenance in perpetu ity provides a win-win-win situation for the project sponsors,

the tenants and the public. The proposed re-design with water feature, additional seating

and retractable gates will enhance what is already a beautiful restful retreat. Expanding

the hours of access to seven-days is an added bonus.

3 of 4

We understand that the maintenance of Redwood Park will be the responsibility of the

building owners and we appreciate the generosity of that gesture. The committee supports

the commitment to adequate maintenance throughout the life of Park.

Environmental Effects

SPUR believes it is essential for projects to build environmental sustainability into their

design and function, and we appreciate the project sponsor's goals to achieve LEED Gold

Certification for the entire block, a "green island" including both 555 Washington and the

Transamerica Pyramid. This is a unique opportunity and we are very supportive of the

project sponsor's efforts in this area.

We are looking forward to inventive use of sustainable materials and practices throughout

the project.

Conclusion

The SPUR Project Review Committee finds the proposed project at 555 Washington

Street to be an appropriate use of the site. The dense residential development will enliven

and enhance the neighborhood. We are very pleased to see such a high level of design

and creativity in what is already a high-profile City block.'

We thank you for committing your time and resources to the presentation at SPUR,

appreciate the fact that you have presented your proposal to us at an early stage in its

development so that you may take our recommendations into consideration. We will

follow further refinements of this project with great interest and invite you to keepus

informed on its progress.

Consideration for Endorsement

Should you intend to request SPUR to consider this project for endorsement, you should

contact the Committee co-chairs at the appropriate time. Endorsement by SPUR is

reserved for projects ofthe highest quality and significance to the city. Consideration for

endorsement begins with a formal response by projects sponsors to this review letter,

including an update on any significant changes to the project program or design since the

project was initially presented at SPUR. The project is then taken up for discussion by an

endorsement subcommittee of SPUR board members who serve on committees in the

areas of project review, urban policy, housing, sustainability, and transportation. We

normally require a month's lead-time to schedule a meeting of the endorsement

subcommittee,

Please do not hesitate to contact us for questions/clarifications.

40f4

.

/Sincerely, "/.__.._

/ - ( - /~._)--

Charmaine Curtis Reuben S~zSPUR Project Review Committee Co-Chairs

cc: SPUR Board of Directors

f::£;e.. :

Mary Beth Sanders

CHINATOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP1524 Powell Street

San Francisco, California 94133TEL: (415) 756-1898 - FAX: (415) 399-0551

March 16, 2010

San Francisco Board of SupervisorsCity Hall1 Carlton B. Goodlett PlaceSan Francisco, CA 94102

Honorable Supervisors,

This letter is to indicate our approval of the proposal for new homes at 555 Washingtonand the new public park in the Transamerica Pyramid Block.

Because of our interest in boosting Chinatown's economy, we naturally always supporta vibrant community for small businesses. Adding more residents to the area as thisproposal does will do just that, because it means more customers from the new familiesand their out-of-town visitors and friends. Businesses in the area, whether small ormedium-sized will employ members of our community.

Located just over a block away from Chinatown, the new homes and block renovationwill help promote the area. The building that 555 Washington replaces is of noparticular architectural note; we will be glad to see the very attractively designed slendertower with a half-twist take its place next to the Transamerica Pyramid.

Additionally, the new tax/fee revenues for the City are especially welcome, instead ofadditional taxes and fees on businesses that drive jobs from the City.

Finally, we support the expansion of the park by 49%, as well as the opening of the parkon weekends and holidays. To have it maintained forever at no expense to the City ofSan Francisco is great!


04/19/2010 11:46 AM

susan vaughan<[email protected]>

04/16/201009:54 PM

To BOS Constituent Maii Distribution,

cc

bcc

Subject Fiie 100443: 555 Washington

To [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]@sfgov.org, [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]@sfgov.org, [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]

cc

Subject 555 Washington

Dear Supervisors,

I urge to grant the appeal of 555 Washington Street. This proposed development is exactly what is not needeand contributing to the congestion on city streets. Not to mention the fact that the developers are requesting,

Please up hold this appeal.

Sue VaughanDistrict 1

"Herb Kosovitz"<[email protected]>

04/17/201010:41 PM

To <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,

cc

bee

Subject 555 Washington Street

Supervisors:

Piease reject the 555 Washington EIR.

Very truly yours,Herb Kosovitz


04/19/2010 01:42 PM

llMary Etta Moosell

<maryelta@edmoose,com>

04/17/201003:49 PM


cc

bcc

Subject File 100443 pleae reject the 555 Washington EIR

To "Angela Calvilio" <Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov,org>

cc

Subject pleae reject the 555 Washington EIR

Dear Supervisors,

I beseech you to reject the 555 Washington EIR, and support the Telegraph HillDwellers Appeal.

The EIR fails to adequately analyze the impacts from this project that would require spotre-zoning of a single parcel to double the height limit; violate the City's General Plan;cast additional shadows on 4 parks (Ferry Park, Maritime Plaza, Sidney Walton Parkand Redwood Park); ignore the voter mandated Proposition K (which bans additionalshadows on public parks); increase wind impacts above what the Planning Code allows;add more cars than allowed by the Code.

This project would require a public street (Mark Twain Alley/Merchant Street) to bevacated and added to the development site, and require numerous other exceptions andvariances from the Code.

Respectfully,

Mary Etta Moose1962 Powell St941334153980808

Board ofSupervisorslBOSISFGOV

0411912010 11:48AM

To

cc

bcc

SUbject File 100443- 555 Washington - Please reject this EIR

Complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form by clicking HERE.

Subject

To [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]

cc [email protected]

555 Washington - Pleasereject this EIR

----- Forwardedby Board of SupervisorslBOSISFGOV on 0411912010 11 :51 AM ---

[email protected]

041161201011:19 PM

Honorable Supervisors:

As a Planning Commissioner and as a citizen of San Francisco, I write to urge you to reject the flawed 555Washington EIR.As with all other EIRs that I review, I have looked for adequacy, completeness and a good-faith effort forfull disclosure; the EIR for 555 Washington fails on all scores.

In addition to extensive, subjective interpretations and innuendos, this project as proposed and it's EIR:

1. fails to adequately analyze the impacts of the proposed project that would require'spot' re-zoning of a single parcel to double the height limit from 200 feet to 400 feet;2. contradicts the City's General Plan;3. casts additional shadows on 4 parks (Ferry Park, Maritime Plaza, Sidney WaltonPark and Redwood Park);4. ignores the voter-mandated Proposition K (which bans additional shadows on publicparks);5. increases wind impacts above what the Planning Code allows;6. adds more cars than allowed by Code;7. requires the vacating and conveyance of a public street (Mark Twain Alley) to beadded to the development site; and8. requires numerous other frivolous exceptions and variances from the Code

It is my professional opinion that the City should not allow case-by-case zoning. Further, we should notallow tall buildinqs in zones other than what the Urban Design Plan prescribes... instead we should adddensity to the Core, not the edge.I respectfully ask that you reject this EIR,Kathrin MoorePlanning Commissioner

[email protected]

04/16/201011:19 PM

To [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],

cc [email protected]

bee

Subject 555Washington - Pleasereject this EIR

Honorable Supervisors:

As a Planning Commissioner and as a citizen of San Francisco, I write to urge you to reject the flawed 555Washington EIR.As with all other EIRs that I review, I have looked for adequacy, completeness and a good-faith effort forfull disclosure; the EIR for 555 Washington fails on all scores.

In addition to extensive, SUbjective interpretations and innuendos, this project as proposed and it's EIR:

1. fails to adequately analyze the impacts of the proposed project that would require'spot' re-zoning of a single parcel to double the height limit from 200 feet to 400 feet;2. contradicts the City's General Plan;3. casts additional shadows on 4 parks (Ferry Park, Maritime Plaza, Sidney WaltonPark and Redwood Park);4. ignores the voter-mandated Proposition K (which bans additional shadows on publicparks);5. increases wind impacts above what the Planning Code allows;6. adds more cars than allowed by Code;7. requires the vacating and conveyance of a public street (Mark Twain Alley) to beadded to the development site; and8. requires numerous other frivolous exceptions and variances from the Code

It is my professional opinion that the City should not allow case-by-case zoning. Further, we should notallow tall buildinqs in zones other than what the Urban Design Plan prescribes... instead we should adddensity to the Core, not the edge.I respectfully ask that you reject this EIR,Kathrin MoorePlanning Commissioner


04/19/201002:23 PM

katie hopkins<[email protected]>

04/18/2010 12:52 PM

To

cc

bee

Subject File 100443 Please Reject the 555 Washington EIR

To [email protected]. [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]

cc [email protected], THD-President<[email protected]>

Subject Please Reject the 555 Washington EIR

The ErR for 555 Washington fails to adequately analyze the impacts from this project that wouldrequire "spot" re-zoning of a single parcel to double the height limit from 200 feet to 400 feet;violate the City's General Plan; cast additional shadows on 4 parks (Ferry Park, Maritime Plaza,Sidney Walton Park and Redwood Park); ignore the voter mandated Proposition Kc(which bansadditional shadows on public parks); increase wind impacts above what the Planning Codeallows; add more cars than allowed by the Code; require the vacation and conveyance of a publicstreet (Mark Twain Alley/Merchant Street) to be added to the development site; and requirenumerous other exceptions and variances from the Code.

Katie HopkinsResident

Katherine Petrin<[email protected]>

04/18/201009:33 PM

To "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,

ee "[email protected]"<[email protected]>

bee

Subject PleaseREJECT the 555 Washington Environmental ImpactReportEIR

Dear Supervisor:

I am writing in support of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers appeal on the proposed project at 555Washington and ask you to please reject this badly flawed Environmental Impact Report.

