File No. 100514
Petitions and Communications received from April 13, 2010, through April 19, 2010, for reference by the President to Committee considering related matters, or to be ordered filed by the Clerk on April 27, 2010.
From concerned citizens, submitting opposition to re-naming Third Street to "Willie Brown Boulevard" in San Francisco. 5 letters (1)
From SF Ocean Edge, regarding the Beach Chalet soccer fields project in Golden Gate Park. 2 letters (2)
From Planning Department, submitting Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for 121 Golden Gate Avenue. Copy: Each Supervisor (3)
From Emael Haasalum, regarding "Celebrate San Francisco" at the Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts from September 8,2010, to October 9,2010. (4)
From Greg Ganji, requesting traffic be redirected along the Great Highway, south of Sloat Boulevard, so that one lane is open going south, and one lane is open going north, until the permanent solution is completed. (5)
From Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board, submitting the Annual Report on Eviction Notices from March 1, 2009, through February 28, 2010. Copy: Each Supervisor (6)
From Monika Weiler, regarding MUNI. (7)
From Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector, submitting the March 2010 Investment Report. Copy: Each Supervisor (8)
From Sarah Slaughter, regarding proposal for a Trader Joe's at the Noe/Market Street Center. (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 Use Application 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 the Environmental Impact Report for 555 Washington Street. File No. 100443, Approximately 2200 letters (13) From concerned citizens, submitting opposition to the Environmental Impact Report for 555 Washington Street. File No. 100443, 12 letters (14)
From concerned citizens, submitting opposition to the Municipal Transportation Agency's proposed changes to parking meters in the City. 12 letters (15)
From concerned citizens, submittinq opposition to the proposed cell tower at Miraloma Community 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 an audit of the Hertz Corporation. Copy: Each Supervisor (18)
From concerned citizens, submitting concerns with the approval of an 18-hole Disc Golf course 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 Voting Rights Resolution. (21)
From Office of the Controller, regarding the Community-based Long-term Care Fiscal Analysis. (22)
From S.F. Labor Council, submitting resolution urging the California Labor Federation to oppose Proposition 16 on the June 8,2010, ballot. Copy: Each Supervisor (23)
From the Gray Panthers, urging the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to oppose 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 Tenants Association and Hunter's View residents seeking further, more meaningful engagement in the rebuilding of their community. (26)
From Antonio Robles, submitting opposition to the project located at 2462 - 2th Avenue. File No.100151, Copy: Each Supervisor (27) From US Army Corps of Engineers, regarding providing recipients with the choice of whether to continue to receive paper copies or to start receiving electronic mail notification 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 Garfield Swimming 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 To [email protected]
Please do not rename 3rd street. It's called third as it comes out of downtown where it's 3rd. I'm a Dogpatch homeowner and I like the connection of the relation to SOMA and Downtown. It's a little like branding when you do this kind of thing anyway. Why not call it Pepsi street.
I get that he deserves recognition for his contribution, but keep it to a smaller street. Why not keep it in Mission Bay and dedicate a smaller street.
Chuck Harris Holly Trytten To [email protected]
Hello,
The proposal of naming 3rd street to Willie Brown Jr. Boulevard has several issues:
- The numbered naming system of the north/south streets will no longer be consistent.
- The name 'Willie Brown Jr. Boulevard' is long and awkward. Imagine living on that street and being continually required to write that down as your address. Imagine having to give your address over the phone. As someone who just purchased a place in Dogpatch, I'm hugely relieved that my place isn't on 3rd street.
- Frankly, a lot of people are not fond of Willie Brown. While I don't have much opinion of him either way, amongst many people he's a somewhat controversial figure. Surely there are other more important figures we could name our streets after.
- Naming a street, landmark, or building after someone who is still alive seems a bit questionable.
I strongly feel that if 3rd street is renamed, it will be doing the residents who live along that street a great disservice. The streets will become less navigable and for no good reason. If we want to show appreciation towards Willie Brown, surely we can find a better way to do it.
Another option is to move to a model where a street is not actually renamed, but given an additional 'honorary' name or names. If you happen to visit Chicago sometime, you'll see honorary names spr'inkled everywhere. 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 have gotten a bit out'of hand.
What's to stop the renaming of streets in San Francisco from getting out of hand? PLea se don't do this. I' d prefer my tax dollars go to better use.
Sincerely, Holly Trytten Board of To Sophie MaxweIi/BOS/SFGOV, Jon Lau/BOS/SFGOV, Alice Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV Guidry/BOS/SFGOV, 04/15/201004:08 PM cc bcc Subject Renaming 3rd Street
Chuck Harris
Please do not rename 3rd street. It's called third as it comes out of downtown where it's 3rd. I'm a Dogpatch homeowner and I like the connection of the relation to SOMA and Downtown. It's a little like branding when you do this kind of thing anyway. Why not call it Pepsi street.
I get that he deserves recognition for his contribution, but keep it to a smaller street. Why not keep it in Mission Bay and dedicate a smaller street.
Chuck Harris Board of To BOS Constituent Mail Distribution, Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV cc 04/15/2010 03:22 PM bcc Subject 3rd Street name
Dick Millet
Dear Supervisor: On the subject ofrenaming 3rd Street to Willie Brown Blvd. "I'M AGAINST". I find it foolish, unimportant, a waste ofmoney!! If San Franciscans want to name anything in his honor, let's make it a citywide wish and let's wait till he's DEAD. SINCERELY, Richard C. Millet, Potrero Hill Andrea Firpo To [email protected]
Andrea Firpo 900 Minnesota Street, #314 San Francisco, CA 94107 408.483.5299
--- On Thu, 4/15/10, Andrea Firpo
From: Andrea Firpo
As a new home owner in Espirit Park, in the Dogpatch community, I would like to keep Third Street as it is a Willie Brown.
Thank you.
Andrea Firpo 900 Minnesota Street. #314 San Francisco, CA 94107 408.483.5299 ..SF Ocean Edge" To
Mark BueLL, President Recreation and Park Commission McLaren Lodge, GoLden Gate Park 5e1 Stanyan Street San Francisco, CA 94117-1898 cc: BOS Pursuant to San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance Section 67.16, Minutes, pLease find beLow my written pubLic testimony of 15e or fewer words that I am requesting be incLuded verbatim in the pubLished minutes of the Recreation and Park Commission's ApriL 15,2e1e meeting. PLease aLso forward via e-maiL my 15e-word testimony to aLL Recreation and Park Commissioners prior to commencement of the Commission meeting.
Katherine Howard, SF Ocean Edge.
This hearing today is not about soccer. It is about the future of Golden Gate Park. Will Golden Gate Park be continuously fragmented into smaller and smaller pieces, until it is no longer recognizable as the park envisioned by its creators?
What is that vision? In 1873, William Hammond Hall said, " A park..should be an agglomeration of hill and dale, meadow, lawn, wood and coppice, presenting a series of sylvan and pastoral views, calculated to banish all thought of urban objects...."
This describes the Recreation Field. This is the essence of Golden Gate Park.
You are called on today to uphold the vision of the Park as it was conceived 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" To "Bevan Dufty"
I 1tI;U! THD resoiution.pdf
Mayor Gavin Newsom Board of Supervisors Recreation and Park Commission Recreation and Park General Manager
Attached please find a resolution from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, expressing concern over the impact of the Beach Chalet soccer field project on Golden Gate Park and recommending that a full Environmental ImpactReport becompleted for this project. cc: California Preservation Foundation Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods Coalition to Save Ocean Beach I Friends of Sutro Park Friends of Lands End Golden Gate Audubon Society HALS - Historic American Landscape Survey In Defense of Animals PAR - Planning Association for the Richmond SFAA - San Francisco Amateur Astronomers San Francisco Animal Welfare and Animal Control Commission San Francisco Architectural Heritage San Francisco Beautiful San Francisco Tomorrow San Francisco Tree Council Sierra Club, Northern California Chapter SPEAK - SunsetiParkside Education and Action Committee SDNC - Sunset District Neighborhood Coalition West of Twin Peaks Central Council TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS Golden Gate Park Beach Chalet Soccer Fields
Resolution of concern about environmental impacts and requesting a full EIR
Motion adopted unanimously by the Board of Directors of Telegraph Hill Dwellers on April 13, 2010:
Resolved, that the Telegraph Hill Dwellers are concerned about the impacts of the Recreation and Park Department's proposal to introduce the highly urbanized artificial turf fields into Golden Gate Park, removing topsoil and replacing natural plantings with fake grass, increasing paving in the Park, degrading wildlife habitat, increasing traffic to the Park and through the neighborhoods, decreasing the quality of the night sky, infringing on the wild nature of Ocean Beach, and changing the overall character of the western edge of the park from a sylvan retreat to a developed sports complex. THD recommends that a full Environmental Impact Report be completed on this project so that the public can be informed of the extent of this project, the impacts can be better understood, and alternatives can be proposed. f!;, oS II - "·f- co B fL.CF iVi="n SAN FRANCISCO BOt,!\[) OF ,-, . ,.. L~ PLANNING OEPARTMENTs/\f! ZDIGilPR 16 PrJ 4! 18
April 14, 2010 1650 Mission St Suite 400 San rrancsco, CA 94103·2479
Reception: Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 415,558,6378 City Hall Fax: 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 415,558.6409 San Francisco, CA 94102 Pianning Information: 415,558.6377 Subject: Distribution of Notice of Availability of an Initial Study to the Board of Supervisors 121 Golden Gate Avenue Department File No. 2005.0869E
Dear Ms. Calvillo!
Enclosed please find 12 copies of the Notice of Availability of the 121 Golden Gate Avenue Initial Study. Please note that this document does not pertain to any item currently calendared before the Board, but is being distributed pursuant to the San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 31. A Draft Environmental Impact 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 SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING
To Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and Interested Parties: ZulO APR 16 K~rd+i4,lilJ10 1~5jl Mission Sl. Suite 400 RE: CASE NO 2005.0869E:121 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE BY Ale San Francisco, NOTICE OF PREPARATION OEAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GA 94103·2479 RecepUon: A Notice of Preparation (NOP} of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above-referenced 415.558;6378 project, described below, has been issued by the Planning Department. The NOP/Notice of Public Fax: Scoping Meeting is either attached or is available from Jeanie Poling, whom you may reach at (415) 415.558.6409 575-9072 or at the above address. It is also available online at http://www.mea.sfplaruiing.org.This Planning notice is being sent to you because you have been identified as potentially having an interest in the Information: project or the project area. 415;558.6377
Project Description: The approximately 14,156-square-foot project site is located on the southwest comer of Golden Gate Avenue and Jones Street in the Downtown/Civic Center Neighborhood (Block 0349 and Lot 001). The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 40-foot high, two-story building that contains the St. Anthony dining hall/social services; and the construction of a 99-foot-high, ten-story building containing 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 off street parking would be removed or provided with the project. There would be pedestrian entries on both Golden Gate Avenue and Jones Street. Constructed in 1912, the existing building is a historic resource based on its association with known historical events and a contributor to Uptown Tenderloin National Register Historic District.
The Planning Department has determined that an EIR must be prepared for the proposed project prior to any final decision regarding whether to approve the project. The purpose of the EIR is to provide information about potential significant physical environmental effects of the proposed project, to identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and to describe and analyze possible alternatives to the proposed project. Preparation of an NOP or EIR does not indicate a decision by the City to approve or to disapprove the project. However, prior to making any such decision, the decision makers must review and consider the information contained inthe EIR.
Written comments will be accepted until the close of business on May 14, 2010. Written comments should be 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 your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the EIR when considering a permit or other approval for this project. We will also need the name of the contact person 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 [email protected] To [email protected] du cc [email protected], [email protected], 04/15/201007:21 PM [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "supervisor chris daly" bee Subject Celebrate! San Francisco'": September 8th· October 9th
1 attachment
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~ will open with a Private Viewing for project participants, sponsors and the press at the Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts (MCCLA). Celebrate! San Francisco~ will take place during Latino Heritage Month and as MCCLA's annual Mes Latinoamericano Exhibition. Given the relatively short lead time, we are particularly invested in building excitement around the project with like-minded individuals and organizations. We recently requested that Mayor Gavin Newsom attend the Private Viewing on September 8th and are awaiting his reply. It is our hope that his involvement will help raise awareness and appreciation of the creative communities working in San Francisco.
I include the Call for Submissions we are using so that you may have a better understanding of the Exhibition; please feel free to forward it to people who may be interested; I have added it as an attachment just in case you want a printer-friendly version. Just to let you know, we are also looking for project sponsors; should you have any interest or suggestions, ~ welcome discussing the matter with you in person at your earliest convenience. It is our sincere belief that now more than ever, San Francisco would benefit greatly from an event that showcases our culture 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, SOCIAL CHANGE In addressing the countless concerns the world has today, Celebrate! San Franciscolli (also referred to as "the Exhibition") is offered as a creative solution to the negativity presently plaguing mainstream media outlets. The Exhibition is a pilot project that will launch in San Francisco at the Mission Cultural Center in September of 2010 focusing on two very simple questions: How are locals celebrating the human experience given present circumstances; and, what transformations are taking place in local communities/industries that would best serve a larger audience?
In times of uncertainty and crisis, most people tend to support the tried and tested formulas of the past rather than invest the time in developing new strategies to pressing social circumstances. This however h~s still not offered us a way out of present global conditions. Celebrate! San Francisco~ favors a world where new visions and strategies are made possible. By meaningfully engaging the dynamic talent from the diverse creative industries in this city, we hope gallery visitors will have greater cause to celebrate the life and culture of San Francisco.
COMPONENTS Gallery: 19+1~20 Nineteen projects/pieces are sought for inclusion in the gallery component 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-ups or listening parties during normal gallery hours for the duration of the Exhibition.
The Exhibition will be taking place during Latino Heritage Mouth. The number 20 is inspired by the Mayan numeral system which is vigesimal (i.e., base-20). THE EXHIBITION IS OPEN TO ALL PEOPLE.
Important Dates July 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 proposed Programming. * September 29: Peak Experiences* Panel discussion moderated by D. Scot Miller. October 6: One Day I Will* David Molina hosts an evening of music and performance. October 9: Exhibition Closes
*Event titles and schedule subject to change before going to press.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Submissions received after JULY 10 will not be considered. All work must be completed in 2010. Email your resume/CV and cover letter describing your work, interest in the Exhibition and any requirements to emael, Project Director, at [email protected]. Please limit project proposals to two pages. Although links to your work are preferred, other arrangements can be made to view your work if requested before June 19. Thank you for your time and consideration. Celebrate! San Franciscorn is emael's first project since completing his book, the last american icon, in 2008. He has spent the last two years meditating on art, commerce and love, emerging from the experience with a call for celebration. The five pointed green star is his service mark and logo, representing his personal mantra: "Put your money where your heart is." For past examples of emael's work, please visit www.loveemael.com. Thank you. Greg Ganji To
Hello, I'm writing with a request to redirect traffic along Great Highway south of Sloat St so that one lane is open going south and one lane is open going north. Currently 2 lanes 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 Franciscans would appreciate it. It's a huge inconvenience to have to head southbound on Great Highway, then have to take the lengthy detour at Sloat, especially during heavier traffic hours. It just seems unfair that noone seems to care enough about us residents in the outer avenues that need this precious roadway open to get around efficiently. PLEASE HELP! I simply ask that someone from DPT take a look, and put up some cones or whatever to redefine traffic flow to allow traffic to move in both directions, until the permanent solution is completed. Thank you Greg Ganji
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. Get busy. BDS-l \ City and County of San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board
April 13, 2010
OJ
Angela Calvillo r Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors, Room 244 <,/ 1 Carlton B. Goodlett Place ,Ii San Francisco, CA 94102 o
Re: Rent Board Annual Report on Eviction Notices
Dear Ms. Calvillo:
Pursuant to Section 37.6(j) of the Rent Ordinance, Chapter 37 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, the Rent Board is providing its annual report on the number of eviction notices filed with the Department. During the period from March 1,2009 through February 28, 2010, a total of 1,269 eviction notices were filed with the Department. This figure includes 106 notices given due to failure to pay rent, which are not required to be filed with the Department. The number of notices filed with the Department this year represents a 11.3% decrease from last year's total filings of 1,430. The largest decrease was in Ellis eviction notices which decreased by 78% from 192 to 43 notices. Temporary capital improvement eviction notices decreased by 38% to 21 notices and owner or relative move-in eviction notices decreased by 27% to 116.
The list on the following page gives the total number of eviction notices filed with the Department, the stated reason for the eviction and the applicable Ordinance section.
24-Hour Information Line TEL. (415) 252-4600 Fax Back Service (415) 252-4660 25 Van Ness Avenue, #320 FAX (415) 252-4699 INTERNET: http://sfgov.org/rentboard San Francisco, CA 94102-6033 :~ @ Page 2 Rent Board Annual Eviction Report
Number Reason· Ordinance Section
106 non-payment of rent 37.9(a)(l) 72 habitual late payment of rent 37.9(a)(l) 399 breach of rental agreement 37.9(a)(2) 287 committing a nuisance 37.9(a)(3) 37 illegal use of rental unit 37.9(a)(4) 13 failure to renew agreement 37.9(a)(5) 16 failure to permit landlord access 37.9(a)(6) 23 unapproved sub-tenant 37.9(a)(7) 116 owner/relative move-in 37.9(a)(8) o condo conversion sale 37.9(a)(9) 33 demolish or remove from housing use 37.9(a)(10) 21 capital improvement work 37.9(a)(11) o substantial rehabilitation 37.9(a)(12) 43 Ellis (withdrawal of unit) 37.9(a)(13) 2 lead remediation 37.9(a)(14) 27 roommate eviction 37.9(b) 74 other or no reason given 1,269 Total Eviction Notices
The increase or decrease since last year for each just cause (excluding categories for which the Department did not receive at least ten notices in both years) is as follows:
Percent Decreasel Just Cause Reason 2008/09 2009/10 Increase
Ellis withdrawal of unit 192 43 -78% Capital improvement 34 21 . -38% Owner or relative move-in 159 116 -27% Habitual late payment 83 72 -13% Illegal use of rental unit 42 37 -12% Nuisance 311 287 -7% Roommate eviction 28 27 -4% Demolish or remove from housing use 34 33 -3% Failure to permit landlord access 16 16 0% Breach of rental agreement 357 399 +12% Unapproved sub-tenant 18 23 +28%
567 Annuelbvictionkeportns-In - 4/13/09 Senior Staff Shared Folder/Annual Eviction Report/4/l0 Page 3 Rent Board Annual Eviction Report
During the period March I, 2009-February 28,2010, tenants filed a total of 450 Reports of Alleged 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 the school term. Of the 450 total reports, 37 reports specifically objected to no-fault evictions, and 5 of these 37 reports or 13.5% involved school-age children, with all 5 reports relating to evictions occurring during the school term.
This eviction report can also be found on our web site under "Statistics", Annual Eviction Report. 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 Director Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board
Mayor Gavin Newsom Supervisor David Chiu Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier Supervisor John Avalos Supervisor David Campos Supervisor Carmen Chu Supervisor Chris Daly Supervisor Bevan Dufty Supervisor Sean Elsbernd Supervisor Eric Mar Supervisor Sophie Maxwell Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi Commissioner David G. Gruber Commissioner Brooks Beard Commissioner Deborah Henderson Commissioner Jim Hurley Commissioner Amelia Yaros Commissioner Polly Marshall Commissioner Cathy Mosbrucker Commissioner Neveo Mosser Commissioner Bartholomew Murphy Library Documents Dept.
567 AnnualEvictionReport09-1 0 - 4/13/09 SeniorStaff Shared Folder/Annual EvictionReporU4/1O Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board City & County Of San Francisco Annual Eviction Notice Report 311/2009 Through 2128/2010
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov --Dec Jan Feb Total No-Pay 9 13 9 12 9 7 11 8 8 9 4 7 106
Late Pay 11 5 11 4 8 6 6 6 2 4 7 2 72 Breach 30 32 26 40 38 36 56 46 16 31 19 29 399 Nuisance 24 18 16 24 32 18 14 30 23 23 16 49 287 Illegal 1 1 2 1 10 9 o 5 1 3 0 4 37 Agreemt. o 1 2 0 2 1 o 0 o o 3 4 13 Access o o 1 1 2 1 o 4 1 1 4 1 16 Sub 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 3 2 3 0 3 23
Own-ace 7 11 9 7 12 5 14 18 6 12 8 7 116 Condo o o o 0 o 0 o 0 o o 0 o o Demol 6 1 1 3 2 3 4 2 4 2 1 4 33 CI o o 1 0 1 3 o 3 o 1 11 1 21 Rehab o o o 0 o 0 o 0 o o 0 o o W-Draw o o o 4 4 0 5 4 5 5 11 5 43 Roommate 4 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 2 4 27 Lead 1 o 1 0 o 0 o 0 o o 0 o 2 Other 5 2 4 4 3 2 8 10 2 14 8 12 74 Development o o o 0 o 0 o 0 o o 0 o o
Total 99 88 88 102 127 95 120 141 71 112 94 132 1269 MonikaWeiier To "[email protected]"
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 compensated double Over Time for the two days he is supposed to be off. By his own account is annual gross income is about $140k. I would love to have his job. It is incoprehensable to me that something like this is going on, regardless of the fact that Muni has been in the red for many years. I wish you the best of luck with the Fix Muni Now project.
Thank you mailto:[[email protected]
CONFIDENTIALITY - Thise-rnall message and anyattachments thereto are for thesole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains a private, confidential communication protected bythe attorney client privilege andthe attorney work product doctrine. Any unauthorized review, use,disclosure ordistribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail anddestroy all copies ofthe original message. Thank you.
.: Newlin RankinlTTXlSFGOV To Greg Wagner/MAYORISFGOV@SFGOV, Board of Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV@SFGOV, Pauline 04/16/201009:19 AM MarxlTTXlSFGOV@SFGOV, Jose ec bee Subject March 2010 Investment Report ~ Monthly Portfolio Report 03312010.pdf
Newiin Rankin Chief Investment Officer City and County of San Francisco City Hali - Room 140 1 Dr. Cariton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102-4638 415/554-4487 (phone) 415/518-1540 (cell) 415/554-5660 (fax) [email protected] Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector City and County of San Francisco JOse Cisneros, Treasurer
Pauline Marx, Chief Assistant Treasurer Newlin Rankin, Chiel Investment Officer
Investment Report for the month 01March, 2010 Aprii 16, 2010
The Honorable Gavin Newsom The Honorable Board of Supervisors Mayor of San Francisco City and County of San Francisco City Hall, Room 200 City Hall, Room 244 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA. 94102·0917 San Francisco, CA. 94102·0917
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This correspondence and its attachmentsshow the investment activity for fiscal year-to-date of the portfolios under the Tre~surer's management.
(In $ millions uniess specified) Fiscal Year to Date Month Endin 3i31/2010 INCOME Pooled Fund All Funds Pooled Fund All Funds Interest Received 34.24 36.88 6.12 6.19 Total Net Earnings 32.30 34.18 4.02 4.17 Earned income Yield (in %) 1.33% 1.32% 1.46% 1.44% Current Yield to Maturity (In %) n/a n/a 1.35% 1.34%
PRINCIPAL "..".~.,,-,-,--_. nii Cu"rreni"'So'okVaiue-; nla ·····.------'3-;5'17 '3,'13'1 Amortized Book Value nla nla 3,574 3,733 MarketValue ** nla nla 3,577 3,737 Accrued Interest nla nla 12 13 Total Value (Markel Value + Accrued Interest) nla nla 3,589 3,750 Average Daily Balance 3.018 3,193 3,252 3,412 .i\verag,,-",'ge.o!£'!'rtfolio (i~c1.~YsJ.. 680 679 _J3~L. 679 . .... __....'"'-,,-"'.~ ...... __ ... __._...__..
• OriginalBook Valueonpurchasedate •• Less Cashin Bank Accounts
In accordancewith provisions of California State Government Code Section 53646, we forward this report detailing the City's investmentportfolio as of 3/31/2010. These investments are in compliancewith California Code and our statementof investmentpolicy, and provide sufficient liquidityto meet expenditurerequirements for the next six months.
Very truly yours, c
Jose Cisneros Treasurer
cc: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst Ben Rosenfield, Controller Controller -Internal Audit Division: Tania Ledlju Oversight Committee: J. Grazioii, Dr. Don Q, Griffin, Ben Rosenfield, T. Rydstrom, R. Sullivan Transportation 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 2
Pooled Fund Maturities
$1,600,000,000
ra rreasov $1,400,000,000 °TI.GP $1,200,000,000 liB Public Time Deposits
$1,000,000,000 I!III Commercial Paper
o Collateralized CDs
t:lAgency $600,000,000
$400,000,000
$200,000,000"'----'~--~---
$0 +---l-..J----,-__-r-r-' 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 1-3 year 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 occlteterehzed CDs 0 TLGP iii Public TimeDeposits _Commercia! Peper IS Negotiable CDs I March 31, 2010 City & County of SanFrancisco 3
All Funds
$ in millions I Current Book LvestmentType I Par Value % Par Value I Value Collateralized CD's 3.4% 125.00 125.00 Commercial Paper: Discount Commercial Paper: Interest Bearing Commercial Paper: Interest Bearing, Actl365 Federal Farm Credit Bank: Discount Notes Federal Farm Credit Bank: Fixed 8.2% 305.28 308.53 Federal Farm Credit Bank: Float Federal Home Loan Bank: Discount Notes Federal Home Loan Bank: Fixed 9.6% 355.37 355.32 Federal Home Loan Bank: Float Federal Home Loan Bank: Float Monthly Federal Home Loan Bank: Multi Step 2.8% 102.75 102.70 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.: Discount Notes Federal Home Loan Mortgage.Corp.: Fixed 16.3% 607.60 609.63 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.: Float, Monthly, Actl360 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.: Float, Quarter, Actl360 1.9% 70.00 70.00 Federal National Mortgage Assn. 12.9% 481.00 482.26 Federal National Mortgage Assn.: Multi Step Federal National Mortgage Assn.L Discount Notes Negotiable Certificates of Deposit Public Time Deposit: Monthly Pay Public Time Deposit: Quarterly Pay 1.8% 65.10 65.10 Treas. liquidity Guarantee Program: Fixed 21.3% 792.31 803.54 Treas. liquidity Guarantee Program: Float 1.3% 50.00 50.07 Treasury Bills 9.2% 343.00 342.69 Treasury Notes 11.3% 420.00 422.52 100,0% 3,717.40 3,737.37 4 Par Value of All Funds
TLGP
FHLMC
Treasury Notes
FNMA
Federal Home loan Bank
Federal Farm Credit Bank Agency Collaterlized CO Collateralized CD's Commercial Paper PublicTimeDeposit TreasuryBills IlGP Treasury Public Time Deposit
Commerclal Paper
100.00 200.00 300,00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
$ln millions
Trailing 12 Month Key Interest Rates
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 "·~""'·""5 Year Treasury Note -3Month Libor 1.5 -3Month T Bills
1.0
0.5
3/31/2009 6/29/2009 9/27/2009 12126/2009 3/26/2010 March 31, 2010 City.&County of San Francisco 5 Inventory by Market Value
RunDate:4/12/2010 2:53:46pM
InvestmentsOutstandingAsOfDate:.3/31/2010 Asset Allocation 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. - '1 TREASURY 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 %
AvantGardAPS2 Page8 of 9 March 31, 2010 City & County of San Francisco 6 Inventory by Market Value
RunDate: 4/12/2010 2:53:46 PM
Investments Outstanding AsOf Date: 3/31/2010
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 $UNGARD -5,519.45
Inv Type: 11 TREASURYBILLS .ooooao 325,000,000.00 324,750,004.00 7,922.23 5,775.00 .165047 324,756,488.89 99.923078 -20,182.12
42298 T 0.875 02 28 11 912828KE9 09/04/2009 .875000 50,000,000.00 50,203,124.00 38,043.48 23A36.50 02/28/2011 .632110 50,179,687.50 100.406248 SUNGARD 0,00 42325 T 1 08 3111 912828LVO 10/29/2009 1.000000 100,000.00 100,468.75 86.96 152.34 08/31/2011 ,825969 100,316.41 100.468752 SUNGARD 0.00 42326 T 1 OS31 11 912828LVO 10/29/2009 1.000000 99,900,000.00 100,368,283.25 86,869.57 167,802.78 08/31/2011 .834541 100,200,480.47 100.468752 SUNGARD 0.00 42341 T173111 912828LG3 11/19/2009 1.000000 120,000,000.00 120,637,497.60 198,895.03 0.00 07/31/2011 .603979 120,801,562.50 100.531248 SUNGARD -164,064.90 42352 T 1.125 12 15 11 912828KA7 12/09/2009 1.125000 50,000,000.00 50,218,752.00 165,350.27 0.00 12/15/2011 .745625 50,378,906.25 100.437504 SUNGAAD -160,154.25 42382 T 1.5 07.15.12 912828LB4 03/23/2010 1.500000 50,000,000.00 50,390,624.00 157,458.56 0,00 07/15/2012 1.112438 50,580,218.40 100.781248 SUNGARD -50,782.25
Inv Type: 12 TREASURYNOTES 1.068007 370,000,000.00 371,918,749.60 646,703.87 191,391.62
.758154 372,241,171.53 100.518581 ~375,001.40
42165 J P MORGANCHASETL 481247AKO 03/24/2009 2..200000 25,000,000.00 25,490,975.00 161,944.44 371,975.00 06/15/2012 2.046890 25,119,000.00 101.963900 UPRICE 0.00 42166 GENLELECCAPCORP 36967HAN7 03/24/2009 2.250000 35,000,000.00 35,743,750.00 41,562.50 558,600.00 03/12/2012 2.065123 35,185,150.00 102.125000 SUNGARD 0.00 42170 MORGAN$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 March 31, 2010 City & County of San Francisco 7 Inventory by Market Value
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 BAC2.1 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 USSACAPITALCO 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 HSBC3.125 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 March 31, 2010 City & County of San Francisco 8 Inventory by Market Value