I have serious concerns about the proposed project and I see little to like. The 15 March article in theArchitect's Journal, which may have come to your attention (see link below), provides an excellentanalysis of the potential detriment that this proposed project poses to the urban fabric of thesurrounding neighborhoods not to mention Its broader Implications.

http://archpaper.com/e-board rev.asp?News ID=4338

Apart from the obvious worrying issues associated with this project, such as case-by-case zoning, "spotzoning," doubling of the height limit, shadows on public parks and the flouting of other zoningregulations, this potential project in would demolish a nine-story office building at 545 Sansome Streetwhich actually does a very good job at contributing to the urban scene and streetscape, mediating theheights of the larger buildings in the Financial District to the south with the lower scale designatedhistoric district to the north. The existing building is of the right scale at that location.

I hope the Board of Supervisors will see fit to deny this project and to ensure that any future projectproposed on that site respects the existing height limits and other regulations set forth in the PlanningCode.

Sincerely,

Katherine T. Petrin, Architectural Historian & District 3 Resident

"Dee Whalen"<[email protected]>

04/18/201011:14 PM

To "[email protected]" <maiito: [email protected]>,<[email protected]>, <maiito:[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,

ee <[email protected]>

bee

Subject Please don't fall for the 555 Washington EIR

I don't like the many many evils of the project: the 400' height [Ugh!], the spot-zoning, thethumbing-of-nose of the General Plan, the increased cars -- and more. I urge you to keep our city ontrack. Please reject this project!

Dee Whalen


04/19/201002:28 PM

Tanya Hoffmoen<[email protected]>

04/19/2010 07:38 AM

To BOS Constituent Maii Distribution,

cc

bcc

Subject The 555 Washington EiR


cc

Subject The 555 Washington EIR

Dear Board of Supervisors:Please reject the 555 Washington EIR.


04/19/201002:31 PM

"Arthur Levy"<[email protected]>

04/19/201009:18 AM


cc

bcc

Subject Reject the 555 Washington EIR & support the THD appeal


cc

Subject FW: Reject the 555 Washington EiR & support the THDappeal

From: Arthur Levy [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, April 19, 20109:17 AMTo: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';'[email protected]'; 'Eric.L.Mar@sfgov,org'; '[email protected]'; 'Carmen.Chuensfqov.orq':'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'Cc: 'mailto:Board,[email protected]'Subject: Reject the 555 Washington ErR & support the THDappeal

Dear President Chiu and Supervisors:

i am writing to ask you to reject the flawed EIRfor 555 Washington as a basis for informed decision making for this

project.

The inability of the Planning Department and the project sponsor to provide the Board full, fair. and level-headed

evaluations of the numerous negative environmental impacts of this project only underscores that it is bad for San

Francisco, its people, and their future.

Send the sponsor back to the drawing board to provide the Board a truly accountable document so that you can

make an, informed decision on this project.

San Francisco is not an inexhaustible resource. You are the guardiansof the future of our fragile urban

environment. When a truly dangerous project like this one comes along.we need your full dedication to the

quality of life in our City to resist the powerful forces who would cashit in for huge short-term personal gain.

You hold the power: Vote YES on the appeal, NO on the EIR.

Sincerely,Arthur D. Levy

Gerald Hurtado<[email protected]>

04/19/201010:03 AM

To David,[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],

cc [email protected], [email protected]

bee

SUbject Please Reject the 555 Washington EIR

Dear Supervisor:

Regarding the ErR for the proposed new development at 555 Washington Street,this is to request you to grant the appeal and reject this badly flawed ElR.

Sincerely,Gerry HurtadoP.O. Box 330324San Francisco, CA94133-0324


04/19/2010 11 :42 AM

"Michael Schoolnik"<[email protected]>

04/16/2010 09:44 PM


cc

bcc

SUbject File 100443 Please Reject the555 Washington EIR


cc <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Subject Please Reject the555 Washington EIR

Supervisor Chiu,

The EIR fails to adequatelyanaiyze the impacts from this project that would require spot re-zoning of asingle parcel to double the height limit: from 200 feet to 400 feet; violate the City's General Plan; castadditional shadows on 4 parks (Ferry Park, Maritime Plaza, SidneyWalton Park and Redwood Park);ignore the voter mandated Proposition K (which bans additional shadows on public parks); increase windimpacts above what the Planning Code allows; add more cars than allowed by the Code; require thevacation and conveyance of a public street (Mark Twain Alley/MerchantStreet) to be added to thedevelopment site; and require numerous other exceptions and variances from the Code.

I am asking you to please Reject the 555 Washington EIR &support the THO appeal.

Respectfully,

Michael Schoolnik

1569 Clay Street

SF, CA 94109

l OO<-f L( [email protected]

04/18/201003:11 AM

To [email protected], bevan.dufty@sfgov,org,Ross,[email protected], Michela.Alioto-Pier@sfgov,org,[email protected], chris,daiy@sfgov,org,

cc [email protected], president@thd,org

bcc

SUbject 555 WASHINGTON: EXISTiNG ZONiNG HASCOMPELLING LOGiC

TO: Honorable Board of SupervisorsRE: REJECT THE 555 WASHINGTON EIRBELOW: Previous Communications

Equitable application of code and law needs to override special interests on a single parcel.At the 555 Washington's prime location, almost any design would be extremely profitable, Actually, a priorowner had proposed a code-complying mid-rise building at the same site---adhering to zoning, height,bulk, shadow restrlcnons..If any other average citizen were to propose multiple variances, pre-conditions, transfer developmentrights (over open space) and "possible" acquisition of a city street (at bargain prices) for a larger and tallerbuilding, the project would likely not be given any credence.Zoning compliance would generate jobs more quickly.With universal support and code-compliance, the project could simplify design, approvals and financing,A city planning process needs to be independent of political planning.It is bad precedence for developers with financial means to organize political! community support, in orderto circumvent multiple zoning requirements.Existing zoning has a history of evolution and logic.North of Market, the SF General Plan and the Chinatown Plan established a stepping down of height fromMarket St. to Washington St. Partly, it was a transition to the Mediterranean-scale of North Beach!Chinatown! Jackson Square. But it was also a form of zoning protection against the economic pressuresto push tall buildings northward, e,g, Telegraph Hill highrises, International Hotel Tower, City College, 555Colombo Building site, 555 Washington etc. For the last previous decades, and many future decades tocome, powerful development interests will ALWAYS probe for ways to maximize profits in some of themost desirable real estate in the world,Zoning protects San Francisco's major tourist attractions, neighborhood scale! character! uniqueness,affordability, diversity, writers, artists etc,

Regards,Howard Wong, AlA

* * * * * * * *555 WASHINGTON: NAGGING DOUBTS ABOUT PREMISESTO: Honorable Members of the Planning Commission and Recreation & Parks CommissionCC: John Rahaim, Planning Director, Phil Ginsburg (GM Rec-Park) and Board President ChiuRE: 555 WASHINGTON····NAGGING DOUBTS ABOUT PREMISES

First, I do grasp the proposed benefits of the Project---having seen three design presentations and havingvisited the site with the Project Sponsors, In my previous communique (see below "Both Sides Can beRight"), I stressed that alternative designs could satisfy both the Project Sponsors and neighborhoodorganizations.But like magicians Who frame the conditions for a magic act, I had nagging doubts about thedebate's premises. These premises of planning, code and legality can help clarify projects.

• Washington Street was intended to be the boundary street for the Chinatown Plan---curbinggentrification of Chinatown's poorer residents and merchants.

• Washington Street has historically been and referenced as the transition boundary to thelower-scaled Jackson Square Historic District and North Beach. EXisting zoning reinforces a steppingdown of scale from the Financial District to the northern neighborhoods.• Currently, there exists a one-story building (with Sai's Restaurant) fronting Washington St., next tothe Pyramid and Redwood Park. This stepping-down scale DOES FIT WELL into the neighborhood.• The Transamerica Pyramid has become an icon, and necessitates visibility from all vantagepoints. The proposed 555 Washington Tower blocks iconic views from the Embarcadero alongWashington St. to Columbus Ave.• Allowable Floor Areas for the site as a whole need to be evaluated. The two existing high-riseseach met legal mandates for their individual approvals. The Planning Department should studyhow previous Floor Areas were calculated---the assumed building footprints, approvals derived fromRedwood Park, any conditions established for code exceptions or variances ....• In calculating its Floor Areas! FAR, the proposed 555 Washington Project should not assume afalse footprint that includes city-owned Merchant Street, previously dedicated open space orpreviously assumed footprints of other existing bUildings.• The purchase of Merchant Street appears necessary for the proposed project's increased bulkand height---not merely an homage to open space, which can be added in any other design scheme.• Incrementally over time, additional shadow impacts on multiple city parks would make the ShadowOrdinance inconsequential---and a violation of law.• Sunlight is also a function of zoning, with the stepping-down of scale along Washington St.assuring sunlight to Jackson St., Merchant St. and adjoining neighborhoods.• If Merchant Street were to remain city-owned property, a lease option could generate muchneeded long-term revenue for the City.• If a series of benefits for a single Project Sponsor were to be initiated, this would constitutea political planning process rather than a City Planning process----especially when win-windesigns exist.

Yours Truly,Howard Wong, AlAPh: 982-5055

* * * * * * * *555 WASHINGTON: BOTH SIDES CAN BE RIGHTTO: Honorable Members of the Planning CommissionCC: John Rahaim, Planning Director and President Chiu, Board of SupervisorsRE: 555 WASHINGTON---A MORE BALANCED CONTEXTUAL VIEWBOTH SIDES CAN BE RIGHTAs an architect and neighborhood advocate, I find that sometimes both sides of land-use debates can beright. Digging down to fundamentals, more elegant design solutions can emerge---relatively satisfying toall "combatants".DESIGN OF 555 WASHINGTONThe architectural design has evolved nicely: Larger open space, activated Merchant Street, a slenderglassy tower, good separation! contrast to the iconic Pyramid, long-term maintenance package..... Thecontroversy is multiple variances, and the historical threats of large-scale development into JacksonSquare, Chinatown, North Beach and northward. As in many cities, there is great anquish aboutneighborhood affordability, character, scale, historicism, uniqueness... Incrementally over time, perhapsmoving so slowly as to lull complacency, such development has occurred, e.g. the International HotelTower, City College Chinatown Campus, Ellis Act evictions, height! density rezonings .... There's soundurban design logic in stepping heights downward at Washington Street---per existing zoning codes andthe San Francisco General Plan.HEIGHT VARIANCEThe question remains: Does a lower height necessarily negate all of the Project's proposedbenefits and the Project Sponsor's goals?In this case, NO. Even with a larger building footprint, Redwood Park can still be enlarged with the

removal of the conference center and restaurantadditions. MerchantStreet can still be redesigned as apedestrian realm. The tower can still taper at the upper floors. The building's location still commandshigh market values.SHADOW IMPACTSOver a long periodof time, the cumulative impacts of "small", "harmless"variances and spot rezonings willbe detrlrnental-v-unless variances are reserved for extremely rare situationsthat have no other possiblealternatives. In the case of 555 Washington, there are designalternatives.SEEKING ELEGANT DESIGN SOLUTIONSFor 555 Washington, the Project Sponsor's goals can be achieved with a building of less height;and more importantly, maintain the objectives of zoning and neighborhood preservation.Architectural designand height can take different forms-c-all of which can be attractive, profitable, sociallyresponsible, compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, filled with local art , sustainable, green etc. Alower tower, with projecting bay windows, can take an interesting form and step back from the Pyramidand the Jackson Square Historic District. Merchant Street can be coveredwith glass Parisian canopies,creating year-round space. At this site, a transparent glass mid-rise building would command high prices.The proposed design can evoive-v-because all stakeholders will benefit, without prolonged debates anddeleys-v-for the long-term bettermentof San Francisco.Best Regards,Howard Wong, AlA

Julian Standen<[email protected]>

04/17/201007:37 PM

To [email protected], [email protected],[email protected]

ee

bee

SUbject Parking Meters

I object to proposed increases in parking meters.Cut the bureaucracy, don't raise fees.

Mayor Newsome, why do you think I'd vote for someone who increasestaxes?

Julian Standen3525 BroderickSF

Chestnut Street Parking Meters


ec [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]. guriwalia <[email protected]>, [email protected],

bee

Subject

Guri Walia<[email protected]>

04/17/201009:01 PM

We do not want-Any increase in fees on meters-Extended meters-Meters on Sunday

Thank You,

Guri


04/19/201002:42 PM

Frank Lee<[email protected]>

04/19/2010 11:22AM


ec

bee

Subject NO to Sunday meters


ee

Subject NO to Sunday meters

Please DO NOT extend meters to IOpm and have meters active on Sunday's!!! This will hurtbusinesses in all SF neighborhoods. Thank you.

Frank LeeLee Neighborhood Theaters, SF

[email protected]

04/19/201010:55 AM


ee

bee

Subjeet Parking Meter Fee Abuse!

Mayor Newsom, MTA Board and Supervisors:

The public that parks on San Francisco's streets every day is more than happy to helpoffset some of the lost City revenue and failure to adhere to a reasonable budget. But,we are not going to constantly carry the entire brunt of irresponsible governmentmanagement. Many bus routes have been eliminated or have had service reduced andparking fees have already been raised by over 10%.

When the the MTA supervisors and staff have reduced staffing and their pay 10%, cuttheir vacation and benefits 10%; when the Supervisors reduce the City spending acrossthe board by 10%; when the Mayor's office also cuts it's staff and services and staff payand benefits by 10% so that we have a 10% ACROSS-THE-BOARD reduction in ALLCity costs, then the public will be happy to participate in the next 5% or 10% reductionin services or increase in parking fees.

Geoff WoodBaker Street


04/19/201002:42 PM

Patricia Houden<[email protected]>

04/19/2010 11:09 AM


cc

bcc

SUbject opposed to parking meters increase


cc

SUbject opposed to parking meters increase

I am a homeowner in San Francisco and I am opposed to parking meterfee and time increases.

Instead, why don't we actively fine people who do not comply with thedog ordinance. It would provide employment, generate city revenue, andclean up our streets and beaches and make them safer.

Pat Houden2780 Filbert Street

[email protected]

04/19/201010:40 AM


cc

bec

Subject Resident of the Marina, and Board member of MarinaCommunity Association protests extended meter hours andSunday meter hours

1 attachment

~chnia-parking alert.pdf

Dear Honorable Newsom, MTA Board and members of San Francisco Board of Supervisors,I am Kat Anderson, a 22-year resident of San Francisco, a resident of District 2 and theMarina, a property owner and a businesswoman in District 2:I protest the extension of parking meter hours beyond 6 pm. I protest the extension ofmetering hours to Sundays. We do not need such extensions in the Chestnut Streetbusiness district.If the MTA imposes such extensions, it will cause negative impacts on the residents of theMarina living close to the Chestnut Street business district. People will opt to park in theneighborhoods rather than pay more fees for parking. They already do so during the day.At night, after 6 prn, we residents actually experience a break because folks can park freeon Chestnut, and the turnover is good because they are having a meal or doing a littleshopping and moving on.Please know that residents parking in the business district is NOT an issue. We park in ourhomes or in front of our homes as much as we can. We do not opt to park at meters. Sucha notion is ridiculous,Merchants' and restauranteurs' businesses will be harmed by extended metering hours.People wiil make less trips or they wili learn to avoid the area that has "too much" metering.I urge you as a resident and as a member of the board of directors of the Marina CommunityAssociation not to implement such changes.Please note that when Mr. Jay Primus of the MTA attended a neighborhood meeting in lateMarch at the Palace of the Fine Arts theatre, over 100 people in attendance voted NOT toextend hours. In fact, when the group was polled, not one person wanted metering hoursextended and only one person voted to have Sunday hours. It was stark proof that theneighbors do not want these proposed changes.Sincerely,Kat Anderson65 Avila Street (one block N of Chestnut Street)SF, CA 94123(415)776-3645-------- Original Message -------Subject: Have you sent these?From: patricia vaughey <[email protected]>Date: Mon, April 19, 20109:18 amTo: [email protected], kae amphi <[email protected]>

Have you sent your email in to the MTA,Gavin and the Board of supervisors

per attached information?

Have you sent this information to your friends and requested for them tosend emails also?

Patricia vaughey

[email protected]

04/19/2010 10:26 AMTo [email protected]

cc [email protected], [email protected]

bcc

Subject (no subject)

Dear Sir:I am strongly opposed to the proposed changes in the parking meters on Chestnut Street. Specifically, Iam opposed to the following:-extending meter time on any day-uslng meters on Sunday-any increases in meter fees

Please support me in this opposition. It will only make parkingworse. Barry Bone

Mary Smith<[email protected]>

04/19/2010 09:59 AMPlease respond to

Mary Smith<[email protected]>


cc Kelly Keiser <[email protected]>

bcc

Subject Neighborhood Merchants and parking

bcc

'Plna, Jesse'!<[email protected]>

04/19/2010 09:08 AM

To "[email protected]"<[email protected]>,"Gavin,Newsome@sfgov,org"<[email protected]>,

cc "Pacurnlo, Jackie" <Jackle.Pacumlogpcrunch.corn>,"Cotruvo, Kate" <Kate.Cotruvo@crunch,com>,"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,

SUbject your meter proposals

Hello,I am a person who works in the Marina district and your proposed idea to raise themeter fees and extend them onto Sundays is an idea that will only create more chaosand frustration as many of us who work in the service industry cannot and will not affordsuch increases and changes to our parking options. I can only hope this idea does notcome to fruition, otherwise, my vote in future elections as a resident in this fair city willbe scrutinized and applied to those who can better serve my community and others aswell without having to divert hard earned income to supplement your pay.Thanks,

Jesse PinaFront Desk MOD

Crunch2324 Chestnut StreetSan Francisco, CA 94123Direct: 415-292-8470Fax: 415-292-8473

The information contained inthis emailmessage is intended only foruseof the individual orentity named above. If the reader ofthis message is notthe intended recipient, orthe employee oragent responsible todeliver it to the intended recipient, you arehereby notified thatanydissemination, distribution orcopying ofthis communication is strictly prohibited. If you havereceived thiscommunicatio'n inerror, please immediately notlty usbyemail([email protected]). anddestroy the original message. ThankYou.

domlnic maionchl<dm567@pacbell,net>

04/19/201008:44 AM

To mtaboard@sfmta,com, gavin,newsom@sfgov,org,board.ot.supervisorsepstqov.orq

cc Kathy Maionchi <[email protected]>, Patricia Vaughey<[email protected]>

bcc

Subject Parking meters

Dear MTA Board, Mr. Newsom, and Board of Supervisors,

When will insanity stop? Even considering running meters until 10 pm and on Sunday is crazy,Raising fees beyond the already excessive fees is just as crazy.

There will eventually be repercussions to such acts that are against the best interests of SFresidents. People will eventually get angry and rightfully so in my opinion. I am already angry,

You can fix your problems by NOT SPENDING SO MUCH. Don't fix the problems on thebacks of SF residents!