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 MORGANSTANLEYFDIC 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 UnionBankTLGpFlo 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 TLGP FLOATER .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 FHLB2 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 FHLB1.85 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 FHLB1.875 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 FHLB2.75 NCImonth 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 FHLB1.87503.22.13 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 FEDERALHOME 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 FNMA2.15 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 FNMA1.625% 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 FNMA1.753 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 FNMA1.75 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 FNMAFIXED1.75 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 AvantGardAPS2 Page 3 of 9 March 31, 2010 City & County of San Francisco 9 Inventory by Market Value
Run Date: 4/12/2010 2:53:46 PM
42353 FNMA3NC6 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 FNMA3NC1.5 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 FNMA3NC1.5 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 FFCB2.02 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 FFCBBullet 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 FFCB1.67 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 FFCB2 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 FFCB2 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 FFCB1.875 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 FHLMC3 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 FHLMC1.67 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 FHLMC1.125 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 FHLMC1.125 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
AvantGard APS2 Page 4 of 9 March 31, 2010 City & County of San Francisco 10 Inventory by Market Value
Run Date: 4/12/2010 2:53:46 PM
42351 FHLMCFixed 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 FHLNC1.125 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 FHLMC1.8 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 FHLMC1.8 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 FHLB1.5 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 FHLB1.5 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 FHLB0.75 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 FHLMC3nc1 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 BANKOF 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 FIRSTNATLBANK 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 FIRSTNATLPTD01 1 01/18/2010 1.000000 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 20,277.78 0.00
AvantGardAPS2 Page 5 of 9 March 31, 2010 City & County of San Francisco .11 Inventory by Market Value
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 COLLATERALC 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
1.5n037-- 3,559,636,000.00 3,576,850,886.11 12,073,934.81 5,817,012.20 Subtotal
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 RF2.75 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 FHLB1.42fixed 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, 2010 City & County of San Francisco 12 Inventory 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 FEDERALFARMCREDIT 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 FHLMC3nc1 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 Page7 of9 March 31. 2010 City & County of San Francisco 13
CIT Y / C 0 U N T Y 0 F SAN F RAN CIS C 0 MR. NEW LIN RAN KIN 415 - 554 - 4 4 S 7
(EIS / ERNEIS) EARNED INCOME SUMMARY 07/01/09 THROUGH 03/31/10 PAGE: 1 SORT KEYS ARE FUND RUN: 04/01/10 14:15:57 FUND: 100 POOLED FUNDS
TICKER / SHARES / INCOME INV PURCHASE COUPON MATURITY SCHEDULED SCHEDULED YIELD/ DATE RECEIVED TOTAL/RET NO. DATE RATE DESCRIPTION DATE PAR VALUE BOOK VALUE 365 SOLD/MAT THIS PER EARNINGS
41862 10/23/07 4.6250 T NOTE 07/31/09 5~100~000.00 5,100,000.00 3.888 MATURED 52,394.53 16,508.56 41916 12/07/07 .4760 F H L B FLOATER 11/23/09 50~000,OOO.00 49,984,700.00 .711 07/10/09 37,228.33 8,759.14 41916 12/07/07 .2220 F H L B FLOATER 11/23/09 15~000~000.00 14,995~410.00 .545 09/23/09 26,304.12 16,784.12 41937 01/09/08 .2220 F H L B FLOATER QTR ACT 50 ~000,000.00 50,010,000.00 .386 09/23/09 62,380.55 44,477.34 41938 01/09/08 .2220 F H L B FLOATER QTR ACT 11/23/09 50,000,000.00 50,010,000.00 .386 09/23/09 62,380.55 44,477 .34 41939 01/09/08 .2220 F H L B FLOATER QTR ACT 11/23/09 4,500,000.00 4,500,900.00 .386 09/23/09 5,614.25 4,002.96 4B94 03/31/08 2.0000 T NOTE 11/23/0902/28/10 25,000,000.00 25,151,367.19 4.913 09/14/09 322,071.39 253,914.36 42044 07/16/08 3.9000 MISSION NATIONAL BANK PU 07/16/09 100,000.00 100,000.00 3.639 MATURED 173.33 149.56 42055 07/31/08 2.7500 FIRST NATIONAL BANK CD 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 2.788 MATURED 46,215.27 11,458.33 42065 08/26/08 .7700 FFCB FLOATER QTR 10/26/0907/31/09 50,000,000.00 50;000,000.00 .781 MATURED 195,708.33 125,124.12 42076 09/18/08 .1810 F H L B FLOATER MONTHLY 12/28/09 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 .177 09/23/09 10,681.25 10,206.25 42095 10/29/08 1.4800 T BILL 10/22/09 50,000,000.00 49,264,111.11 1. 716 10/09/09 735,256.95 231,645.84 1.0000 MISSION AREA CREDIT UNIO 100,000.00 100,000.00 1. 022 MATURED 347.23 347.22 42107 11/03/08 11/02/09 42110 12/04/08 1.2000 F NMA DISCOUNT NOTE 08/17/09 50~000~000.00 49,573,333.33 1. 227 MATURED 426,666.67 78,333.33 42117 12/09/08 2.3200 US BANK COLLATERAL 11/23/09 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 2.352 MATURED 337,366.67 140,166.67 42119 12/09/08 2.3900 US BANK COLLATERALIZE CD 12/08/09 50, OOO~000. 00 50, 000, 000. 00 2. 423 MATURED 833,180.55 531~111.11 42120 12/09/08 2.3900 US BANK COLLATERALIZE CD 12/08/09 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 2.423 MATURED 833,180.55 531,111.11 42121 12/09/08 2.3900 US BANK COLLATERALIZE CD 12/08/09 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 2.423 MATURED 833,1.80.55 531,111.11 42126 12/22/08 4.1200 FNMA 05/06/13 50,000,000.00 -1.168 11/06/09 -20,000.00 -209,064.33 51,050,000.00 42127 12/22/08 4.1200 F NMA 05/06/13 50,000,000.00 -1.168 11/06/09 -20,000.00 -209,064.33 42128 12/22/08 4.1200 FN M A 05/06/13 20,000,000.00 51,050,000.0020,420,000.00 -1.168 11/06/09 -8,000.00 -83,625.73 42130 12/30/08 4.3300 FN M A 07/28/11 50,000,000.00 50,947,850.00 -15.946 07/28/09 134,650.00 -600,946.76 42131 12/30/08 4.3300 FN M A 07/28/11 30,000,000.00 30,568,710.00 -15.946 07/28/09 80,790.00 -360,568.05 4.3300 FN M A 20,000,000.00 20,376,080.00 -15.849 07/28/09 56,920.00 -238,884.11 42132 Ol/02/09 07/28/11 42133 01/02/09 4.3300 FNMA 50~000,000.00 50,940,200.00 -15.849 07/28/09 142,300.00 -597,210.27 42B4 12/31/08 4.8750 T NOTE 07/28/1108/15/09 25,000,000.00 25,707,031.25 .376 07/21/09 -103,699.07 5,298.87 42135 12/31/08 4.8750 T NOTE 08/15/09 50,000,000.00 51,414,062.50 .376 07/21./09 -207,398.14 10,597.74 42ga 01/23/09 1.9700 F HLMC 01/23/12 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 1. 962 10/23/09 738,750.00 306,444.44 42149 01/23/09 1.9700 FHLMC 01/23/12 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 1.962 10/23/09 738,750.00 306,444.44 42150 01/23/09 1.9700 F HLMC 01/23/12 1. 962 10/23/09 738,750.00 306,444.44 FHLMC 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 862,500.00 42151 01/30/09 2.3000 Bonds 01/30/12 2.293 10/30/09 380,138.89 42163 03/06/09 1.3200 COLLATERAL C Ds 09/02/09 50,000,000.0025,000,000.00 50,000,000.0025,000,000.00 1.338 MATURED 165,000.00 57,750.00 42165 03/24/09 2.2000 J P MORGAN CHASE TLGP 06/15/12 25,000,000.00 25,119,000.00 2.041 275,000.00 384,844.36 2.2500 GENL ELEC CAP CORP FDIC 35,000,000.00 35,185,150.00 2.059 761,250.00 543,825.10 42166 03/24/09 03/12/12 42170 03/16/09 2.0000 MORGAN STANLEY FDIC GTD 09/22/1.1. 25~000,OOO.00 25,037,750.00 1.935 500,000.00 363,757.07 42171 03/02/09 4.0000 T - NOTE 08/31/09 25~000,OOO.00 25,005,434.78 .512 MATURED 64,877.72 21,744.73 42172 03/02/09 4.0000 T - NOTE 08/31/09 SO~000,000.00 50,010,869.57 .512 MATURED 129,755.43 43,489.45 2.3750 BAC 2.375 06.22.12 TLGP 50,000,000.00 50,685,000.00 1.917 593,750.00 729,517.70 42177 04/14/09 06/22/12 42178 04/i4/09 2.1250 JPM 2.125 12.26.12 TLGP 12/26/12 25,000,000.00 24,992~250.00 5.839 11/06/09 519,590.28 511,764.69 42181 04/02/09 2.1250 C 2.125 04.30.12 TLGP 04/30/12 25,000,000.00 25,117,500.00 1.961 265,625.00 369,794.26 42182 04/02/09 2.1500 BK OF THE WEST.BNP 2.15 03/27/12 5,000,000.00 5,026,950.00 1.957 106,006.94 73,850.40 42183 04/02/09 2.1500 BK OF THE WEST.BNP 2.15 20,000,000.00· 20,108,000.00 1.956 424,027.78 295,351.37 FEDERAL FARM CR BKS GLOB 03/27/12 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 07/13/09 150,000.00 20,000.00 42184 04/13/09 1.2000 10/13/10 1.217 42190 04/21/09 3.0000 FHLMC 3 5NCl 04/21/14 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 2.997 750,000.00 1,125,000.00 March 31,2010 City & County of San Francisco 14
CIT Y / C 0 U N T Y 0 F SAN F RAN CIS C 0 MR. NEW LIN RAN KIN 415 - 554 - 4 4 8 7 (EIS / ERNEIS) EARNED INCOME SUMMARY 07/0~/09THROUGH 03/31/10 PAGE: 2 SORT KEYS ARE FUND RUN; 04/01/10 14:15;57 FUND: 100 POOLED FUNDS
TICKER / SHARES / INCOME INV PURCHASE COUPON MATURITY SCHEDULED SCHEDULED YIELD/ DATE RECEIVED TOTAL/NET NO. DATE RATB DESCRIPTION DATE PAR VALUE BOOK VALUE 365 SOLD/MAT THIS PER EARNINGS
42191 04/02/09 2.1000 BAC 2.1 04.30.12 TLGP 04/30/12 25,000,000.00 25,093,000.00 1.970 262,500.00 371,079.18 42195 04/16/09 1.6250 GE 1.625 01.07.11 TLGP 01/07/11 25,000,000.00 25,167,500.00 1.228 294,531.25 231,953.75 42196 04/16/09 1.6250 GE 1.625 01.07.11 TLGP 01/07/11 25,000,000.00 25,165,750.00 1.232 294,531.25 232,713.65 42197 04/~6/091.6250 C 1.625 03.30.11 TLGP 03/30/11 50,000,000.00 50,225,000.00 776,388.89 522,909.36 42198 04/16/09 1.6250 GS 1.625 07.15.11 TLGP 07/15/11 50,000,000.00 50,204,500.00 1.387 607,118.05 541,042.41 42199 01/18/09 2.6500 FIRST NATIONAL BANK P 01/18/10 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 1.4352.687 MATURED 148,694.44 147,958.31 42203 04/14/09 1.4500 BOA COLLATERIZED 04/14/10 100,000,000.00 100,000,000.00 1.470 737,083.33 1,103,611.10 42205 04/15/09 1.2000 UBOC COLLATBRIZED 10/13/09 100,000,000.00 100,000,000.00 1.217 MATURED 603,333.33 346,666.66 42206 04/21/09 3.0000 FHLMC 04/21/14 30,000,000.00 30,000,000.00 2.997 450,000.00 675,000.00 42207 04/21/09 3.0000 FHLMC 04/21/14 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 2.997 750,000.00 1,125,000.00 42208 04/29/09 1.7000 FNMA 04/29/11 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 1.698 425,000.00 637,500.00 42211 04/28/09 2.2400 USSA CAPITAL CO 03/30/12 16,000,000.00 16,125,600.00 1.953 330,524.44 236,546.58 42212 05/18/09 1.6000 BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO CD 05/17/10 100,000.00 100,000.00 1.622 817.78 1,217.78 42214 05/18/09 1.2500 FNMA MULTI STBP BOND 11/18/11 29,825,000.00 29,825,000.00 1. 240 11/18/09 186,406.25 141,875.87 42215 OS/28/09 2.5000 FHLMC 03/23/12 50,000,000.00 50,540,000.00 1.055 03/23/10 484,305.56 387,547.47 42217 05/05/09 2.1250 FHLMC 2.125 5 4 12 05/04/12 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 2.103 11/04/09 264,H9.31 181,510.42 42235 06/04/09 .1100 1 of 2 07/08/09 25,000,000.00 24,997,402.78 .112 MATURED 2,597.22 534.72 42236 06/04/09 .1100 2 of 2 50,000,000.00 49,994,805.56 . 112 MATURED 5,194.44 1,069.44 42237 06/01/09 2.8750 ffch 2.875 5 6 13 07/08/0905/06/B 22,000,000.00 22,043,923.61 2.841 09/25/09 200,291.66 147,583.33 42238 06/02/09 .8750 T 0.875 5 11 05/31/11 50,000,000.00 49,916,453.21 2.965 07/08/09 44,953.90 28,381.66 42238 06/02/09 .8750 T 0.875 5 11 05/31/11 25,000,000.00 24,958,226.61 30.866 07/09/09 42,621.89 21,105.50 42239 07/13/09 2.0000 FHLMC 2 7 13 11 2NC3mo 07/13/11 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 1.984 10/13/09 250,000.00 250,000.00 42241 06/U/09 .1200 FHLB 07/07/09 50,000,000.00 49,996,833.33 .122 MATURED 3,166.67 1,000.00 42242 03/19/09 .4543 MORGANSTANLEY FDIC GTD 03/13/12 25,000,000.00 25,040,325.00 .525 112,380.47 98,706.26 42243 06/30/09 .5000 FHLB MULTI STEP 06/30/10 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 .499 12/30/09 125,000.00 124,305.56 42244 06/25/09 0.0000 B 7 23 09 1 of 4 49,995,138.89 .127 MATURED 4,861.11 3,819.44 07/23/09 50,000,000.00 42245 06/25/09 0.0000 b 7 23 09 2 of 4 50,000,000.00 49,995,138.89 .127 MATURED 4,861.11 3,819.44 42246 06/25/09 0.0000 b 7 23 09 3 of 4 07/23/09 50,000,,000.00 49,995,138.89 .127 MATURED 4,861.11 3,819.44 42247 06/25/09 0.0000 b 7 23 09 4 of 4 07/23/09 25,000,000.00 24,997,569.44 .127 MATURED 2,430.56 1,909.73 42255 06/30/09 4.3750 T 4.375 12 15 10 12/15/10 50,000,'000.00 52,718,557.89 1.821 11/02/09 327,175.12 326,130.62 42256 06/30/09 4.3750 T 4.375 12 15 10 12/15/10 50,000,000.00 52,718,557.89 1.821 11/02/09 327,175.12 326,130.'62 42257 06/30/09 4.3750 T 4.375 12 15 10 12/15/10 25,000,000.00 26,359,27,8.95 1.821 11/02/09 163,587.56 163,065.31 42258 06/29/09 1.2500 CITIGROUP FDG INC GTD TL 06/03/11 50,000,000.00 49,957,000.00 1.294 267,361.11 485,485.01 42259 06/29/09 1.2500 CITIGROUP PDG INC GTD TL 06/03/11 50,000,000.00 49,957,000.00 1.294 267,361.11 485,485.01 42260 07/10/09 2.0000 FHLMC 2 3 16 11 03/16/11 35,000,000.00 35,309,400.00 .700 03/16/10 168,933.33 168,933.33 42261 07/20/09 2.1250 FHLB 2.125 7.20.12 2nc3m 07/20/12 19,000,000.00 18,976,250.00 2.359 01/20/10 225,625.00 225,625.00 42262 07/16/09 0.0000 FHLB disc 08.06.09 08/06/09 50,000,000.00 49,995,625.00 .152 MATURED 4,375.00 4,375.00 42263 07/16/09 0.0000 FHLB disc 08.06.09 08/06/09 25,000,000.00 24,997,812.50 .. 152 MATURED 2,187.50 2,187.50 42269 07/23/09 0.0000 B 8 20 09 08/20/09 50,000,000.00 49,994,127.78 .153 MATURED 5,872.22 5,872.22 42270 07/23/09 0.0000 B 8 20 09 08/20/09 50,000,000.00 49,994,127.78 .153 MATURED 5,872.22 5,872.22 42272 07/23/09 0.0000 B 8 20 09 08/20/09 25,000,000.00 24,997,063.88 .153 MATURED 2,936.12 2,936.12 42273 07/23/09 0.0000 b 8 20 09 08/20/09 50,000,000.00 49,994,127.78 .153 MATURED 5,872.22 5,872.22 42274 07/30/09 3.0000 GB TLGP 3 12 09 11 12/09/11 50,000,000.00 51,602,500.00 1.581 537,500.00 548,699.73 42275 07/28/09 4.5000 T 4.5 11 15 10 11/15/10 50,000,000.00 52,929,008.15 1. 740 09/28/09 156,419.84 156,419.84 March 31,2010 City & County of San Francisco 15