Regards,dominic [email protected]

Arlella Elia<[email protected]>

04/18/2010 11:22 AM


cc

bce

Subject parking meter extension alert

I, Ariella Elia, have been informed that the San Francisco Department of Parking andTraffic are trying to extend meters until 10 PM, have meters on Sunday, and raise thefees up to $6.00 an hour. This is ridiculous. You are already raising prices everywhere,and raising fees up to $6.00 an hour is getting out of hand. Even if you're trying toget people to ride public transportation, this is doing way too much. Give us a break,at this point we're just trying to survive. So please, we're begging you do NOT raise Iextend fees and meter times.

-Ariella Elia

Walden Jay<[email protected]>

04/19/2010 11:56 AM


ee

bee

Subject Street Meters

Please reconsider the terrible idea of extending the parking meter hours andincreasing the cost per hour. People are already taking the parking situationinto consideration when deciding whether to go to SF or elsewhere for shopping,entertainment, etc. This would only serve to make things worse for the City thatapparently has forgotten how to serve its citizens.

Julie Holliday Roehm<[email protected]>

04/12/201010:47 PM


cc

bcc

Subject Objection to T-Mobile Tower on Miraloma Church Building

Dear Ms Calvillo and Supervisors,

I object to allowing Miraloma Community ehruch to become a cell-towersite for the following reasons

1. Miraloma Church and Miraloma Park Neighborhood is zoned RH-l, thiscell tower does not comply with zoning regulations. This will effectthe property value of my home, and could impact the health of mychild, my neighbors, and all of the children attending the elementaryschool that is only two blocks away.

2. Miraloma Community Church has no congregation and does not supportthe local community. The impacted community, children and neighborsreceive no benefits from this deal, only negatives.

Thank you,

Julie Roehm


04/15/2010 03:52 PM

[email protected]

04/15/2010 03:28 PM

To Ross Mirkarimi/BOS/SFGOV, Jeremy PoiiockiBOS/SFGOV,Jason Fried/BOS/SFGOV, [email protected],

cc

bcc

Subject NO CORE AGGREGATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To "gavin.newsom." <[email protected]>

cc

SUbject NO CORE AGGREGATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm afraid your version is called SLAMMING.It was outlawed during the failure of Direct Access, have you forgotten??? The veryaction we all detested as utility rate payers when "suppliers' transferred customerswithout their knowledge.

If I want it, it WILL be MY choice to opt in, You have it backwards! you DON'T knowwhat is best for me and my energy bills.

Vote Yes on Prop 16.

A government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to takeeverything you have the course of history shows that as government grows,liberty decreases...Thomas Jefferson.

Matt C

/7

To: Angela Calvillo,Clerk of the BoardFrom: Office of the Controller

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FIt City Services AuditorOFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

AUDIT FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM

April 13, 2010

John Martin, Airport Director

Tonia Lediju, Director of Audits, City Services Auditor

en RosenfieldController

~ t;;2 to';Mtnique Zij)uda ~::. ~JJD C =11 (')/',' --'Ie uty on);o er,o.' C:) i ' .

~-O ",,:': .......:;0 \\J

SUBJECT: Results of Follow-up Review for Audit of The Hertz Corporation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Controller's City Services Auditor (CSA) Division issued an audit report on June 13,2008, titled, Concession Audit of The Hertz Corporation, on which it followed up in writing in2009. In response to our follow-up of the report's 11 recommendations, the AirportDepartment (Airport) indicated that it disagreed with two recommendations, fullyImplemented eight, and partially implemented one.

CSA assessed evidence of the Airport's implementation of the 11 recommendations, anddetermined that two were no longer applicable, eight were fully implemented, and one waspartially implemented. The Airport's actions to implement the recommendations aresummarized on pages 2 and 3, and the recommendations themselves and theimplementation status of each are presented in the attached table.

BACKGROUND & METHODOLOGY

The Hertz Corporation (Hertz) had a 1O-yearagreement with the Airport Commission of theCity and County of San Francisco (City) to operate an automobile rental service at therental car facility at San Francisco International Airport. Although the agreement expired onDecember 29, 2008, the Airport Commission and Hertz entered a new five-year agreement,which expires on December 31, 2013. The agreement requires Hertz to pay the Airport thegreater of a minimum annual guarantee or 10 percent of its gross revenues. The minimumannual guarantee was $676,908 from the start of the prior agreement through December29, 2003, and was modified to $609,218 for the period through the expiration of the prioragreement.

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, Section 8.05, prornulqated by theUnited States Government Accountability Office (GAO), CSA conducted a follow-up reviewof the agreed-upon recommendations for the audit report of June 13, 2008, ConcessionAudit of The Hertz Corporation. Section 8.05 states that the purposes of audit reportsinclude facilitating follow-up to determine whether appropriate corrective actions have beentaken. This follow-up determined whether the Airport has taken the corrective actionsneeded to implement the audit report's recommendations. In the case of recommendations

415-554-7500City Hall • 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place> Room 316· San Francisco CA 941024694 FAX 415-554-7466

of4Memo to the AirportApril 13, 2010

calling for new procedures, CSA both verified that the procedures were created andconsidered examples of the department's compliance with them.

To conduct the follow-up, CSA contacted key Airport personnel to discuss the status of thecorrective actions taken to date, verified the existence of.the procedures and processes thathave been established, and documented the resuits of the fieldwork.

RESULTS

In its March 2009 follow-up response to the audit report, the Airport reported that of theeleven recommendations, it disagreed with two recommendations, fully implemented eight,and partially implemented one, giving specific information for each recommendation (seeattached table). CSA considered the information the Airport provided, reviewed supportingdocumentation, and verified that eight recommendations have, in fact, been implementedand one partially impiemented. The Airport disagreed with two recommendations based onits interpretation of a lease agreement provision between Hertz and the Airport, whichdiffered from the audit team's interpretation. Subsequent to this audit, the lease agreementexpired and the Airport Commission and Hertz entered a new lease agreement, whichincluded a revised definition of gross revenues which both the Airport and the audit teaminterpret simiiarly.

The resuits are presented below by subject area.

Recommendations 1 and 4: Collect From Hertz Local Rental Fees of $518,371 andCommercial Discount Fees of $295,594

The Airport disagreed with these two recommendations.

Conclusion: Since the Airport disagreed with these two recommendations, it did notcollect these fees from Hertz. Therefore, the recommendations are no longer applicable.However, the new lease agreement between Hertz and the Airport Commission clarifies thedefinition of gross revenues subject to fees.

Recommendations 2. 3. and 5: Collect From Hertz Employee Business Rental Fees of$5.106. Satellite Radio Rental Fees of $7.145. and Revenue Adjustment Fees of$72,058

As recommended, Airport collected these fees from Hertz in January 2009.

Conclusion: Recommendations 2, 3, and 5 have been implemented.

Recommendation 6: Review Hertz's Account to Determine How the Application of the$270,764 Credit Failed to Result in an Outstanding Credit Balance if Hertz Paid theFull Monthly Fee for the Months in Question

The former accounting manager reviewed Hertz' account and determined that the annualtrue-up process captured any appropriate credits, and that the $270K credit was simply acorrection to the accounting system to reverse the initial erroneous entries.

of 4Memo to theAirportApril 13, 2010

Conclusion: Recommendation 6 has been implemented.

Recommendation 7: Collect From Hertz Interest of $494,255 and Audit Costs of$87,300

Since the Airport disagreed with. recommendations 1 and 4, it recalculated, adjusted, andcollected interest of $43,935. Also, as a result of the reduction of fees owed, the Airport wasno longer required to collect the $87,300 cost of the audit.

Conclusion: Recommendation 7 has been implemented.

Recommendation 8: Document the Dates the Airport Receives the Certified AnnualReports of Gross Revenues

The Airport began using a property management billing system software package in the fallof 2008, which features, among other things, a tickler system. This will help the Airportensure that reports are presented on time. Further, Airport Revenue Development andManagement staff will review Annual Certified Statements for correct format. However,Hertz forwarded the 2008 certified year-end statement to the Airport and the Airportdocumented its receipt on April 2, 2009, or two days late.

Conclusion: Recommendation 8 has been Implemented. However, the Airport shouldensure that it receives its certified year-end statements before March 31", as required bythe agreement.

Recommendation 9: Work With Hertz to Determine the Fees Owed From Local RentalRevenue, Employee Business Rental Revenue, Satellite Radio Revenue, CommercialDiscount Deductions, and Adjustment Deductions for the Period Before and After theAudit Period

The Airport collected from Hertz fees owed from satellite radio rentals for the relevantperiods before and after the audit period. However, no fees have been collected foremployee business rental revenue or for adjustment deductions. Since the Airport disagreedwith recommendations 1 and 4 on local rentals and commercial discounts, it did not collectany fees for these revenue types.

Conclusion: Recommendation 9 has been partially implemented.

Recommendations 10 and 11: Require Hertz to Include in Gross Revenue LocalRentals and Satellite Radio, and to Discontinue Deducting Employee BusinessRentals, Commercial Discounts, and Adjustments from Gross Revenues. InclUde inthe New Agreement with Hertz a Comprehensive Definition of Gross Revenues andExclusions to Gross Revenues

The Airport now has a new lease agreement with Hertz, which became effective on January1, 2009, The new lease does include an all-inclusive definition of gross revenues. It alsoincludes a few very clearly stated deductions. Any transaction that is not specificallyallowed as a deduction will be considered gross revenues for which fees will be assessed.

Conclusion: Recommendations 10 and 11 have been implemented.

of 4Memo to the AirportApril 13, 2010

CSA extends its appreciation to you and your staff who assisted with this follow-up. If youhave any questions or concerns, please call or e-mail Audit Manager Elisa Sullivan at (415)554-7654 or [email protected].

cc: Cheryl Nashir, Associate Deputy Airport Director, AirportJohn Reeb, Sr. Principal Property Manager, AirportMatthew McCormick, Principal Property Manager, AirportBen Rosenfield, ControllerRobert Tarsia, Deputy Audit Director, CSAVivian Chu, Associate Auditor, CSA

Memo to the AirportApril 13, 2010

ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2

3

The Airport Departmentshould collect from Hertz thefollowing fees owed: localrental fees of $518,371.

Collect from Hertz thefollowing fees owed:employeebusiness rentalfees of $5,106.

Collect from Hertz thefollowing fees owed: satelliteradio rental fees of $7,145.

Under the Lease, Hertz must pay "Gross Revenue" for"all vehicles rented at the Airport." (Lease Article3.01.a) The Lease defines vehicles rented at the Airportjf "the rental car customer isan airpassenger who rentsa vehicle within 24 hours of arriving at the Airport."(Lease Article 30.1.a.lii) Taken together, the Airportinterprets this language to require Hertz to onlycalculate gross revenue for thosevehicles rented by airpassengers arriving at-theAirport within 24 hours.Thus, Hertz is not required to calculated gross revenueforcertain "Local Rentals," those customers who arenotair passengers arriving within the last24 hours.Provided Hertz adequately documents these "LocalRentals." the Airport considers said rentals as notincluded in the calculation of gross revenue.Completed.

Completed.

Not applicable, since the Airportdisagreed with the recommendation.

However. the new lease agreementbetween Hertz and the AirportCommission, which became effectiveJanuary 1, 2009, clarifies the definitionof gross revenues 'subject to fees.

Obtained copy of payment check.


Implemented.

Implemented.

A-1

Memo to the AirportApril 13, 2010

Collect from Hertz thefollowing fees owed:commercial discount fees of$295,594.

The Airport has consulted with the City Attorney's Officeand believesthe languagestated in Lease Article3.01.a, "without deduction or offset"does not includeany commercial or promotional discounts offered byHertz to third parties. While the language may causeconfusion, the Airport maintains that Hertz must payGross Revenues based ontheamount received.

Not applicable, since the Airportdisagreedwith the recommendation.

However, the new lease agreement.between Hertz and the AirportCommission, which became effectiveJanuary 1, 2009, clarifies the definitionof gross revenues subject to fees.

Not applicable.

5

6

7

Collect from Hertz thefollowing fees owed: revenueadiustment fees of $72,058.Review Hertz'account todetermine howthe applicationof the $270,764 credit failedto result in an outstandingcredit balance if Hertz paidthe full monthly fee for themonths in question.

Collect from Hertz Interest of$494,255 and audit costs of$87,300.

Completed.

Completed.

Hertz paid an adjusted amount for interest based uponthe comments above. Collection of audit costs are nolongerrequired based on the reduced amountcollected.


The Airport confirmed that it hadreviewed Hertz' paymenthistory shortlyafter the auditwas completed in June2008, and is confident that the credit wasproperly accounted foras a correction tothe initial erroneous entries.

Obtained copy of payment check.Verified that Hertz paid $43,935 intereston an adjusted amount, which .does notinclude the two amounts ($518,371 and$295,594) in recommendations 1 and 4that the Airport did not agree with.

Implemented.

Implemented.

Impiemented.

A-2

Memo to the AirportApril 13,2010

8

9

10

Document the dates that itreceives the annual reports ofgross revenues and ensurethe annual reports arecertified by a certified publicaccountant as required bythelease,

Work with Hertz to determinethe fees owed from locairental revenue, employeebusiness rental revenue,satellite radio revenue,commercial discountdeductions, and adjustmentdeductions for the periodsbeforeand after ourauditperiod.

Require Hertz to include ingross revenues local rentalsand satellite radio. and todiscontinue deductingemployee business rentals,commercial discounts, andadjustments from grossrevenues.

This process is underway.

Completed.

Obtained sample of screen print of billingsystem tickler. Also, obtaineddocumentation of the Airport's receipt ofHertz' 2008 certified report on April 2,2009, or 2 days late. The leaseagreementrequires that Hertz submit itscertified annual report by March 31st ofeach year.

The Airport disagreed with collection oflocal rental revenueand commercialdiscount deductions (seerecommendations 1 and 4), so it did notrequestpaymentfor those amounts. InOctober 2007, Hertz remitted satellitefees for the periods November 15, 2002,through December 29, 2002 (satellitefees did not existprior to November 15,2002) and January 1, 2006, throughSeptember 30, 2007 in the amount of$6,872.75 and then beqan paying itmonthlybeginning October 2007. TheAirport has requested, but Hertz has notprovided, documentation to showthatHertz submitted (or does not owe) feesfor employeebusiness rental revenueoradjustment deductions for the periodsbefore and after the audit period.Obtained new lease that becameeffective January 1, 2009. Found that itdoes include an all-inclusive definition ofgrossrevenues. Grossrevenues doesexclude all non-revenue rentals made toHertz employees.

Implemented,but the Airportshould ensurethat it receivesits certifiedannual report bythe requireddate.

PartiallyImplemented.

implemented.

A-3

Memo to the AirportAprii 13, 2010

11 Include in itsnew agreementwith Hertz. a comprehensivedefinition ofgross revenuesand exclusions togrossrevenues that both partiesagree to and understand.

Obtained new lease that becameeffective January 1, 2009. Found that itdoes include an all-inclusive definition ofgross revenues and exclusions togrossrevenuesthat both parties agreed to.

A-4


04/19/2010 02:26 PM

Kelly Seldan<[email protected]>Sent by:[email protected]

04/18/2010 11 :55 PM

To JohnAvalos/BOS/SFGOV,

cc

bcc

Subject Fw:Attn: SupervisorJohn Avalos RE: McLaren Park


cc

SUbject Attn: Supervisor John Avalos RE: McLarenPark

Greetings Supervisor Avalos,

I just received an email from a friend concerned about the approved 18-hole Disc Golf course atMcLaren Park. She tells me it was approved without community input. If this is the case, I think the projectshould be reconsidered and that the community should be involved in the discussions. I am also deeplyconcerned about the environmental impact of this change!

I would like to strongly encourage you to re evaluate this project and help to protect the voices of thecommunity and the health of the park!!

Thank you for your attention.

Best,

Kelly Seldan, Resident of District 13

Kelly Seldan

kellyseldan.com

[email protected]

415.994.9699

Board of To John Avalos/BOS/SFGOV,Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV

cc SophieMaxweIl/BOS/SFGOV,04/19/201011:50 AM

bcc

Subject SupervisorAvalos

[email protected]

04/17/201002:00 PM To [email protected]

cc

SUbject SupervisorAvalos

Dear Supervisor Avalos,

I am writing you regarding McLaren Park and the approved proposal by SF Park & Rec to incorporate an18-hole Disc Golf course. I am voicing my concerns due to the following reasons:

• The Disc Golf course was approved without community knowledge or input.• The proposed 18-hole course is too large, taking up possibly 1/3 or 1/4 of the park's natural

habitat of open and untouched fields.• Natural habitat and wildlife would be disturbed:• Open fields of grass, plants and trees would be destroyed as the players run through the area.• The inherent serenity and beauty of the park would be greatly reduced by the placement of 18

metal baskets, as well as signs marking Disc Golf rules and boundaries.• This is a game played by a small percentage of people with the advantage of taking up so much

of the park's open fields.• No other activity takes up so much acreage; unlike soccer, basketball, baseball, football or

playground areas, which have smaller and clearer field boundaries and uses.• With Disc Golfs proposed marked boundaries, it is certain the boundaries will be crossed by

players chasing frisbees.• No other activity has its players freely run through open fields, which are meant to be open fields

for trees, plants and wildlife.• The park's wildlife need protection and natural beauty require preservation.

My questions:

• How was this approved without the surrounding communities' knowledge or input?• What are the benefits?• What are the costs to the enivronment?• What are the possible solutions to preserve McLaren?• Is compromise possible?

Some of Disc Golf players promises and response:• To pick up garbage:

• There is no garbage left on the open spaces and fields of McLaren. Garbage is only left indesignated picnic areas and park entrances.

• Redtail Hawks and Owis are 'thriving' in Golden Gate Park:• McLaren's wildlife are not accustomed to people and their sport activities.

• To give way to pedestrians, dogs and children:• Pedestrians are respecting McLaren's beauty by staying on pathways and the players are

not? Something is wrong with this scenario.• There is not cost to SF. The work will be done by volunteers.

• It may not be a monetary cost for SF, but it will cost us in loss of quality of life andpreservation of the park.

McLaren is a haven of nature. Please protect it.

Thank you for your time, attention and consideration in this matter.

G~ N. 'RVt41'1.OY

750 Persia AvenueSF, CA94112

CC: Sophie Maxwell

This email may contain confidential and/or privileged material for the soleuse of the above designated recipient(s). Any review, use, distributionand/or disclosure by or to others not designated or authorized to receivethis email is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, pleasecontact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

Francisco Da Costa<[email protected]>

04118/2010 11:26 AM

To Francisco Da Costa <[email protected]>

cc


Subject Lennar swimming in the cesspool of its own creation.