CIT Y / C 0 U N T Y 0 F SAN F RAN CIS C a MR. NEWLIN RANKIN 4 1 5 - 5 5 4- 4 4 8 7
(EJ:S / ERNEIS) EARNED INCOME SUMMARY 07/01/09 THROUGH03/31/10 PAGE: 3 SORT KEYS ARE FUND RUN: 04/01/10 14:15:57 FUND: 100 POOLED FUNDS
TICKER / SHARES / I~O~ INV PURCHASE COUPON MATURITY SCHEDULED SCHEDULED YIELD/ DATE RECEIVED TOTAL/NET NO. DATE RATE DESCRIPTION DATE PAR VALUE BOOK VALUE 365 SOLD/MAT THIS PER EARNINGS
42276 07/28/09 4.5000 T 4.5 11 15 10 11/15/10 50,000,000.00 52,929,008.15 1. 606 11/02/09 225,883.15 225,883.15 42277 07/31/09 1.7500 CD FIRST NATL BANK OF NO 07/31/10 5,000,000.00 5 ..000,000.00 1.782 37,187.50 59,548.61 42278 08/18/09 1.7500 T 1.75 8 15 12 08/15/12 50,000,000.00 50,304,008.15 15.897 08/19/09 21,908.97 21 ..908.97 42279 08/18/09 1.7500 T 1.75 8 15 12 08/15/12 50,000,000.00 50,304,008.15 8.811 08/19/09 10 .. 954.49 12 ..143.35 42279 08/18/09 1.7500 T 1.75 8 15 12 08/15/12 25,000,000.00 25,152,004.08 9.004 09/10/09 137,695.32 136 ..506.45 42280 08/19/09 1.0000 T 1 7 31 11 07/31/11 50,000,000.00 50,010 ..190.22 5.811 09/09/09 167 ..204.49 167 ..204.49 42281 08/19/09 1.0000 T 1 7 31 11 07/31/11 50,000,000.00 50,010,190.22 3.158 11/02/09 324,558.42 324,558.42 42282 08/27/09 1.5000 FHLB 1.5 3NC1 step-up 08/27/12 50,000 ..000.00 1.500 445 ..833.33 50,000,000.00 375,000.00 42283 08/27/09 1.5000 FHLB 1.5 3NC1 step-up 08/27/12 4,300,000.00 4,300 .. 000.00 1.500 32,250.00 38,341.67 42284 08/20/09 0.0000. B 09 17 09 09/17/09 50,000,000.00 49,996,033.33 .103 MATURED 3 .. 966.67 3,966.67 42285 08/20/09 0.0000 B 09 17 09 09/17/09 50,000,000.00 49,996 ..033.33 .103 MATURED 3 ..966.67 3 .. 966.67 42286 08/20/09 0.0000 B 09 17 09 09/17/.09 50,000,000.00 49,996,033.33 .103 MATURED 3 ..966.67 3 .. 966.67 42287 08/20/09 0.0000 B 09 17 09 09/17/09 25,000,000.00 24,998,016.67 .103 MATURED 1 ..983.33 1,983.33 42293 08/26/09 0.0000 B 9 10 09 09/10/09 50,000,000.00 49 ..998,645.83 .066 MATURED 1.354.17 1,354.17 42294 09/02/09 .7200 B of A CD 0.72 09 02 10 09/02/10 25,000,000.00 25 ..000,000.00 .730 90,500.00 105,500.00 42295 09/10/09 2.1500 FNMA 2.15 09 10 12 3NC1 09/10/12 52,546,000.00 52 .. 693,128.80 2.059 564,869.50 603,519.89 42296 09/24/09 2.0000 FHLB 2 9 24 12 3NC6MO 09/24/12 50,000,000.00 50 .. 000,000.00 2.353 02/25/10 496,444.44 496,444.44 42297 09/24/09 2.0000 F.HLB 2 9 24 12 3NC6MO 09/24/12 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 2.353 02/25/10 248,222.22 248,222.22 42298 09/04/09 .8750 T 0.875 02 28 11 02/28/11 50,000,000.00 50,179,687.50 .636 213,915.75 182,670.14 42299 09/16/09 3.1250 HSBC 3.125 12 16 11 TLGP 12/16/11 50,000,000.00 51,969,550.00 1.328 390,625.00 373,758.13 1.8750 FNMA 1.875 04 20 2012 04/20/12 50,000,000.00 4.547 11/02/09 297.041.67 297,041.67 42300 09/16/09 50,462,000.00 42301 09/16/09 1.3750 T 1.375 2 15 12 02/15/12 50,000,000.00 2.241 03/22/10 577,000.88 577,000.88 42302 09/17/09 0.0000 B 10 29 09 10/29/09 50,000 .. 000.00 49,99650,199,218.75..791.67 .056 MATURED 3,208.33 3 ..208.33 42303 09/17/09 0.0000 B 10 29 09 10/29/09 50,000,000.00 49,996,791.67 .056 MATURED 3,208.33 3,208.33 MATURED 3 ..208.33 42304 09/17/09 0.0000 B 10 29 09 50,000,000.00 49 ..996,791.67 .056 42305 09/17/09 0.0000 B 10 29 09 10/29/09 25,000 ..000.00 24,998,395.83 MATURED 3,208.331,604.17 1 ..604.17 42306 03/23/09 .4538 Union Bank TLGP Float 03 03/16/12 25,000 ..000.00 25 ..033,.725.00 .056.534 112.309.22 100,278.16 42307 09/23/09 4.5000 FFCB 4.5 10 17 12 10/17/12 25,000,000.00 27 ..009,525.00 4.657 11/02/09 1.39,350.00 139,350.00 42308 09/23/09 4.5000 FFCB 4.5 10 17 12 10/17/12 25,000.000.00 27,009,525.00 4.657 11/02/09 139,350.00 139,350.00 42309 09/23/09 4.5000 FFCB 4.5 10 17 12 25,000,000.00 27,009,525.00 11/02/09 139,350.00 10/17/12 4.657 139,350.00 42310 09/23/09 4.5000 FFCB 4.5 10 17 12 25,000,000.00 27,009,525.00 11/02/09 139 ..350.00 42312 2.0200 FFCB 2.02 4 20 12 2.5NC6 10/17/1204/20/12 50,000,000.00 50,268 ..000.00 4.6571.805 61 ..722.22 139,350.00460,389.92 42313 09/28/09 1.5000 CA GO CP 10 06 09 10/06/09 12,500 ..000.00 12 ..500 ..000.00 1. 500 MATURED 22 ..089.04 22,089.04 423H 10/06/0908/24/09 .5000 CA GO CP 12 07 09 12/07/09 16,715 ..000.00 16 ..715,000.00 .500 MATURED 14,196.30 14,196.30 42315 10/29/09 2.0000 FHLB 2 10 29 12 3NC6mo 10/29/12 35,140 .. 000.00 35,140,000.00 2.001 296,737.78 42316 10/13/09 .7000 USOC PTD 0.7 10 13 10 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 .710 91,388.89 165,277.78 42317 1.6250 C 1.625 03.30.11 TLGP 10/13/1003/30/11 35,000,000.00 35,423,500.00 .774 249,618.06 10/22/09 121,076.74 42318 .7500 FHLB 0.75 9 29 11 2NCI s 09/29/11 48,450 ..000.00 48,396,705.00 .808 160,490.62 174 ..761. 96 42319 10/20/09 1.0000 FHLB 2nc3m Step 10/28/11 50,000 .. 000. 00 49,962,500.00 1.290 01/28/10 162 .. 500.00 162,500.00 42320 10/28/09 1.6250 FRLB 1.625 11 21 12 11/21/12 100,000 ..000.00 99,648,000.00 4.338 02/25/101,362 ..069.44 1.362.069.44 42322 11/02/09 1.6700 FRLMC 1.67 4 30 12 2.5NC 04/30/12 75,000 .. 000.00 75,000,000.00 1.671 525.354.17 42323 10/27/09 1.6500 FHLMC 1.365 04 27 12 2.5 04/27/12 20,665,000.00 20.625 ..736.50 2.395 01/27/10 124,506.62 124,506.62 42324 10/30/0910/29/09 0.0000 B 11 27 09 11/27/09 175,000,000.00 174,995,065.98 .035 MATURED 4,934.02 4,934.02 42325 10/29/09 1.0000 T 1. 08 31 11 08/31/11 100,000.00 100 ..316.41 .829 337.02 351.36 March 31, 2010 City & Countyof San Francisco 16
CIT Y / C 0 U N T Y 0 F SAN F RAN CIS C 0 MR. NEW L I, N RAN KIN 4 1 5 - 5 5 4 - 4 4 8 7 (EI5 / ERNEIS) EARNED INCOME SUMMARY 07/01/09 THROUGH 03/31/10 PAGE: 4 SORT KEYS ARE FUND RUN: 04/01/10 14:15:57 FUND: 100 POOLED FUNDS
TICKER / SHARES / INCOME INV PURCHASE COUPON MATURITY SCHEDULED SCHEDULED YIELD/ DATE RECEIVED TOTAL/N.ET NO. DATE RATE DESCRIPTION DATE PAR VALUE BOOK VALUE 365 SOLD/MAT THIS PER EARNINGS
42326 10/29/09 1.0000 T 1 08 31 11 08/31/11 99,900,000.00 100,200,480.47 .838 336,679.56 354,586.40 42327 11/09/09 2.0000 FHLB 3NC3 Ix 2% fixed co 11/09/12 100,000,000.00 100,000,000.00 1.984 02/09/10 500,000.00 500,000.00 42328 11/04/09 2.2500 MS 2.25 3 13 12 03/13/12 20,000,000.00 20,431,800.00 1.317 161,250.00 109,440.23 42329 11/03/09 1.5000 T 1.5 10 31 10 10/31/10 50,000,000.00 50,545,277.97 .661 12/22/09 44,878.72 44,878.72 42330 11/03/09 2.1250 FFCB Bullet 2.125 6 18 1 06/18/12 100,000,000.00 U1,773,200.00 2.646 03/22/101,028,286.11 1,028,286.11 42331 11/06/09 2.2500 MS TLGP 2.25 03 13 12 03/13/12 50,000,000.00 51,084,000.00 1.311 396,875.00 268,668.12 42332 11/06/09 2.1250 GE TLGP 2.125 12 21 12 12/21/12 25,000,000.00 25,253,750.00 1.792 66,406.25 181,506.36 42333 11/10/09 1.6250 FNMA1.625% 2.5NC6 Ameri 05/10/12 75,000,000.00 75,000,000.00 1.636 477,343.75 42334 11/19/09 3.8750 FHLMC 3.875 6 29 11 06/29/11 50,000,000.00 52,552,500.00 1.113 02/01/10 119,500.00 119,500.00 42335 11/19/09 1.7500 FNMA 1.75 3 23 11 03/23/11 50,000,000.00 50,770,000.00 .601 301,388.89 111,405.93 42337 11/20/09 3.8750 FHLMC 3.875 6 29 11 Bull 06/29/11 50,000,000.00 52,592,852.50 .696 02/01/10 73,765.55 73,765.55 42338 11/20/09 1.7500 FNMA 1.75 3 23 2011 Bull 03/23/11 20,000,000.00 20,314,600.00 .574 119,583.33 42,264.39 42341 11/19/09 1.0000 T 1 7 31 11 07/31/11 120,000,000.00 120,801,562.50 .600 238,043.46 264,712.62 42342 11/19/09 3.8750 FFCB Bullet 3.875 8 25 1 08/25/11 50,000,000.00 52,705,000.00 .785 516,666.67 151,775.37 42345 11/27/09 0.0000 B 12 24 09 12/24/09 175,000,000.00 174,992,125.00 .061 MATURED 7,875.00 7,875.00 42346 12/30/09 1.1250 FHLMC 1.125 12 30 11 2NC 12/30/11 50,000,000.00 49,995,000.00 1.133 142,817.64 42347 12/21/09 1.1250 FHLMC 1.125 12 21 11 2NC 12/21/11 54, 000,000.00 54,000,000.00 1.129 168,750.00 42348 12/07/09 .8750 T 0.875 1 31 11 01/31/11 100,000,000.00 100,480,468.76 .790 03/08/10 198,259.78 198,259.78 42349 12/21/09 1.8500 FHLB 1.85 12 21 12 3NCl 12/21/12 100,000,000.00 100,000,000.00 1.857 513,888.89 42350 12/28/09 1.7500 FNMAFIXED 1.75 3NCl IX 12/28/12 100,000,000.00 100,000,000.00 1.755 452,083.33 42351 12/28/09 1.7500 FHLMC Fixed 1.75 3NCl 1X 12/28/12 100,000,000.00 100,000,000.00 1.755 452,083.33 42352 12/09/09 1.1250 T 1.125 12 15 11 12/15/11 100,000,000.00 100,757,812.50 .640 02/19/10 63,793.76 127,174.14 42352 12/09/09 1.1250 T 1.125 12 15 11 12/15/11 50,000,000.00 50,378,906.25 .774 43,795.42 42353 12/21/09 1.8000 FNMA 3NC6 1.80% fixed 12/21/12 58,450,000.00 58,496,760.00 1.779 287,940.91 42354 09/10/09 .7559 FHLMC 3ncl float step-up 09/10/12 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 .780 194,727.50 216,775.75 42356 11/20/09 1.1250 FHLNC 1.125 6 1 11 06/01/11 28,600,000.00 28,779,470.72 .717 9,831.25 74,625.81 42357 11/19/09 0.0000 B 12 31 09 12/31/09 30,000,000.00 29,998,915.00 .031 MATURED 1,085.00 1,085.00 42358 11/19/09 0.0000 B 3 11 10 03/11/10 50,000,000.00 49,991,288.89 .057 MATURED 8,711.11 8,711.11 42363 01/26/10 1.0000 FHLB 1 07 26 11 1.5NClmo 07/26/11 72,300,000.00 72,300,000.00 .981 02/26/10 60,250.00 60,250.00 42365 01/18/10 1.0000 FIRST NATL PTD 01 18 11 01/18/11 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 1.014 20,277.78 42366 02/08/10 1.8000 FNMA 3NC1.5 IX 1.80 02/08/13 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 1.860 132,500.00 42367 02/08/10 1.8000 FNMA 3NC1.5 IX 02/08/13 25,000,000.00 24,987,500.00 1.878 66,843.07 42368 02/26/10 2.1000 FHLB 2.1 2 26 13 3NClmo 02/26/13 40,000,000.00 39,996,000.00 2.412 03/26/10 74,000.00 74,000.00 42370 02/19/10 1.6700 FFCB 1.67 11 19 12 2.75N 11/19/12 75,000,000.00 74,947,500.00 1.761 148,268.92 42371 02/25/10 1.8000 FHLMC 1.8 2 25 13 3NC1 02/25/13 75,000,000.00 75,000,000.00 1.877 135,000.00 42372 03/25/10 1.8750 FHLB 1.875 3NC3 Fixed 03/25/13 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 1.629 15,625.00 42373 03/09/10 .9500 FFeB 2 Year Bullet .95 C 03/05/12 17,050, 000. 00 17,017,870.22 1.023 10,971.89 42374 03/09/10 .9500 FFCB 2 Year Bullet Fixed 03/05/12 58,000,000.00 57,899,982.22 1.015 37",030.16 42376 03/08/10 0.0000 B 03 25 10 03/25/10 100,000,000.00 99,995,938.88 .087 MATURED 4,061.12 4,061.12 42377 03/25/10 1.8000 FHLMC 1.8 03 25 13 3NC3m 03/25/13 75,000,000.00 75,000,000.00 1.564 22,500.00 42378 03/26/10 1.8200 FHLB 2.75 NC 1month 1.82 12/26/12 100,000,000.00 100,000,000.00 1.538 25,277.78 42379 03/22/10 3.2500 GS 3.25 06.15.12 TLGP 06/15/12 50,000,000.00 52,652,847.22 .934 13,480.39 42380 03/22/10 2.0000 GE TLGP 2% 09.28.2012 09/28/12 25,000,000.00 25,366,000.00 1.220 8,333.33 8,526.06 42382 03/23/10 1.5000 T 1.5 07.15.12 07/15/12 50,000,000.00 50,580,218.40 1.118 13,945.04 March 31, 2010 City & County of San Francisco 17
CIT Y / C 0 U N T Y 0 F SAN F RAN CIS C 0 MR. NEW LIN RAN KIN 415 - 554 - 4 4 8 7 (EIS / ERNEIS) EARNED INCOME SUMMARY 07/01/09 THROUGH 03/31/10 PAGE: 5 SORT KEYS ARE FUND RUN: 04/01/10 14:15:57 FUND: 100 POOLED FUNDS
TICKER / SHARES / INCOME INV PURCHASE COUPON MATURITY SCHEDULED SCHEDULED YIELD/ DATE RECEIVED TOTAL/NET NO. DATE RATE DESCRIPTION DATE PAR VALUE BOOK VALUE 365 SOLD/MAT THIS PER EARNINGS ---~------~------~------~------~------~~-- 42383 03/25/10 0.0000 B 04.22.10 04/22/10 75,000,000.00 74,992,300.00 .134 1,925.00 42385 03/26/10 1.8750 FFCB 1.875 12.07.12 12/07/12 37,000,000.00 37,543,422.08 1.2,33 7,608.85 42386 03/24/10 0.0000 B 6.10.10 06/10/10 200,000,000.00 199,946,700.00 .125 5,466.67 42388 03/24/10 1.8750 FHLB 1.875 03.22.13 03/22/B 50,000,000.00 49,965,208.33 1.691 18,521.67 42393 03/31/10 0.0000 B 031011 03/10/11 50,000,000.00 49,817,488.89 .389 530.56
SUBTOTAL (FUND) 100 POOLED FUNDS ASSETS 681 DAYS 3559636000.00 3577350505.01 34,241,925.7932,300,745.04 ------~~------SUBTOTAL (FUND) 100 POOLED FONDS NET 3559636000.00 3577350505.01 34,241,925.7932,300,745.04
FUND STATISTICS ASSETS LIABILITIES
AVERAGE DAILY INVESTMENT BALANCE :3,017,691,460.73 EARNED INTEREST YIELD THIS PERIOD 1.426 .000 WEIGHTED AVG YIELD AT END OF PERIOD 1.328 .000 TOTAL INTEREST EARNED FOR FUTURE RECEIPT: 8,541,803.88 March 31, 2010 City & County of San Francisco 18
CIT Y / C 0 U N T Y 0 F SAN F RAN CIS C 0 MR. NEW LIN RAN KIN 415 - 554 - 4 4 8 7 (EIS / ERNEIS) EARNED INCOME SUMMARY 07/01/09 THROUGH 03/31/10 PAGE: 6 SORT KEYS ARE FUND RUN: 04/01/10 14:15:57 FUND: 9703 SFUSD TRANS 08-09