Lennar swimming in the cesspool of its own creation:

. http://www.franciscodacosta.orWarticles/environ124.html

Francisco Da Costa

cc

To Ross Mirkarimi <ross.mirkarlrnigpstqov.orp>, Ross Mirkarimi<[email protected]>, Vallie Brown<[email protected]>, Rick Galbreath

bee

Subject Re: request for friendly amendments to the DRAFT SFBoard of Voting Resolution

Please respond [email protected]

m

04/13/2010 02:49 PM

Get Out The Jail Vote<[email protected]>

~041310 Input to DRAFT by GOTJV Proposed SF Board of SupervisorsVotingRightsResolution 040710.doc

Please see attached draft for friendly amendments request for the Proposed SF Board of Supervisors Voting~1)O1V"ilt/1r 040710. f:', 4'f~f;;

.I

Thank you, Tommy Escarcega 510.409.1662

FILE NO. RESOLUTION NO.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

[Urging the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Corrections StandardsAuthority to Implement Guidelines to Ensure Voting Access for Eligible Offenders.]

Resolution Urging the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's

Corrections Standard Authority to Adopt Specific Guidelines for County Sheriffs and

Departments of Corrections, in Order to Facilitate Voting Among Eligible Incarcerated

Individuals.

WHEREAS, the right to vote is fundamental - and a critical way that individuals

participate in our democratic society; and

WHEREAS, California courts have specifically held that convicted felons who are

sentenced to county jailor placed on probation are entitled to vote; and

WHEREAS the San Francisco Sheriff's Department has implemented model protocols

and procedures for ensuring that all inmates who are eligible to vote can do so; and

WHEREAS these critical steps have not been taken in other counties, resulting in the

disenfranchisement of eligible voters - and a fundamental barrier to civic engagement for

these individuals; and

WHEREAS the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Corrections

Standards Authority (CDCR/CSA), which oversees all county jails, has been silent on this

issue; therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco

hereby urges the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Corrections

Standard Authority (CDCR/CSA) to adopt specific guidelines for county sheriff's custody

divisions and county departments of corrections, in order to facilitate ensure the option of

Supervisor MirkarimiBOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1

4/13/201043104/2010<j'\d9Cl1mll~1\pney!n\locB!~dl!!!mp\nq!esm6!l2\Q41310lopu!!o dmO by oo1!y proposed sf board of

1 voluntarv, unobstructed, timely, confidential, and informed access to voting among eligible

2 incarcerated individuals,

3

4 RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco

5 herby urges the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Corrections

6 Standards Authority (CDCR's/CSA) to issue a memorandum of these guidelines to all sheriffs

7 and custody divisions within their jurisdiction,

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Supervisor MirkarimiBOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2

4/13/2010~

c'\d!X:llme~1\pnf:y!nYOCfl!MI!l!mp\oQlesfff69?\Q4131!! IOfl!ll tp droll by goUyP(QP~..Qf

From:To:Date:Subject:Sent by:

Controller Reporls/CON/SFGOV

04/12/201001:34 PMMemorandum Issued: Community-based Long Term Care Fiscal AnalysisPatti Erickson

The Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor, has released the results of its analysis of theCity's community-based long term care (LTC) spending. Conducted at the request ofcommunity stakeholders and sponsored by the Human Services Agency and Department ofPublic Health, the project compiled three years of spending for home and community-basedservices where funding is administered by the City and County of San Francisco. The analysisshowed a total of $726 million in community-based LTC spending for FY 2009-2010 includingfederal and state resources.

To view the memo, please visit our website at:http://co.sfgov.org/webreports/details.aspx?id=1117

This is a send only email address.

SFLC San FranciscoLab.orCouncil

so.!> -II

1188 Franklin Street, Suite 203, San Francisco, CA 94109' Phone: (415) 440-4809 • Fax: (415) 440-9297 • www.sllaborcol.Jncil.org

EX.ECunve DIRECTORTIMPAUlSON

PRESIOENTMIKE CASEY

UNlTEHERE2

SECRETARY TREASURERJOSl£MOONEY

seu1021

VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLmCAlACi1vmESCONNY FORO

OPE:U3

VICE PRESIDENT~R AFRLlATE SUPPORTLARRY MAZZOLA. SR.

_38

CEPRESIDENT FOR COMMUNITY ACi1VITIESHOWARQWAllACE

Pricleal\'lolll

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEALAN BENJAMIN

0P8U3

RAfAEL CABRERA1WU250·A

EX.CROWLEY1111$£16

DAMITADAVl5.HOWARD5EIU1021

OSCAR DE LATORRE""""261

ALLAo"l FISHERAFT2121

ART GONZALEZlAM14J4

JOHN HANLEY,IIIF!I'()f<ghters798

MtCHAEl HARDEMANS@1&DisrJay510

DENNIS KEllYUnited EdocatorsofStlnfrar'l,';isco

GUNNAR LUNDEBERGsailors Uniortolthe Padf~

ROSA FAYE MARSHALLCWW

FRANK MARTIN DEL CAMPOLelM

LARRY MAZZOlA,JR.","""38

OlGAMIRANDASE1V87

ROOCRT MORAlF.sTe.3msters350

April 8, 20 I0

San Francisco Board of SupervisorsCity HallI Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Board of Supervisors,

Enclosed please find a copy of the resolution urging the California LaborFederation to oppose Proposition 16 on the June 8, 2010 ballot. It was adoptedat the San Francisco Labor Council's executive committee meeting on April 5,2010.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this resolution.

Sincerely,

Tim PaulsonExecutive Director

JOHN O'ROURKE!flEW6

fREQPEC1\ERILWU6

CRiSS ROMEROIFPTE21

MICHAEL SHARPEUfCW6Il8

MiCHAEL THERIAULTSF8ui'dingTraoesCo\lncil

JOHNULRfCHUFCW10l

JAMES WRIGHTSElU 1877

SERGEANTATARMSHENEKEllY

ueer O:!LJC3ltxSofSan nececc

lilUSTE€SVAN BEANE

Tllam1>lers8'J6

HQWAROGRAYSONSElUUHW

CIAIREZVANSKIIFPTE21

SECRETARY lilEASURER EMERITUSWALTER t. JOHNSON

opeiu3afl-cio(11)

UNITY Is STRENGTH!

fT'

.<fT!o

.~.,

EXECUTlVE DIRECTORTIM?AULSON

PRESIDENTMIKECA$f.Y

UNITEH(RE2

SECRETARYlREASURERJOSIE W,ooNEY

SEIU 1021

VICE PRESIDENT FORPOUTlCALACTNIT1ESCDNNYFDRD

OPEIU3

VICE PRESIDENT FOR AffiLIATE SUPPORTLARRY MAUOLA,51<.

_38

VICE PRESIDENT FORCOMMUNITY AC11VIT1ESHOWARD WALlACE

PrlOOatlM:>rk

exECUTIVE COMMrrTEEALANBENJAMIN

OPEIU3

RAFAELCABRERATWU2".;.(}A

F>:.CROWLEYIATSE l6

DAMITADAVl&.HOWARDSEIU 1021

OSCAR DELATORREl1lbOJers261

ALLAN FISHERAFT2121

ART GONZALEZlAM1414

JOHN HANlEY, InF<reljgtlters 798

M1CHAaHARDEMANSign&D/spI3y51O

DENNIS KEllYurn!ed Educa.'ors orseiFrancisco

GUNNAR LUNDEBERGSab's Unlonoflhe Paclfo:;

Resolution Urging the California Labor Federation to Actively Oppose Proposition 16 ontheCaliforniaJune 8,2010 State Ballot

Whereas, a private utility corporation, PG&E, has piaced an initiative Proposition 16 on the June 8, 2010California State Baliot to insure itsown monopoly control of the market from Eureka to Bakersfield against anyattempt by any public agency to offer residents and businesses any alternative source of energy unless theycan garner support from two-thirds of the affected residents and voters, but only requires 50% +1topass; and

Whereas, Proposition 16 would further imprint the tyranny of the minority two-thirds voting requirement in theCalifornia State Constitution, and further weaken the effort toestablish majority rule; and

Whereas, PG&E has spent nearly $30 miliion to date using the same deceptive advertising and lobbying forProposition 16 as US employers used to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, claiming their initiative formonopoly control is instead a voters' rights issue; and '

Whereas, PG&E is aliowed tospend unlimited rate payer monies promoting itsown self-serving initiative, whilecompeting public power agencies are not permitted tospend their money tosay what's wrong with Proposition16; and

Whereas, Proposition 16 would force local utilities like Palo Alto, Silicon Valiey Power, and SacramentoMunicipal Utility District to get two-thirds voter approval in a costly election. process to expand their serviceswhiie PG&E would be abie tospend unlimited money tofight such competition; and

Whereas, the San Francisco Labor Council isonrecord insupport ofmajority ruie and opposing the two-thirdsvoting requirement for levying taxes and adopting the state budget; and

OPEIU3 AFL·CIO 11

Submitted by Denis Mosgofian, GCC-IBT 4N/388M; Ron Dicks, IFPTE 21; Tom Edminster, UESF; RogerScott, AFT 2121; Maria Guillen, SEIU 1021; Howard Wallace, Pride At Work; and Tami Bryant, CSEA 1000and adopted by the Executive Committee ofthe San Francisco Labor Council on AprilS, 2010,

Be It Finally Resolved, that the SFLC also send this resolution to the Mayor, each member of the Board ofSupervisors, six ofwhom are already signatory toa resolution from the Board opposing Proposition 16.