TICKER / SHARES / INCOME INV PURCHASE COUPON MATURITY SCHEDULED SCHEDULED YIELD/ DATE RECEIVED TOTAL/NET NO. 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 ASSETS LIABILITIES
AVERAGE DAILY INVESTMENT BALANCE 18,521,897.81 EARNED INTEREST'YIELD THIS PERIOD 2.352 .000 WEIGHTED AVG YIELD AT END OF PERIOD .000 .000 TOTAL INTEREST EARNED FOR FUTURE RECEIPT: March 31, 2010 City & County of San Francisco 19
CIT y / C 0 U N T Y 0 F SAN F RAN CIS C 0 MR. NEW LIN RAN KIN 415 - 554 - 4 4 8 7
(EIS / ERNEIS) EARNED INCOME SUMMARY 07/01/09 THROUGH 03/31/10 PAGE: 7 SORT KEYS ARE FOND RUN: 04/01/10 14:15:57 FUND: 9704 SFUSD BONDS 2006B
TICKER / SHARES I INCOME INV PURCHASE COUPON MATURITY SCHEDULED SCHEDULED YIELD/ DATE RECEIVED TOTAL/NET NO. 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 ..444.44 42159 02/06/09 2.8000 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT 01/28/14 18,225 ..000.00 18,152,100.00 2.889 498,960.00 393,718.17 42160 02/06/09 .5190 T BILL 01/14/10 50,000,000.00 49,757,750.00 .520 MATURED 242,250.00 139,541.67 42161 02/06/09 .5190 T BILL 01/14/10 20,000,000.00 19,903,100.00 2.818 09/09/09 87,727.78 107,561.12 42176 02/06/09 .9000 FREDDIE MAC DISCOUNT 01/08/10 20,000,000.00 19,832,000.00 .920 MATURED 168,000.00 95,500.00 42221 05/12/09 1.7500 FNMA 1.75 3 23 11 03/23/11 30,000,000.00 30,359,458.33 8.130 07/21/09 185,525.00 135,243.14 42264 07/21/09 1.1250 T 1.125 06.30.11 06/30/11 30,000,000.00 30,093,750.00 .958 149,490.49 200,745.61 42355 09/10/09 .7559 FHLMC 3nc1 float step-up 09/10/12 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 .780 77,891.00 86,710.30 42359 01/08/10 1.2500 T 1.25 11 30 10 11/30/10 20,000,000.00 20,183,035.71 .375 17,224.05 42360 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 50,552.33 42361 01/15/10 2.7500 RF 2.75 12 10 10 12/10/10 11,310,000.00 11,584,240.48 .385 9,295.64 42362 01/14/10 0.0000 B 01 13 11 01/13/11 18,000,000.00 17,938,484.00 .344 13,013.00 42369 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 37,000.00 42384 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 , 157,200,915.61 EARNED INTEREST YIELD THIS PERIOD , 1.300 .000 WEIGHTED AVG YIELD AT END OF PERIOD , 1.024 .000 TOTAL 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 To [email protected]
To whom it may concern, I am a city resident who lives on 16th St. between Castro and Noe, a block away from the Noe/Market Center. I am concerned about the back door political dealings ofthe Trader Joe's project. I feel that the City powers are already assuming that this project is a go, without due diligence. Most disturbing is the news that the Office ofEconomic Development is entering into negotiations to have Radio Shack move. This is a small neighborhood retail formula store. It has been in this location since the building was built. Why would the Mayor's OOED intervene for a corporation, whose owuers are wealthier than the Walmart family? The traffic study is not done, the terms offormula retail moving into a neighborhood have been passed over! The DNTA was supposed to be involved with the review ofthe traffic study before the final scope ofproject was approved. It was not. Glaring omissions have been noted. One being the delivery trucks. When are deliveries to take place? There is no loading dock for this building. It is near a vibrant night life with pedestrians who are coming from bars. How can you ask Radio Shack to move ifyou aren't thinking of ignoring due process? The traffic report is not including the impact ofother intersections that most likely will become backed up because ofthe traffic generated. This is not a walk/bike store. Groceries are heavy and TJ attracts people from all over the city. They will drive, even neighbors say they will drive because ofbuying heavy bulk items. The parking lot that was accessible for their patrons is not available. Since Radio Shack is "in the way" ofTJ, hourly parking is no more in this popular parking lot. For now there is parking on the street but witness the popular Wed. afternoon farmer's market and a glimpse ofthe possible future traffic. Most people walk to this farmer's market as there are no bulk items for sale, even though there is a traffic snarl from 3 to 7 on Wed afternoons. Also small neighborhood businesses have noted a 2/3 drop in income on Wed. since this popular market started because people cannot find parking. And this Farmer's Market is a mostly a walk/bike market. Also another disturbing note is the climate ofanimosity that has been directed to small businesses in the area. The passage ofa bill by the citizens of San Francisco specifically states that the impact offormula retail should not affect the small businesses in the area. There are businesses via Yelp and Save the Castro that have been attacked after not conforming to Bevan Duffy's "pledge to Trader Joe's" to move to this particular space. Phone numbers ofemployees have been posted and vicious confrontations in the place ofbusinesses by devotees ofTrader Joe's have been witnessed. It is a disturbing phenomena. Where is the non-biased leadership ofthis city for its citizens and tax payers? Sincerely a voter, property owner and tax payer for fair government, Sarah Slaughter Joshua Arce To "Ed Harrington ([email protected])"
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 ReservoirSolar Ordinance that requires the PUC to "include a summary of compliance with the First Source Hiring Agreement" on the Reservoir Project as part of "each PUC budget submission." (see page 7 starting at line 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 many stakeholders are curious about. In addition, I'm CC'ing OEWD's Rhonda Simmonsand CityBuild's Guillermo Rodriguez because they've been working with the Southeast Jobs Coalition and other groups to get community workers out on the project.
Thank you,
Josh
Joshua Arce Executive Director Brightline Defense Project www.brightlinedefense.org sun cycle To [email protected]
Naked Digital Body Scanners at our Airports...
For those who are not aware, every major airport in the country is beginning to install and use naked digital body scanners that reveal and record our private parts to TSA government officials.
This is not only a massive violation ofpersonal privacy, but a direct violation ofour constitutional 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Once these scanners are installed at over 350 major airports across the USA by the beginning of2011, you will be treated as a criminal ifyou refuse to follow scanner protocol in order to get on a plane. That is, they will then give you the temporary reprieve- and I emphasize "temporary", once everyone has been acculturated- ofhaving to submit to a highly intrusive bodily pat-down as is done when someone is arrested by the police.
This is all being done to psychologically prepare the American people to surrender their rights, liberties and freedoms and embrace a fascist Nazi police state headed by Homeland Security and the Pentagon.
Its time to stand up and say "no" to this level oftyranny in our nation. Contact your local airports 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 ofthe EMR has not been tested thoroughly let alone the constant high dosages that we will be subjected to ifthis 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 ofthis 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.') !()O}?;", Sirs: cf~ We strongly appose the upcoming phone generationt\~&\\fl\Q.0('mdHHt\art:\i1 block from where we live! --'-'~ 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 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 ofthe EMR has not been tested thoroughly let / alone the constant high dosages that we will be subjected to ifthis 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 ofthis 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.
2. ?:.S-t- /61!.. ~£/e .tfW0l· L-;, ulviv... ;;)_JI-J'7:f /t'--'1-4 ,ItV2'7uV S, f ..L'!2//ru S/*; V~ ~[!J / G#L,jJ);f. ~ ,p C/T '/. 11. e£fZt L.J I~'Y
\~ \'":;- f\-Ji: .~':,.;.:-, GA. ~l...:\~~M;\'?J (1)(- Board of To BOSConstituentMail Distribution, Supervlsors/BOS/SFGOV cc 04/191201012:23 PM 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 555 Washington 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. -m File 100443- 555 Washington -EIR Certification Support.pdf
Complete a Board of SupervisorsCustorner Service Satisfaction form by clicking HERE. 'F········n,~ ~··N·· ·O:··~ ;:" 'n,1 1;,;: ... ·I.D·.\ _:.....···s-J' ••• : ,r REDWOOD, PA,RK
TO: SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FRIENDS OF REDWOODPARK FROM: / DATE: April 19, 2010 / 555~ RE: CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR FOR ASHIINGTON and complete Friends ofRedwood Park supports the 555 Washington EIR as a thorough Weurge document that provides ample decision making-information for City officials. you to uphold certification of the EIR in support Attached for your review are more than 2,200 letters, petitions and postcards ofthe 555 Washington proposal and expansion ofRedwood Park. The majority are from local residents and, merchants and community organizations in the surrounding Sarah neighborhoods. Please feel free to contact Friends ofRedwood Park chair Stocking at 203-2373 if you have any questions. ., YES! I support Redwood Park! I support a ne,~ pftblic park and revitalizationoftheTransamecica Block. Redwood Park willbe expandedand. permanently protected as San Francisco's newest public park. At less than halfthe height ofthe adjacent 'Icensamerica Pyramid, the plan for a slender 400 foot high-rise residential tower at 555 Washington 6£$ within the contextofthe 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 provides an 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 the public 7 days a week with maintenance permanentlyprovided at no cost to the City.
Please join theJackson Square Historic DistrictAssociation, North Beach Neighbors and the North Beach Chamber ofCommerce and so many others in supporting the 555 Washingtonplan anda newpublicparkfOr 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 parkand revitalization ofthe Transamerica Block. Redwood Parkwill be expandedand permanently protected s San Francisco's newest public park. At less chan halfthe height ofthe adjacent Transamerica Pyramid, the plan for a slender 400 fooc igh-rise residential tower at 555 Washington fits within the contextofthe 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 safetyand provides n economic boost to local merchants, while also increasingopen space by 80%. The redwoods will be preserved with new trees added. he park will be open to"the public7 days a weekwith maintenance permanently provided at no cost to the City. Pleasejoin theJackson Square HistoricalDistrictAssociation, North Beach Neighbors and the Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association andso many others in supporting the 555 Washington plan anda new public parkfir our neighborhoodl
Address
City, State
Zip Code i I - i l iii T] Email 1 _I Signarure i / \ "I 1
..City, State
Zip Code
Email Signature
Address
City, State I zip Code Phone ~I L
.Email ---'--'.LJ::-I Signature
City, State
. Zip Code Phone'n ,
Email Signarure Sponsored by Friends ofRedwood Park YES! We Support the Plan for 555 Washington Street 555 Washington is a pian to revitaiize the City's special Transamerica Pyramid block with a new publlc park, more open space, and a thriving pedestrian plaza. The pian wiil use the latest environmentaily responsible "green" building techniques and include sustainable housing located near transit, jobs and shops. 555 Washington includes a new city-owned park totaiing at least 18,000 square feet and OVer 10.000 square feet of new plaza and open space for the public to enjoy. ~ r:;;J? ~;;e~ ~ Printed Name: «" ...... ".----·.······------r- /A'/ .: Organizatipn/Business: Cp C--A '~ Address: /0 gc;.::::-.>Z:::oz;e'~ity:5' Zip: Yr?/3?;? ') q 0 'Jfi-. .---- Daytime Telephone: d I / 1/1 HomeTelephone: ~ __ - ~ IkrV~rv~~ Emaii and/or fax: H~'/ ~< Ir>_ ~ G '~/):7~ ~ d--~ ('''I ¥ Signature: (<" <" ! I i ::> (<::: :::>
o i will attend a meeting to support 555 Washington Street. Please send me more information when the meeting is scheduled.
o i will send a letter of support or e-mail to City Hall. Please keep me informed. Fe r/UAA/do G-v/'rA//'L t ciA L. I,D;#/1/6/:1N / Z If0 fj).. J3 rO/TJVJ0/ s1, #-S-/ ~r-, C,1, 9'1/33 ~
September 23, 2009
President David Chiu San Francisco Board of Supervisors 1 Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102 ......
-'. " I support housing projects that bring tax reveriue int~ San Franci~co, that provide millions of dollars for affordable housing, that revitalize and improve parks, and that help make parts of the Financial District also a residential neighborhood.
What is proposed for 555 Washington and Redwood Park, behind the TransAmerica pyramid, is just such a project, In addition, I like the increased sunlight from the expanded park.
I urge it be approved.
Cc: San Francisco Planning Commission· Members, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 6~H f-lhsinn $;reel ,;',hl -,.;:,.', ",S':',~; c aurcr r.tc 'I ..': ,,-\0.', '. , \.'';'f1 :',r, ""","",/\p,:"l\ 5.1" FI':III.:;"'<::O, ,. ; -.,',:;1,\', '. 'I' 'J-<'lH.) 5 Ii1S.7UUHJ.n \' '!1,),7B!.72!;l\ f 2009 Co E:",,,;:uUve Dl,.ctor Mr. Jeffrey Heller, FAIA Gnbnel Metcalf Heller Manus Architects Urb"n CQnl Vic.. Ch"l.. San Francisco, CA 94105 Lisa Feldsl.:'1n LmdaJo ~Itz Bob G;;tmble at 555 Washington Street Jim SallI1ilS. Sr Re: Proposed Development LIbby Selfel lydu,l Tan Tr Public Realm Interface and the Promotion of a Pedestrian-Oriented Environment Overall, the committee agrees with the orientation ofthe building, its integration with extensive shadow Redwood Park, Mark Twain Alley and the Transamerica Pyramid. The to the form studies ofthe slender silhouette of the proposed 400 ft. building, as compared slender building allowed by the Planning Code, satisfy the committee that a taller, more is more desirable for this location. We are especially pleased with the proposal to unbundle parking and to tailor the parking and requesting usage to occupancy requirements, starting initially at .50 per unit capacity Car Share a maximum of .80 spaces per unit. Valet parking integrated with stackers, inclusion, and bike parking are all enthusiastically approved by the committee. the integration of There was some discussion among the committee members regarding 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 the proposed environment, though we encourage the project sponsors to review whether "pop-out" area of the restaurant within 555 Washington into the Park is necessary. We more than also agree that this restaurant space is perhaps large enough to accommodate one tenant. Bummer The committee also expressed a desire to preserve the plaque commemorating and Lazarus, Emperor Norton's dogs and fixtures ofpopular culture in the early 1860's. currently located within the Park. Building & Landscape Design positive The committee agrees that the proposed building design makes a strong statement for the neighborhood. The graduated cylindrical shape and the proposed clear Pyramid which glass skin present a complementary balance to the iconic Transamerica to detail. shares the block. We are impressed with the thoughtful design and attention materials, We encourage the project sponsors to commit to the use ofhigh-quality to counter balance especially for the glass envelope. A light, transparent glass is essential the concrete structure ofthe adjacent Pyramid. As stated earlier in this review, the committee is very pleased with the proposed redesign ofthe Park and and expansion ofRedwood Park. We believe the generous giftto the City project sponsors, its maintenance in perpetuity provides a win-win-win situation for the the tenants and the public. The proposed re-design with water feature, additional seating Expanding and retractable gates will enhance what is already a beautiful restful retreat. the hours ofaccess to seven-days is an added bonus. 3 of 4 of the We understand that the maintenance of Redwood Park will be the responsibility committee supports building owners and we appreciate the generosity ofthat gesture. The the commitment to adequate maintenance throughout the life of Park. Environmental Effects into their SPUR believes it is essential for projects to build environmental sustainability achieve LEED Gold design and function, and we appreciate the project sponsor's goals to Certification for the entire block, a "green island" including both 555 Washington and the supportive ofthe Transamerica Pyramid. This is a unique opportunity and we are very project sponsor's efforts in this area. practices throughout We are looking forward to inventive use ofsustainable materials and the project. Conclusion The SPUR Project Review Committee finds the proposed project at 555 Washington will enliven Street to be an appropriate use of the site. The dense residential development ofdesign and enhance the neighborhood. We are very pleased to see such a high level and creativity in what is already a high-profile City block.' at SPUR, We thank you for committing your time and resources to the presentation appreciate the fact that you have presented your proposal to us at an early stage in its We will development so that you may take our recommendations into consideration. keepus follow further refinements ofthis project with great interest and invite you to informed on its progress. Consideration for Endorsement you should Should you intend to request SPUR to consider this project for endorsement, by SPUR is contact the Committee co-chairs at the appropriate time. Endorsement Consideration for reserved for projects ofthe highest quality and significance to the city. endorsement begins with a formal response by projects sponsors to this review letter, or design since the including an update on any significant changes to the project program project was initially presented at SPUR. The project is then taken up for discussion by an in the endorsement subcommittee ofSPUR board members who serve on committees We areas ofproject review, urban policy, housing, sustainability, and transportation. normally require a month's lead-time to schedule a meeting ofthe endorsement subcommittee, 40f4 Please do not hesitate to contact us for questions/clarifications. __ .._ /Sincerely, "/. /~._)-- / - - f::£;e.. : . ( Sanders Charmaine Curtis Reuben S~z Mary Beth SPUR Project Review Committee Co-Chairs cc: SPUR Board ofDirectors CHINATOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP 1524 Powell Street San Francisco, California 94133 TEL: (415) 756-1898 - FAX: (415) 399-0551 March 16, 2010 San Francisco Board of Supervisors City Hall 1 Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 Honorable Supervisors, This letter is to indicate our approval of the proposal for new homes at 555 Washington and the new public park in the Transamerica Pyramid Block. Because of our interest in boosting Chinatown's economy, we naturally always support a vibrant community for small businesses. Adding more residents to the area as this proposal does will do just that, because it means more customers from the new families and their out-of-town visitors and friends. Businesses in the area, whether small or medium-sized will employ members of our community. Located just over a block away from Chinatown, the new homes and block renovation will help promote the area. The building that 555 Washington replaces is of no particular architectural note; we will be glad to see the very attractively designed slender tower 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 of additional 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 park on weekends and holidays. To have it maintained forever at no expense to the City of San Francisco is great! Board of To BOS Constituent Maii Distribution, Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV cc 04/19/2010 11:46 AM bcc Subject Fiie 100443: 555 Washington susan vaughan Dear Supervisors, I urge to grant the appeal of555 Washington Street. This proposed development is exactly what is not neede and contributing to the congestion on city streets. Not to mention the fact that the developers are requesting, Please up hold this appeal. Sue Vaughan District 1 "Herb Kosovitz" To Supervisors: Piease reject the 555 Washington EIR. Very truly yours, Herb Kosovitz Board of To BOS Constituent Mail Distribution, Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV cc 04/19/2010 01:42 PM bcc Subject File 100443 pleae reject the 555 Washington EIR llMary Etta Moose ll Dear Supervisors, I beseech you to reject the 555 Washington EIR, and support the Telegraph Hill Dwellers Appeal. The EIR fails to adequately analyze the impacts from this project that would require spot re-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 Park and Redwood Park); ignore the voter mandated Proposition K (which bans additional shadows 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 be vacated and added to the development site, and require numerous other exceptions and variances from the Code. Respectfully, Mary Etta Moose 1962 Powell St 94133 4153980808 Board of To SupervisorslBOSISFGOV cc 0411912010 11:48 AM bcc SUbject File 100443- 555 Washington - Please reject this EIR Complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form by clicking HERE. ----- Forwardedby Board of SupervisorslBOSISFGOV on 0411912010 11 :51 AM --- [email protected] 041161201011:19 PM To [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] cc [email protected] Subject 555 Washington - 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 555 Washington EIR. As with all other EIRs that I review, I have looked for adequacy, completeness and a good-faith effort for full 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 Walton Park and Redwood Park); 4. ignores the voter-mandated Proposition K (which bans additional shadows on public parks); 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 be added to the development site; and 8. 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 not allow tall buildinqs in zones other than what the Urban Design Plan prescribes... instead we should add density to the Core, not the edge. I respectfully ask that you reject this EIR, Kathrin Moore Planning Commissioner [email protected] To [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], 04/16/201011:19 PM [email protected], [email protected], cc [email protected] bee Subject 555Washington - Pleaserejectthis EIR Honorable Supervisors: As a Planning Commissioner and as a citizen of San Francisco, I write to urge you to reject the flawed 555 Washington EIR. As with all other EIRs that I review, I have looked for adequacy, completeness and a good-faith effort for full 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 Walton Park and Redwood Park); 4. ignores the voter-mandated Proposition K (which bans additional shadows on public parks); 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 be added to the development site; and 8. 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 not allow tall buildinqs in zones other than what the Urban Design Plan prescribes... instead we should add density to the Core, not the edge. I respectfully ask that you reject this EIR, Kathrin Moore Planning Commissioner Board of To Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV cc 04/19/201002:23 PM bee Subject File 100443 Please Reject the 555 Washington EIR katie hopkins The ErR for 555 Washington fails to adequately analyze the impacts from this project that would require "spot" re-zoning ofa 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 bans additional shadows on public parks); increase wind impacts above what the Planning Code allows; add more cars than allowed by the Code; require the vacation and conveyance ofa public street (Mark Twain Alley/Merchant Street) to be added to the development site; and require numerous other exceptions and variances from the Code. Katie Hopkins Resident Katherine Petrin To "[email protected]" Dear Supervisor: I am writing in support of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers appeal on the proposed project at 555 Washington 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 the Architect's Journal, which may have come to your attention (see link below), provides an excellent analysis of the potential detriment that this proposed project poses to the urban fabric of the surrounding 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, "spot zoning," doubling of the height limit, shadows on public parks and the flouting of other zoning regulations, this potential project in would demolish a nine-story office building at 545 Sansome Street which actually does a very good job at contributing to the urban scene and streetscape, mediating the heights of the larger buildings in the Financial District to the south with the lower scale designated historic 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 project proposed on that site respects the existing height limits and other regulations set forth in the Planning Code. Sincerely, Katherine T. Petrin, Architectural Historian & District 3 Resident "Dee Whalen" To "[email protected]" I don't like the many many evils of the project: the 400' height [Ugh!], the spot-zoning, the thumbing-of-nose of the General Plan, the increased cars -- and more. I urge you to keep our city on track. Please reject this project! Dee Whalen Board of To BOS Constituent Maii Distribution, Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV cc 04/19/201002:28 PM bcc Subject The 555 Washington EiR Tanya Hoffmoen Dear Board of Supervisors: Please reject the 555 Washington EIR. Board of To BOS Constituent Mail Distribution, Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV cc 04/19/201002:31 PM bcc Subject Reject the 555 Washington EIR & support the THD appeal "Arthur Levy" From: Arthur Levy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 19, 20109:17 AM To: '[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 THD appeal 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 To David,[email protected], [email protected], 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 Hurtado P.O. Box 330324 San Francisco, CA 94133-0324 Board of To BOS Constituent Mail Distribution, Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV cc 04/19/2010 11 :42 AM bcc SUbject File 100443 Please Reject the 555 Washington EIR "Michael Schoolnik" Supervisor Chiu, The EIR fails to adequatelyanaiyzethe impacts from this project that would require 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, SidneyWalton Park and Redwood Park); ignore the voter mandated Proposition K (which bans additional shadows on public parks); increase wind impacts above what the Planning Code allows; add more cars than allowed by the Code; require the vacation and conveyance of a public street (Mark Twain Alley/MerchantStreet) to be added to the development 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( .3 [email protected] To [email protected], bevan.dufty@sfgov,org, Ross,[email protected], Michela.Alioto-Pier@sfgov,org, 04/18/201003:11 AM [email protected], chris,daiy@sfgov,org, cc [email protected], president@thd,org bcc SUbject 555 WASHINGTON: EXISTiNG ZONiNG HAS COMPELLING LOGiC TO: Honorable Board of Supervisors RE: REJECT THE 555 WASHINGTON EIR BELOW: 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 prior owner 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 development rights (over open space) and "possible" acquisition of a city street (at bargain prices) for a larger and taller building, 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 order to 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 from Market 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 pressures to push tall buildings northward, e,g, Telegraph Hill highrises, International Hotel Tower, City College, 555 Colombo Building site, 555 Washington etc. For the last previous decades, and many future decades to come, powerful development interests will ALWAYS probe for ways to maximize profits in some of the most 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 PREMISES TO: Honorable Members of the Planning Commission and Recreation & Parks Commission CC: John Rahaim, Planning Director, Phil Ginsburg (GM Rec-Park) and Board President Chiu RE: 555 WASHINGTON····NAGGING DOUBTS ABOUT PREMISES First, I do grasp the proposed benefits of the Project---having seen three design presentations and having visited the site with the Project Sponsors, In my previous communique (see below "Both Sides Can be Right"), I stressed that alternative designs could satisfy both the Project Sponsors and neighborhood organizations. But like magicians Who frame the conditions for a magic act, I had nagging doubts about the debate'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---curbing gentrification of Chinatown's poorer residents and merchants. • Washington Street has historically been and referenced as the transition boundary to the lower-scaled Jackson Square Historic District and North Beach. EXisting zoning reinforces a stepping down 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 to the 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 vantage points. The proposed 555 Washington Tower blocks iconic views from the Embarcadero along Washington St. to Columbus Ave. • Allowable Floor Areas for the site as a whole need to be evaluated. The two existing high-rises each met legal mandates for their individual approvals. The Planning Department should study how previous Floor Areas were calculated---the assumed building footprints, approvals derived from Redwood Park, any conditions established for code exceptions or variances.... • In calculating its Floor Areas! FAR, the proposed 555 Washington Project should not assume a false footprint that includes city-owned Merchant Street, previously dedicated open space or previously assumed footprints of other existing bUildings. • The purchase of Merchant Street appears necessary for the proposed project's increased bulk and 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 Shadow Ordinance 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 much needed long-term revenue for the City. • If a series of benefits for a single Project Sponsor were to be initiated, this would constitute a political planning process rather than a City Planning process----especially when win-win designs exist. Yours Truly, Howard Wong, AlA Ph: 982-5055 ******** 555 WASHINGTON: BOTH SIDES CAN BE RIGHT TO: Honorable Members of the Planning Commission CC: John Rahaim, Planning Director and President Chiu, Board of Supervisors RE: 555 WASHINGTON---A MORE BALANCED CONTEXTUAL VIEW BOTH SIDES CAN BE RIGHT As an architect and neighborhood advocate, I find that sometimes both sides of land-use debates can be right. Digging down to fundamentals, more elegant design solutions can emerge---relatively satisfying to all "combatants". DESIGN OF 555 WASHINGTON The architectural design has evolved nicely: Larger open space, activated Merchant Street, a slender glassy tower, good separation! contrast to the iconic Pyramid, long-term maintenance package..... The controversy is multiple variances, and the historical threats of large-scale development into Jackson Square, Chinatown, North Beach and northward. As in many cities, there is great anquish about neighborhood affordability, character, scale, historicism, uniqueness... Incrementally over time, perhaps moving so slowly as to lull complacency, such development has occurred, e.g. the International Hotel Tower, City College Chinatown Campus, Ellis Act evictions, height! density rezonings.... There's sound urban design logic in stepping heights downward at Washington Street---per existing zoning codes and the San Francisco General Plan. HEIGHT VARIANCE The question remains: Does a lower height necessarily negate all of the Project's proposed benefits 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 a pedestrian realm. The tower can still taper at the upper floors. The