Therefore Be It Resolved, the San Francisco Labor Council communicate this resolution to Art Pulaski andurge the California Labor Federation to actively oppose Proposition 16 on the June 8, 2010 State Baliot,PG&E's deceptive propaganda that it is a voting rights issue, and Prop, 16's undemocratic two-thirds votingrequirement, as further undermining the effort to establish majority rule at the ballot box; and

Be It Further Resolved, the SFLC immediately send this resolution to its affiliates ina blast fax, and toits sisterLabor Councils in the Greater Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego areas urging they actwithout delay to urge the State Federation of Labor to oppose Proposition 16 at the upcoming State LaborConvention and,

CtA1RE ZVANSKlIFPTE21

ROSA FAYE MARSHAllCUJW

fRANK MARTIN DElCAMPOWM

LARRY MilllOLA. JRPlllIl1b?Js38

OLGA MIRANDA58U87

ROBERT MORAlESTeamslen:350

JOHN O'ROURKE1B!W'

FREDPECKERIlWU6

CRiSS ROMEROIFPTE21

MICHAfLSHARPEUfCW64S

MICHAEL THERIAULTSFBui'ding Trades Cwncil

JQHNULRICHUFCW10l

)AMESWRIGHTSEIUl877

SERGEANTATARMS ReSp~tfUIlYHENEKELLY . '

UfliledEdt.eawolS,m rercsco -'~'~''''_~~~'_~~''..

TRUSTEES \

. T=~: \. ~tv _QHOWARD GRAYSON Tim Paulson ' 1"\

SEIUUHW

Executive Director

SECRfTARYTREA$URER EMERITUSWAlTERLJOHNSON

UNITY Is STRENGTH!

GRAY PANTHERS1182 Market Street, Room 203San Francisco, CA 94102Telephone: (415) 552-8800

OF SAN FRANCISCO

co

,.~~f;~Vl

-Ed Harrington, General Manager, Public Utilities CommissionliS5 Market Street, II th floorSan Francisco, California 94102Dear Ed Harrington,

We, the Gray Panthers of San Francisco, believe that residents of our city are best erved;";'by having customer choice for an alternative electricity provider. We also believe t at thebarrage of mailings supporting Prop 16 and funded primarily by PGE are misinr,lJ>. ingthe public and distorting facts about community choice programs. These mailings statethat ratepayers who choose an alternative source of electricity will pay higher rates thancurrently under PG&E. In fact, in areas which have adopted alternative suppliers, rateshave usually decreased. As elders we are financially distressed by constant PG&E rateincreases.

The CPUC serves the public interest by protecting consumer and insuring theprovision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure, reasonable rates with acommitment to environmental enhancement and a healthy California economy. CPUCrecently adopted a resolution telling PG&E that it cannot refuse to supply electricity tocommunity choice aggregators, which is a violation of the 2002 law that offers ratepayersa choice in our public power.

Ratepayers deserve a choice in selecting an alternative provider. Proposition 16would lock in our state constitution requirements making our ability to select cleaner,more alternative sources of electricity more difficult. The. Gray Panthers along with SFGray Panthers isjoining the AARP, the Sierra Club, the California Nurses Association andCalpirg urge the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to oppose Proposition 16.

Sincerely,Michael LyonLisa FromerCo-ChairsGray Panthers of San FranciscoCC: San Francisco Board of Supervisors; Michael Peevey, DianeGrueneich, John Bohn, Timothy Alan Simon and Mary Ryan Karen Miller

Annie Paradise<[email protected]>

04/15/2010 03:36 PM

To gavin.newsom@sfgov,org, board.of.supervisorsgpsfqov.orp

cc

bcc

Subject Regarding Bayview Library

Dear Mayor Gavin Newsom and Board of Supervisors,

I'm writing because I support the position that the Bayview Library must bebuilt by the community it serves, and it is my hope that you will facilitatethe issuance of bonding to the local contractors and crews, specifically,Liberty Builders-Bona Tech Engineering Joint Venture.

I believe unemployment and police presence are linked and produceviolence, and employment reduces police presence.

I have followed the history of racially discriminatory contract awardsin Bayview, like the Third Street Light Rail Project, and see this historyas a blight on San Francisco that needs to be addressed.

I come from the small rural community of Jackman, Maine on theUS/Quebec border, which is being devastated by decisions that prioritizesecurity and law enforcement over sustainable community employment.I understand that policies and practices that prioritize security and lawenforcement are crushing communities and ruining lives across the US.

I note a visible and glaring lack of African American laborers on jobsites. I understand that bonding has been an obstacle that hascontributed to this notable absence.

It is extremely important to me as a voting and active citizen of San Francisco,proudly living in Supervisor Eric Mar's Richmond District, that the proposalsof Black local contractors be supported in the building of Bayview Branch Library.

I also understand that unemployment and incarceration rates are related,and am concerned with the disproportionate rates of incarceration from communities of color, particularly Af

Thank you for your time and attention,

Annie Paradise501 38th Ave. Apt. 201San Francisco, California 94121

bee

Southeast Jobs Coalition<[email protected]>

04/15/2010 09:37AM

1 attachment

To [email protected], [email protected]

ee [email protected], [email protected],[email protected],[email protected], [email protected],

SUbject SJC Leller re Hunters View Rebuild

1I:J2010-04-15 SJC Leller to MOH and SFRA re Hunters View Rebuild.pdf

April 15, 2010

Doug ShoemakerDirectorMayor's Office of HousingOne South Van Ness, Fifth FloorSan Francisco, CA 94103

Fred BlackwellExecutive Director

San Francisco Redevelopment AgencyOne South Van Ness, Fifth FloorSan Francisco, CA 94I03

Re: Supporting the Rebuild ofHunters View

Dear Directors Shoemaker and Blackwell:

We write to express our support for the Hunters View Tenants Association andHunters View residents seeking further, more meaningful engagement in therebuilding of their community. The recent groundbreaking at Hunters View"highlighted the accomplishment of at last moving this projeet forward, yet concernsfrom our Hunters View brothers and sisters linger, suggesting the need for greatercommunity unity before work On the Hunters View rebuild accelerates later in theyear.

It is clear to us that the relationship between Hunters View tenants and the ParentUniversity service connector is broken. The lack of a committed investment inworkforce development, in true community-driven barrier removal, job preparedness,case management, and services that address the underlying issues that years ofneglect have brought to Hunters View will certainly haunt the project when therebuild goes vertical and residents have not yet been trained for opportunities beyondabatement and demolition.

We ask to join you in a meeting with the Hunters View Tenants Association andyour agency partners to discuss changes that will be made to the City's currentapproach to engaging the Hunters View community, changes that will bring thecommunity together for the next phase of work at Hunters View and rebuild a senseof trust that has been lost.

Sincerely,

Derek ToliverYCD

Gregory ReedAPR!

Jesse MasonArc Ecology

Karen GilbertVVCDC

Terry L. AndersAnders & Anders

Nairn HarrisonPositive Directions

Cc: San Francisco Housing Authority, Office of Economic and WorkforceDevelopment, CityBuild, Board of Supervisors, Hunters View TenantsAssociation, Hunters View Mothers Committee

13 o.s- II COf'tes· '1/13/10k7'1 r€·1'; P ~ r

I: Ie IDOlS' I

c-r~*******--*ANTONIO A. ROBLES**-

2442 _26'h AvenueSan Francisco, CA 94116

San Francisco, March 152010

Angela CalvilloClerk of the Board, Room 244, City Hall1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett PlaceSan Francisco, CA 94102

Ref.: Opposition to Case No, 2009.0797E

Dear Ms. Calvillo:

As a resident living in the Sunset- Parkside district for over 20 years and having the pleasure ofhelping raise 2 grandchildren in a single family house, I STRONGLY OPPOSE to the projectlocated at 2462 - 27'hAvenue the way it has been presented to the Planning Department.

It is hard to believe that a single family home needs 7 Bedrooms and 4 Bathrooms! Besides, theproject does not fit the character of the neighborhood, and I am certain it will become an eyesorein this residential area.

Antoniif./Rob

I

PUBLIC NOTICEUS Army Corpsof Engineers. SAN FRANCISCO DISTRlCT

Regulatory Division1455 Market Street

San Francisco, CA 94103-1398

Date: 9 April 2010Public Notice Notification Change

The San Francisco Regulatory Division is in the process of updating and confirming the recipients of our PublicNotices and providing recipients with the choice ofwhether to continue to receive paper copies or to start receivingelectronic mail (email) notification ofPublic Notices as they become available on our website.

Public Notices are the primary method of advising interested public agencies and private parties of a proposedactivity and soliciting comments and information to evaluate the potential impacts. Public notices are issued bythe Department of the Army for Individual Permits, Regional General Permits, and other activities conducted bythe Regulatory Division that merit public feedback on potential impacts to waters of the U.S., includingwetlands. Comment periods typically last for 15 or 30 days, depending on the complexity ofthe project.

Public Notices are and will continue to be available on the San Francisco District Website for up to one year fromdate ofpublication at:

http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/regulatory/currpn.htm

If you are currently on our mailing list and wish to continue receiving either a paper copy or email notificationof our Public Notices, you will need to resubmit your mailing information by June 1, 2010. Please indicatewhich county(ies) you are interested in (see Figure 1), and whether you would like to receive a hard copy of thePublic Notice and/or be notified bye-mail. You will no longer receive Public Notices if you do not provide uswith confirmation that you wish to continue receiving Public Notices by June 1,2010.

You may submit your request by regular mail or e-mail to the following addresses:

Name and Affiliation (if applicable)Street Address, including City, County, and Zip CodeEmail addressPreference for digital and/or paper notification

Contact information to provide includes:

r-o==

'J:>.:- W

7"- -0:rr.:C:'?.c-en

[email protected]:J-<I

Via email:SPN Regulatory DivisionOffice Automation TechnicianU.S. Army Corps of Engineers1455 Market Street, 16th FloorSan Francisco, Califomia 94103-1398

Via mail:

If you are on our updated, confirmed mailing list and your contact information changes, please notify our OfficeAutomation Technician and provide your new and old addresses. Hard copies or e-mails returned due to a nonfunctioning address will be deleted from our mailing list system.

Figure 1

California Map of U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers Regulatory B,oundaries

SANFRANCISCODISTRICT

Prepared by the San Francisco District, 1012000

Malcolm Dudley<[email protected]>

04/17/201009:39 PM

To Honorable Eric Mar <[email protected]>

cc

bcc

Subject Masonic Auditorium - Hearing on Tuesday, May 4th

Dear Honorable Supervisor Mar:

My wife and I are extremely concerned about Live Nation's plans to convert the Masonic Auditoriuminto a Rock Concert Hall. This would completely transform this entire neighborhood, removing1,500 seats to allow for a capacity of 4,000 general admission standing room only audiences,create more serious traffic problems, exasperate parking problems, negatively impact HuntingtonPark and add to pollution and noise created by tour buses idling for hours on California Street andbuses and trailers parking overnight in front of the Masonic Auditorium and Grace Cathedral.

Underthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), government agenciesare required toconsider the environmental consequences of their actions before approving plans and policiesor committing to a course of action on a project. In enacting CEQA, the legislature explainedthat this process is intended to: (1) inform government decision makers and the public aboutthe potential environmental effects of proposed activities; (2) identify the ways thatenvironmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; (3) prevent significant,avoidable environmental damage by requiring changes in projects, either by the adoptionof alternatives or imposition of mitigation measures; and (4) disclose to the public whya project was approved if the project would have significant environmental effects.

The negative environmental impacts identified above would seriously impact the qualityof life for the entire Nob Hill neighborhood. Based upon these environmental impacts,and the requirements of CEQA (Pub. Res. Code 21002.1, 21061,and 21080.1) we requestthat the city require an EIR, with members ofthe Nob Hill Neighborhood Organization,Protect Nob Hill, involved in the choice of consultants. We realize that there would beno direct communication between parties and the consultant, after the consultant hasbeen chosen by the city, but we respectfully request that Protect Nob Hill members beinvolved in the selection of a consultant.

We request that this Conditional UsePermit be denied; on the basis that it is not anappropriate use for this residential neighborhood. In lieu of a denial, we would requesta list of conditions for issuanceof the Conditional Use Permit, as required under CEQA.We request that mitigation measures include: Parking be restricted to neighborhoodowners, using a parking permit system. Require Live Nation to provide a shuttle system.Parking on the Grace Cathedral side of California Street be restricted to use by

congregants of Grace Cathedral. Require Live Nation to pay for special police officersto maintain the public health and the general welfare of the neighborhood. RequireLive Nation to pay for a number of hotel rooms to accommodate the performers anddeny their request to add restaurant and bar service.

The San Francisco Police testified at the Planning Commission that they were opposedto the conversion of the Masonic Auditorium into a Rock Concert Hall, as they wouldnot have the man power to properly police these activities.

We have a highly decorated veteran living in our building who is seriously disabled,because of his service in the military. He is strongly opposed to the proposal toconvert the disabled entry into an entrance for moving equipment. This is not incompliance with state law, which protects disabled facilities.

As a resident of Nob Hill we urge you to please grant the Appeals for theCategorical Exemption and conditional Use Authorization for the CaliforniaMasonic Memorial Temple. (Case #2008.1072EC and Case #2008.1072)

Sincerely,Malcolm Dudley1255 California Street, Unit 704, San Francisco 94109

Board of To BaS Constituent Mail Distribution,Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV

cc04/19/201002:14 PM

bcc

Subject Meatless Mondays

"David Mendenhall"<[email protected]> To <[email protected]>04/18/201009:12 AM cc

Subject Meatless Mondays

Angela Calvillo,

Dear Madam,

To make an endorsement based on erroneous UN Climate data is one thing, but I do not fault someonewho has recieved bad information from a supposed Authority who was mis-informed by a group with anAgenda sponsored by crooks and thieves.

The following quote is an excerpt from a study that would show your project "Meatless Mondays" has thepotential to be 300 times more lethal to the enviroment than any "Mondays WITH Meat" could ever be.

For all of its ecological baggage, synthetic nitrogen does one good deed for the environment: ithelps build carbon in soil. At least, that's what scientists have assumed for decades.

If that were true, it would count as a major environmental benefit of synthetic N use. At a time ofclimate chaos and ever.growing global greenhouse gas emissions, anything that helps vastswaths of farmland sponge up carbon would be a stabilizing force. Moreover, carbon-rich soilsstore nutrients and have the potential to remain fertile over time--a boon for future generations.

The case for synthetic N as a climate stabilizer goes like this. Dousing farm fields with syntheticnitrogen makes plants grow bigger and faster. As plants grow, they pull carbon dioxide from theair. Some of the plant is harvested as crop, but the rest--the restdue-etays in the field andultimately becomes soil. In this way, some of the carbon gobbled up by those N·enhanced plantsstays in the ground and out of the atmosphere.

Well, that logic has come under fierce challenge from a team of University of Illinois researchersled by professors Richard Mulvaney, Saeed Khan, and Tim Ellsworth. In two recent papers (seehere and here) the trio argues that the net effect of synthetic nitrogen use is to reduce soil'sorganic matter content. Why? Because, they posit, nitrogen fertilizer stimulates soil microbes,which feast on organic matter. Over time, the impact of this enhanced microbial appetiteoutweighs the benefits of more crop residues.

And their analysis gets more alarming. Synthetic nitrogen use, they argue,creates a kind of treadmill effect. As organic matter dissipates, soil's ability tostore organic nitrogen declines. A large amount of nitrogen then leaches away,

fouling ground water in the form of nitrates, and entering the atmosphere asnitrous oxide (N20), a greenhouse gas with some 300 times the heat-trappingpower of carbon dioxide. In turn, with its ability to store organic nitrogen compromised, onlyone thing can help heavily fertilized farmland keep cranking out monster yields: more additions ofsynthetic N.

The loss of organic matter has other ill effects, the researchers say. Injured soil becomes prone tocompaction, which makes it vulnerable to runoff and erosion and limits the growth of stabilizingplant roots. Worse yet, soil has a harder time holding water, making it ever more reliant onirrigation. As water becomes scarcer, this consequence of widespread synthetic N use willbecome more and more challenging.

In short, "the soil is bleeding," Mulvaney told me in an interview.

http://www.grisl.org/article/201 0-02-23-new-research-synthetic-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon-undermines-I

Yours

David Mendenhall

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop, 620-560 BeThey must find it difficult... Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather truth as authority.

Mayor Gavin NewsomPhilip A. Ginsburg, General Manager

April 12, 2010

Dear Garfield Swimming Pool Patrons:

The extensive renovation of Garfield Pool continues thru the month of April and beyond. TheSan Francisco Recreation and Park Department appreciates the patience and understandingyou have shown while the work is completed. We apologize for any inconvenience thisextended and temporary closure may have caused you. Please consider joining us at otherpublic aquatic facilities near you, which includes San Francisco's only outdoor pool - MissionPool. Below is a listing of the closest facilities to Garfield Square and an update on therenovation's progress.

BALBOA POOL50 Havelock Street, (415) 337-4701

Monday to Friday: 6:00 a.m. - 7:30p.m.Sat.: 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

MISSION POOL19th and Linda Street, (415) 641-2841

Wednesday to Friday: 10:30am - 7:30 p.m.Sat.: 10:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.rn,Sun.: 10:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.

PROJECT UPDATE

The funding was approved by the Recreation and Parks Commission in mid-February; sincethen, two tests were conducted .and completed for asbestos and lead. At this time, the ProjectManager is working with several contractors to coordinate the scope of work and confirm acompletion time line, which is anticipated to be announced no later than Monday April 19, 2010.

Some of the improvements to the facility include: (1) removing the metal brackets and oldlighting fixtures on the ceiling; (2) patching the holes, priming, and painting the ceiling; (3)painting the natatorium walls, beams and door jams; (4) installing new light fixtures in thenatatorium; (5) enlarging the pool main drain sump box, and installing an unblockable grate; (6)re-plastering the entire pool shell; and (7) replacing the pool circulation pumps.

Please visit our website [email protected] for updates on the progress of our repairs. If youhave any questions and or concerns on the project please contact Mr. Danny Ogawa, AquaticSupervisor, at [email protected].

The San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department thanks you for your patience and we lookforward to seeing at Garfield Pool for our grand re-opening.

McLaren Lodge, Golden Gate Park 1501 Stanyan Street! San Francisco, CA 941171 PH: 415.831.2700 I FAX: 415.831.2096! www.parks.sfgov.org

eld Aquatic nterAPRil 2010 Maintenance Update

EXTENDED & EXTENSIVEREPAIRS

The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department appreciatesyour patience and invites you to join us at other aquatic facilitiesnear you. We apologize for any inconvenience this temporaryclosure may have caused you.

BALBOA POOL50 Havelock Street, (415) 337-4701

Monday to Friday: 6:00 a.m. - 7:30p.m.Sat.: 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

MISSION POOL19th and Linda Street, (415) 641-2841

Wednesday to Friday: 10:30am - 7:30 p.m.Sat.: 10:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.Sun.: 10:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.

For a complete list of programs visit our website at

www.parks.sfgov.org

Please contact us if you have any questions and/or concerns.Mr. Danny Ogawa, Aquatics Supervisor, at 415.661.8438

email at [email protected]

File No. 100514 Brown Boulevard in San Francisco. 5 ... · File No. 100514 Petitions and...

Documents

Transcript of File No. 100514 Brown Boulevard in San Francisco. 5 ... · File No. 100514 Petitions and...