building's location still commands high market values. SHADOW IMPACTS Over a long period of time, the cumulative impacts of "small", "harmless"variances and spot rezonings will be detrlrnental-v-unless variances are reserved for extremely rare situationsthat have no other possible alternatives. In the case of 555 Washington, there are designalternatives. SEEKING ELEGANT DESIGN SOLUTIONS For 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, socially responsible, compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, filled with local art , sustainable, green etc. A lower tower, with projecting bay windows, can take an interesting form and step back from the Pyramid and 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 and deleys-v-for the long-term bettermentof San Francisco. Best Regards, Howard Wong, AlA Julian Standen To [email protected], [email protected], 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 increases taxes? Julian Standen 3525 Broderick SF Guri Walia To [email protected], [email protected], We do not want -Any increase in fees on meters -Extended meters -Meters on Sunday Thank You, Guri Board of To BOS Constituent Mail Distribution, Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV ec 04/19/201002:42 PM bee Subject NO to Sunday meters Frank Lee Please DO NOT extend meters to IOpm and have meters active on Sunday's!!! This will hurt businesses in all SF neighborhoods. Thank you. Frank Lee Lee Neighborhood Theaters, SF [email protected] To [email protected], [email protected], 04/19/201010:55 AM [email protected] 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 help offset 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 government management. Many bus routes have been eliminated or have had service reduced and parking fees have already been raised by over 10%. When the the MTA supervisors and staff have reduced staffing and their pay 10%, cut their vacation and benefits 10%; when the Supervisors reduce the City spending across the board by 10%; when the Mayor's office also cuts it's staff and services and staff pay and benefits by 10% so that we have a 10% ACROSS-THE-BOARD reduction in ALL City costs, then the public will be happy to participate in the next 5% or 10% reduction in services or increase in parking fees. Geoff Wood Baker Street Board of To BOS Constituent Mail Distribution, Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV cc 04/19/201002:42 PM bcc SUbject opposed to parking meters increase Patricia Houden I am a homeowner in San Francisco and I am opposed to parking meter fee and time increases. Instead, why don't we actively fine people who do not comply with the dog ordinance. It would provide employment, generate city revenue, and clean up our streets and beaches and make them safer. Pat Houden 2780 Filbert Street [email protected] To [email protected], [email protected], 04/19/201010:40 AM [email protected] cc bec Subject Resident of the Marina, and Board member of Marina Community Association protests extended meter hours and Sunday 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 the Marina, a property owner and a businesswoman in District 2: I protest the extension of parking meter hours beyond 6 pm. I protest the extension of metering hours to Sundays. We do not need such extensions in the Chestnut Street business district. If the MTA imposes such extensions, it will cause negative impacts on the residents of the Marina living close to the Chestnut Street business district. People will opt to park in the neighborhoods 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 free on Chestnut, and the turnover is good because they are having a meal or doing a little shopping and moving on. Please know that residents parking in the business district is NOT an issue. We park in our homes or in front of our homes as much as we can. We do not opt to park at meters. Such a 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 Community Association not to implement such changes. Please note that when Mr. Jay Primus of the MTA attended a neighborhood meeting in late March at the Palace of the Fine Arts theatre, over 100 people in attendance voted NOT to extend hours. In fact, when the group was polled, not one person wanted metering hours extended and only one person voted to have Sunday hours. It was stark proof that the neighbors do not want these proposed changes. Sincerely, Kat Anderson 65 Avila Street (one block N of Chestnut Street) SF, CA 94123 (415)776-3645 ------Original Message ------ Subject: Have you sent these? From: patricia vaughey 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 to send emails also? Patricia vaughey [email protected] To [email protected] 04/19/2010 10:26 AM 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, I am 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 To [email protected], [email protected], Hello, I am a person who works in the Marina district and your proposed idea to raise the meter fees and extend them onto Sundays is an idea that will only create more chaos and frustration as many of us who work in the service industry cannot and will not afford such increases and changes to our parking options. I can only hope this idea does not come to fruition, otherwise, my vote in future elections as a resident in this fair city will be scrutinized and applied to those who can better serve my community and others as well without having to divert hard earned income to supplement your pay. Thanks, Jesse Pina Front Desk MOD Crunch 2324 Chestnut Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Direct: 415-292-8470 Fax: 415-292-8473 The information contained inthis emailmessage is intended only foruseof the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is notthe intended recipient, orthe employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified thatanydissemination, distribution or copying ofthis communication is strictly prohibited. If you havereceived this communicatio'n in error, please immediately notlty usbyemail([email protected]). and destroy the original message. Thank You. domlnic maionchl To mtaboard@sfmta,com, gavin,newsom@sfgov,org, 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 SF residents. 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 the backs of SF residents! Regards, dominic maionchi [email protected] Arlella Elia To [email protected], [email protected], I, Ariella Elia, have been informed that the San Francisco Department ofParking and Traffic are trying to extend meters until 10 PM, have meters on Sunday, and raise the fees 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 ofhand. Even ifyou're trying to get 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 I extend fees and meter times. -Ariella Elia Walden Jay To [email protected], [email protected], Please reconsider the terrible idea ofextending the parking meter hours and increasing the cost per hour. People are already taking the parking situation into 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 that apparently has forgotten how to serve its citizens. Julie Holliday Roehm To [email protected] Dear Ms Calvillo and Supervisors, I object to allowing Miraloma Community ehruch to become a cell-tower site for the following reasons 1. Miraloma Church and Miraloma Park Neighborhood is zoned RH-l, this cell tower does not comply with zoning regulations. This will effect the property value of my home, and could impact the health of my child, my neighbors, and all of the children attending the elementary school that is only two blocks away. 2. Miraloma Community Church has no congregation and does not support the local community. The impacted community, children and neighbors receive no benefits from this deal, only negatives. Thank you, Julie Roehm Board of To Ross Mirkarimi/BOS/SFGOV, Jeremy PoiiockiBOS/SFGOV, Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV Jason Fried/BOS/SFGOV, [email protected], 04/15/2010 03:52 PM cc bcc Subject NO CORE AGGREGATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [email protected] 04/15/2010 03:28 PM To "gavin.newsom." I'm afraid your version is called SLAMMING. It was outlawed during the failure of Direct Access, have you forgotten??? The very action we all detested as utility rate payers when "suppliers' transferred customers without their knowledge. If I want it, it WILL be MY choice to opt in, You have it backwards! you DON'T know what 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 take everything you have the course ofhistory shows that as government grows, liberty decreases... Thomas Jefferson. Matt C /7 To: Angela Calvillo, Clerk ofthe Board From: Office of the Controller CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FIt City Services Auditor OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER en Rosenfield Controller ~ t;;2 to'; Mtnique Zij)uda ~::. ~JJ =11 (')/',' --'I DCe uty on);o er,o.' C:) i ' . ~-O ",,:': ...... :;0 \\J AUDIT FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM DATE: April 13, 2010 TO: John Martin, Airport Director FROM: Tonia Lediju, Director of Audits, City Services Auditor 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 in 2009. In response to our follow-up of the report's 11 recommendations, the Airport Department (Airport) indicated that it disagreed with two recommendations, fully Implemented eight, and partially implemented one. CSA assessed evidence of the Airport's implementation of the 11 recommendations, and determined that two were no longer applicable, eight were fully implemented, and one was partially implemented. The Airport's actions to implement the recommendations are summarized on pages 2 and 3, and the recommendations themselves and the implementation status of each are presented in the attached table. BACKGROUND & METHODOLOGY The Hertz Corporation (Hertz) had a 1O-yearagreement with the Airport Commission of the City and County of San Francisco (City) to operate an automobile rental service at the rental car facility at San Francisco International Airport. Although the agreement expired on December 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 the greater of a minimum annual guarantee or 10 percent of its gross revenues. The minimum annual guarantee was $676,908 from the start of the prior agreement through December 29, 2003, and was modified to $609,218 for the period through the expiration of the prior agreement. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, Section 8.05, prornulqated by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), CSA conducted a follow-up review of the agreed-upon recommendations for the audit report of June 13, 2008, Concession Audit of The Hertz Corporation. Section 8.05 states that the purposes of audit reports include facilitating follow-up to determine whether appropriate corrective actions have been taken. This follow-up determined whether the Airport has taken the corrective actions needed 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 Page2 of4 Memo to the Airport April 13, 2010 calling for new procedures, CSA both verified that the procedures were created and considered examples of the department's compliance with them. To conduct the follow-up, CSA contacted key Airport personnel to discuss the status of the corrective actions taken to date, verified the existence of.the procedures and processes that have 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 the eleven recommendations, it disagreed with two recommendations, fully implemented eight, and partially implemented one, giving specific information for each recommendation (see attached table). CSA considered the information the Airport provided, reviewed supporting documentation, and verified that eight recommendations have, in fact, been implemented and one partially impiemented. The Airport disagreed with two recommendations based on its interpretation of a lease agreement provision between Hertz and the Airport, which differed from the audit team's interpretation. Subsequent to this audit, the lease agreement expired and the Airport Commission and Hertz entered a new lease agreement, which included a revised definition of gross revenues which both the Airport and the audit team interpret simiiarly. The resuits are presented below by subject area. Recommendations 1 and 4: Collect From Hertz Local Rental Fees of $518,371 and Commercial Discount Fees of $295,594 The Airport disagreed with these two recommendations. Conclusion: Since the Airport disagreed with these two recommendations, it did not collect these fees from Hertz. Therefore, the recommendations are no longer applicable. However, the new lease agreement between Hertz and the Airport Commission clarifies the definition 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 the Full Monthly Fee for the Months in Question The former accounting manager reviewed Hertz' account and determined that the annual true-up process captured any appropriate credits, and that the $270K credit was simply a correction to the accounting system to reverse the initial erroneous entries. Page 3 of 4 Memo to theAirport April 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, and collected interest of $43,935. Also, as a result of the reduction of fees owed, the Airport was no 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 Annual Reports of Gross Revenues The Airport began using a property management billing system software package in the fall of 2008, which features, among other things, a tickler system. This will help the Airport ensure that reports are presented on time. Further, Airport Revenue Development and Management staff will review Annual Certified Statements for correct format. However, Hertz forwarded the 2008 certified year-end statement to the Airport and the Airport documented its receipt on April 2, 2009, or two days late. Conclusion: Recommendation 8 has been Implemented. However, the Airport should ensure that it receives its certified year-end statements before March 31", as required by the agreement. Recommendation 9: Work With Hertz to Determine the Fees Owed From Local Rental Revenue, Employee Business Rental Revenue, Satellite Radio Revenue, Commercial Discount Deductions, and Adjustment Deductions for the Period Before and After the Audit Period The Airport collected from Hertz fees owed from satellite radio rentals for the relevant periods before and after the audit period. However, no fees have been collected for employee business rental revenue or for adjustment deductions. Since the Airport disagreed with recommendations 1 and 4 on local rentals and commercial discounts, it did not collect any fees for these revenue types. Conclusion: Recommendation 9 has been partially implemented. Recommendations 10 and 11: Require Hertz to Include in Gross Revenue Local Rentals and Satellite Radio, and to Discontinue Deducting Employee Business Rentals, Commercial Discounts, and Adjustments from Gross Revenues. InclUde in the New Agreement with Hertz a Comprehensive Definition of Gross Revenues and Exclusions to Gross Revenues The Airport now has a new lease agreement with Hertz, which became effective on January 1, 2009, The new lease does include an all-inclusive definition of gross revenues. It also includes a few very clearly stated deductions. Any transaction that is not specifically allowed as a deduction will be considered gross revenues for which fees will be assessed. Conclusion: Recommendations 10 and 11 have been implemented. Page4 of 4 Memo to the Airport April 13, 2010 CSA extends its appreciation to you and your staff who assisted with this follow-up. If you have 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, Airport John Reeb, Sr. Principal Property Manager, Airport Matthew McCormick, Principal Property Manager, Airport Ben Rosenfield, Controller Robert Tarsia, Deputy Audit Director, CSA Vivian Chu, Associate Auditor, CSA Memo to the Airport April 13, 2010 ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Airport Department Under the Lease, Hertz must pay "Gross Revenue" for Not applicable, since the Airport should collect from Hertz the "all vehicles rented at the Airport." (Lease Article disagreed with the recommendation. following fees owed: local 3.01.a) The Lease defines vehicles rented at the Airport rental fees of $518,371. jf "the rental car customerisan airpassengerwho rents However. the new lease agreement a vehicle within 24 hours of arriving at the Airport." between Hertz and the Airport (Lease Article 30.1.a.lii) Taken together, the Airport Commission, which became effective interprets this language to require Hertz to only January 1, 2009, clarifies the definition calculate gross revenue for thosevehicles rented by air of gross revenues 'subject to fees. passengers arriving at-theAirport within 24 hours. Thus, Hertz is not required to calculated gross revenue forcertain"LocalRentals,"those customerswho arenot air passengers arriving within the last24 hours. Provided Hertz adequately documents these "Local Rentals." the Airport considers said rentals as not included in the calculation of gross revenue. 2 Collect from Hertz the Completed. Obtained copy of payment check. Implemented. following fees owed: employeebusiness rental fees of $5,106. 3 Collect from Hertz the Completed. Obtained copy of payment check. Implemented. following fees owed: satellite radio rental fees of $7,145. A-1 Memo to the Airport April 13, 2010 Collect from Hertz the The Airport has consulted with the City Attorney's Office Not applicable, since the Airport Not applicable. following fees owed: and believesthe languagestatedin Lease Article disagreedwith the recommendation. commercialdiscountfees of 3.01.a, "without deduction or offset"does not include $295,594. any commercial or promotional discounts offered by However, the new lease agreement. Hertz to third parties. While the language may cause between Hertz and the Airport confusion, the Airport maintains that Hertz must pay Commission,which became effective Gross Revenues based on the amount received. January 1, 2009, clarifies the definition of gross revenues subject to fees. 5 Collect from Hertz the Completed. Obtained copy of payment check. Implemented. followingfees owed: revenue adiustment fees of $72,058. 6 Review Hertz'account to Completed. Implemented. The Airport confirmed that it had determine howthe application reviewed Hertz' payment history shortly of the $270,764 credit failed after the auditwas completed in June to result in an outstanding credit balance if Hertz paid 2008, and is confident that the credit was properlyaccounted foras a correctionto the full monthly fee for the the initial erroneousentries. months in question. 7 Collect from Hertz Interest of Hertz paid an adjusted amount for interest based upon Impiemented. Obtained copy of payment check. $494,255 and audit costs of the commentsabove. Collectionof audit costs are no Verified that Hertz paid $43,935 interest $87,300. longerrequired based on the reduced amountcollected. on an adjusted amount, which.does not include the two amounts ($518,371 and $295,594) in recommendations 1 and 4 that the Airport did not agree with. A-2 Memo to the Airport April 13,2010 8 Document the dates that it Obtained sample of screen print of billing Implemented, receives the annual reports of system tickler. Also, obtained but the Airport gross revenues and ensure documentation of the Airport's receipt of should ensure the annual reportsare Hertz' 2008 certified report on April 2, that it receives certified by a certified public 2009, or 2 days late. The lease its certified accountant as required bythe agreementrequires that Hertz submit its annual report by lease, certified annual report by March 31st of the required each year. date. 9 Work with Hertz to determine This process is underway. The Airport disagreed with collection of Partially the fees owed from locai local rental revenueand commercial Implemented. rental revenue, employee discount deductions (see business rental revenue, recommendations 1 and 4), so it did not satellite radio revenue, requestpaymentfor those amounts. In commercial discount October 2007, Hertz remitted satellite deductions, and adjustment fees for the periods November 15, 2002, deductions for the periods through December 29, 2002 (satellite before and after ouraudit fees did not existprior to November 15, period. 2002) and January 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007 in the amount of $6,872.75 and then beqan paying it monthly beginning October 2007. The Airport has requested, but Hertz has not provided, documentation to showthat Hertz submitted (or does not owe) fees for employeebusiness rental revenueor adjustment deductions for the periods before and after the audit period. 10 Require Hertz to include in Completed. Obtained new lease that became implemented. gross revenues local rentals effective January 1, 2009. Found that it and satellite radio. and to does include an all-inclusive definition of discontinue deducting grossrevenues. Grossrevenues does employee businessrentals, exclude all non-revenue rentals made to commercial discounts, and Hertz employees. adjustmentsfrom gross revenues. A-3 Memo to the Airport Aprii 13, 2010 11 Include in itsnew agreement Obtained new lease that became with Hertz.a comprehensive effective January 1, 2009. Found that it definitionof gross revenues does includean all-inclusivedefinitionof and exclusionstogross grossrevenuesand exclusionstogross revenues that both parties revenuesthat both parties agreed to. agree to and understand. A-4 Board of To JohnAvalos/BOS/SFGOV, Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV cc 04/19/2010 02:26 PM bcc Subject Fw:Attn: SupervisorJohn Avalos RE: McLaren Park Kelly Seldan Greetings Supervisor Avalos, I just received an email from a friend concerned about the approved 18-hole Disc Golf course at McLaren Park. She tells me it was approved without community input. If this is the case, I think the project should be reconsidered and that the community should be involved in the discussions. I am also deeply concerned 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 the community 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 Sophie MaxweIl/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 an 18-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 in designated 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 and preservation 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 Avenue SF, CA94112 CC: Sophie Maxwell This email may contain confidential and/or privileged material for the sole use of the above designated recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution and/or disclosure by or to others not designated or authorized to receive this email is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Francisco Da Costa To Francisco Da Costa Lennar swimming in the cesspool of its own creation: . http://www.franciscodacosta.orWarticles/environ124.html Francisco Da Costa Get Out The Jail Vote To Ross Mirkarimi ~ 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)O 1V"ilt/1r 040710. f:', 4' f~f;; .I Thank you, Tommy Escarcega 510.409.1662 FILE NO. RESOLUTION NO. 1 [Urging the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Corrections Standards Authority to Implement Guidelines to Ensure Voting Access for Eligible Offenders.] 2 3 Resolution Urging the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's 4 Corrections Standard Authority to Adopt Specific Guidelines for County Sheriffs and 5 Departments of Corrections, in Order to Facilitate Voting Among Eligible Incarcerated 6 Individuals. 7 8 WHEREAS, the right to vote is fundamental - and a critical way that individuals 9 participate in our democratic society; and 10 WHEREAS, California courts have specifically held that convicted felons who are 11 sentenced to county jailor placed on probation are entitled to vote; and 12 WHEREAS the San Francisco Sheriff's Department has implemented model protocols 13 and procedures for ensuring that all inmates who are eligible to vote can do so; and 14 WHEREAS these critical steps have not been taken in other counties, resulting in the 15 disenfranchisement of eligible voters - and a fundamental barrier to civic engagement for 16 these individuals; and 17 WHEREAS the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Corrections 18 Standards Authority (CDCR/CSA), which oversees all county jails, has been silent on this 19 issue; therefore be it 20 RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco 21 hereby urges the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Corrections 22 Standard Authority (CDCR/CSA) to adopt specific guidelines for county sheriff's custody 23 divisions and county departments of corrections, in order to facilitate ensure the option of 24 25 Supervisor Mirkarimi BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 4/13/201043104/2010 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 Mirkarimi BOARD 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 goUy P(QP~..Qf From: Controller Reporls/CON/SFGOV To: Date: 04/12/201001:34 PM Subject: Memorandum Issued: Community-based Long Term Care Fiscal Analysis Sent by: Patti Erickson The Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor, has released the results of its analysis of the City's community-based long term care (LTC) spending. Conducted at the request of community stakeholders and sponsored by the Human Services Agency and Department of Public Health, the project compiled three years of spending for home and community-based services where funding is administered by the City and County of San Francisco. The analysis showed a total of $726 million in community-based LTC spending for FY 2009-2010 including federal and state resources. To view the memo, please visit our website at: http://co.sfgov.org/webreports/details.aspx?id=1117 This is a send only email address. so.!> -II San Francisco SFLC Lab.orCouncil 1188 Franklin Street, Suite 203, San Francisco, CA 94109' Phone: (415) 440-4809 • Fax: (415) 440-9297 • www.sllaborcol.Jncil.org EX.ECunve DIRECTOR TIMPAUlSON PRESIOENT MIKE CASEY UNlTEHERE2 April 8, 20I0 SECRETARY TREASURER JOSl£MOONEY seu1021 VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLmCAlACi1vmES CONNY FORO OPE:U3 VICE PRESIDENT ~R AFRLlATE SUPPORT LARRY MAZZOLA. SR. San Francisco Board of Supervisors _38 City Hall CEPRESIDENT FOR COMMUNITY ACi1VITIES HOWARQWAllACE I Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 Pricleal\'lolll EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE San Francisco, CA 94102 ALAN BENJAMIN 0P8U3 RAfAEL CABRERA Dear Board ofSupervisors, 1WU250·A EX.CROWLEY 1111$£16 Enclosed please find a copy of the resolution urging the California Labor DAMITADAVl5.HOWARD 5EIU1021 Federation to oppose Proposition 16 on the June 8, 2010 ballot. It was adopted OSCAR DE LATORRE """"261 at the San Francisco Labor Council's executive committee meeting on April 5, ALLAo"l FISHER 2010. AFT2121 ART GONZALEZ lAM14J4 Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this resolution. JOHN HANLEY,III F!I'()f MtCHAEl HARDEMAN S@1&DisrJay510 Sincerely, DENNIS KEllY United EdocatorsofStlnfrar'l,';isco GUNNAR LUNDEBERG sailors Uniortolthe Padf~ ROSA FAYE MARSHALL CWW FRANK MARTIN DEL CAMPO Tim Paulson LelM LARRY MAZZOlA,JR. Executive Director ","""38 OlGAMIRANDA SE1V87 ROOCRT MORAlF.s Te.3msters350 JOHN O'ROURKE !flEW6 opeiu3afl-cio(11) fREQPEC1\ER ILWU6 CRiSS ROMERO IFPTE21 MICHAEL SHARPE UfCW6Il8 MiCHAEL THERIAULT SF8ui'dingTraoesCo\lncil JOHNULRfCH fT' UFCW10l JAMES WRIGHT .< SElU 1877 fT! SERGEANT ATARMS HENEKEllY o ueer O:!LJC3ltxSofSan nececc lilUSTE€S VAN BEANE Tllam1>lers8'J6 HQWAROGRAYSON SElUUHW CIAIREZVANSKI IFPTE21 SECRETARY lilEASURER EMERITUS WALTER t. JOHNSON UNITY Is STRENGTH! .~., EXECUTlVE DIRECTOR TIM?AULSON PRESIDENT MIKECA$f.Y UNITEH(RE2 Resolution Urging the California Labor Federation to Actively Oppose Proposition 16 ontheCalifornia SECRETARYlREASURER June 8,2010 State Ballot JOSIE W,ooNEY SEIU 1021 VICE PRESIDENT FORPOUTlCALACTNIT1ES Whereas, a private utility corporation, PG&E, has piaced an initiative Proposition 16 on the June 8, 2010 CDNNYFDRD OPEIU3 California State Baliot to insure itsown monopoly control ofthe market from Eureka to Bakersfield against any VICE PRESIDENT FOR AffiLIATE SUPPORT attempt by any public agency to offer residents and businesses any alternative source of energy unless they LARRY MAUOLA,51<. _38 can garner support from two-thirds ofthe affected residents and voters, but only requires 50% + 1to pass; and VICE PRESIDENT FORCOMMUNITY AC11VIT1ES HOWARD WALlACE PrlOOatlM:>rk Whereas, Proposition 16 would further imprint the tyranny of the minority two-thirds voting requirement in the exECUTIVE COMMrrTEE California State Constitution, and further weaken the effort toestablish majority rule; and ALANBENJAMIN OPEIU3 RAFAEL CABRERA Whereas, PG&E has spent nearly $30 miliion to date using the same deceptive advertising and lobbying for TWU2".;.(}A Proposition 16 as US employers used to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, claiming their initiative for F>:.CROWLEY IATSE l6 monopoly control isinstead a voters' rights issue; and ' DAMITADAVl&.HOWARD SEIU 1021 OSCAR DELATORRE Whereas, PG&E is aliowed to spend unlimited rate payer monies promoting itsown self-serving initiative, while l1lbOJers261 competing public power agencies are not permitted to spend their money to say what's wrong with Proposition ALLAN FISHER AFT2121 16; and ART GONZALEZ lAM1414 Whereas, Proposition 16 would force local utilities like Palo Alto, Silicon Valiey Power, and Sacramento JOHN HANlEY, In F M1CHAaHARDEMAN whiie PG&E would be abie tospend unlimited money tofight such competition; and Sign&D/spI3y51O DENNIS KEllY urn!ed Educa.'ors orseiFrancisco Whereas, the San Francisco Labor Council ison record insupport of majority ruie and opposing the two-thirds GUNNAR LUNDEBERG voting requirement for levying taxes and adopting the state budget; and Sab's Unlonoflhe Paclfo:; ROSA FAYE MARSHAll CUJW Therefore Be It Resolved, the San Francisco Labor Council communicate this resolution to Art Pulaski and fRANK MARTIN DElCAMPO urge the California Labor Federation to actively oppose Proposition 16 on the June 8, 2010 State Baliot, WM LARRY MilllOLA. JR PG&E's deceptive propaganda that it is a voting rights issue, and Prop, 16's undemocratic two-thirds voting PlllIl1b?Js38 requirement, as further undermining the effort to establish majority rule atthe ballot box; and OLGA MIRANDA 58U87 ROBERT MORAlES Be It Further Resolved, the SFLC immediately send this resolution to its affiliates ina blast fax, and toits sister Teamslen:350 Labor Councils in the Greater Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego areas urging they act JOHN O'ROURKE 1B!W' without delay to urge the State Federation of Labor to oppose Proposition 16 at the upcoming State Labor FREDPECKER Convention and, IlWU6 CRiSS ROMERO IFPTE21 Be It Finally Resolved, that the SFLC also send this resolution to the Mayor, each member of the Board of MICHAfLSHARPE Supervisors, six ofwhom are already signatory toa resolution from the Board opposing Proposition 16. UfCW64S MICHAEL THERIAULT SFBui'ding Trades Cwncil Submitted by Denis Mosgofian, GCC-IBT 4N/388M; Ron Dicks, IFPTE 21; Tom Edminster, UESF; Roger JQHNULRICH Scott, AFT 2121; Maria Guillen, SEIU 1021; Howard Wallace, Pride At Work; and Tami Bryant, CSEA 1000 UFCW10l and adopted by the Executive Committee ofthe San Francisco Labor Council on AprilS, 2010, )AMESWRIGHT SEIUl877 SERGEANTATARMS ReSp~tfUIlY HENEKELLY . ' UfliledEdt.eawolS,m rercsco -'~'~''''_~~~'_~~''.. TRUSTEES \ . T=~: \. ~tv _Q HOWARD GRAYSON Tim Paulson ' 1"\ SEIUUHW CtA1RE ZVANSKl Executive Director OPEIU3 AFL·CIO 11 IFPTE21 SECRfTARYTREA$URER EMERITUS WAlTERLJOHNSON UNITY Is STRENGTH! GRAY PANTHERS 1182 Market Street, Room 203 OF SAN FRANCISCO San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 552-8800 co ,.~~f;~Vl Ed Harrington, General Manager, Public Utilities Commission liS5 Market Street, IIth floor San Francisco, California 94102 - Dear Ed Harrington, We, the Gray Panthers ofSan Francisco, believe that residents ofour city are best erved;";' by having customer choice for an alternative electricity provider. We also believe t at the barrage ofmailings supporting Prop 16 and funded primarily by PGE are misinr,lJ>. ing the public and distorting facts about community choice programs. These mailings state that ratepayers who choose an alternative source ofelectricity will pay higher rates than currently under PG&E. In fact, in areas which have adopted alternative suppliers, rates have usually decreased. As elders we are financially distressed by constant PG&E rate increases. The CPUC serves the public interest by protecting consumer and insuring the provision ofsafe, reliable utility service and infrastructure, reasonable rates with a commitment to environmental enhancement and a healthy California economy. CPUC recently adopted a resolution telling PG&E that it cannot refuse to supply electricity to community choice aggregators, which is a violation ofthe 2002 law that offers ratepayers a choice in our public power. Ratepayers deserve a choice in selecting an alternative provider. Proposition 16 would lock in our state constitution requirements making our ability to select cleaner, more alternative sources ofelectricity more difficult. The. Gray Panthers along with SF Gray Panthers is joining the AARP, the Sierra Club, the California Nurses Association and Calpirg urge the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to oppose Proposition 16. Sincerely, Michael Lyon Lisa Fromer Co-Chairs Gray Panthers of San Francisco CC: San Francisco Board ofSupervisors; Michael Peevey, Diane Grueneich, John Bohn, Timothy Alan Simon and Mary Ryan Karen Miller Annie Paradise To gavin.newsom@sfgov,org, board.of.supervisorsgpsfqov.orp Dear Mayor Gavin Newsom and Board of Supervisors, I'm writing because I support the position that the Bayview Library must be built by the community it serves, and it is my hope that you will facilitate the issuance ofbonding to the local contractors and crews, specifically, Liberty Builders-Bona Tech Engineering Joint Venture. I believe unemployment and police presence are linked and produce violence, and employment reduces police presence. I have followed the history ofracially discriminatory contract awards in Bayview, like the Third Street Light Rail Project, and see this history as a blight on San Francisco that needs to be addressed. I come from the small rural community ofJackman, Maine on the US/Quebec border, which is being devastated by decisions that prioritize security and law enforcement over sustainable community employment. I understand that policies and practices that prioritize security and law enforcement are crushing communities and ruining lives across the US. I note a visible and glaring lack ofAfrican American laborers on job sites. I understand that bonding has been an obstacle that has contributed 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 proposals ofBlack local contractors be supported in the building ofBayview Branch Library. I also understand that unemployment and incarceration rates are related, and am concerned with the disproportionate rates ofincarceration from communities ofcolor, particularly Af Thank you for your time and attention, Annie Paradise 501 38th Ave. Apt. 201 San Francisco, California 94121 Southeast Jobs Coalition To [email protected], [email protected] 1 attachment 1I:J 2010-04-15 SJC Leller to MOH and SFRA re Hunters View Rebuild.pdf April 15, 2010 Doug Shoemaker Fred Blackwell Director Executive Director Mayor's Office ofHousing San Francisco Redevelopment Agency One South Van Ness, Fifth Floor One South Van Ness, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 San 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 and Hunters View residents seeking further, more meaningful engagement in the rebuilding of their community. The recent groundbreaking at Hunters View" highlighted the accomplishment of at last moving this projeet forward, yet concerns from our Hunters View brothers and sisters linger, suggesting the need for greater community unity before work On the Hunters View rebuild accelerates later in the year. It is clear to us that the relationship between Hunters View tenants and the Parent University service connector is broken. The lack ofa committed investment in workforce development, in true community-driven barrier removal, job preparedness, case management, and services that address the underlying issues that years of neglect have brought to Hunters View will certainly haunt the project when the rebuild goes vertical and residents have not yet been trained for opportunities beyond abatement and demolition. We ask to join you in a meeting with the Hunters View Tenants Association and your agency partners to discuss changes that will be made to the City's current approach to engaging the Hunters View community, changes that will bring the community together for the next phase of work at Hunters View and rebuild a sense oftrust that has been lost. Sincerely, Derek Toliver Jesse Mason Terry L. Anders YCD Arc Ecology Anders & Anders Gregory Reed Karen Gilbert Nairn Harrison APR! VVCDC Positive Directions Cc: San Francisco Housing Authority, Office ofEconomic and Workforce Development, CityBuild, Board of Supervisors, Hunters View Tenants Association, Hunters View Mothers Committee 13 o.s- II COf'tes· '1/13/10 k7'1 r€·1'; P ~ r I:Ie IDOlS' I c-r~ *******--*ANTONIO A. ROBLES**- 2442 _26'h Avenue San Francisco, CA 94116 San Francisco, March 152010 Angela Calvillo Clerk of the Board, Room 244, City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San 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 of helping raise 2 grandchildren in a single family house, I STRONGLY OPPOSE to the project located 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, the project does not fit the character of the neighborhood, and I am certain it will become an eyesore in this residential area. Antoniif./Rob I Regulatory Division 1455 Market Street US Army Corps San Francisco, CA 94103-1398 of Engineers. SAN FRANCISCO DISTRlCT PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice Notification Change Date: 9 April 2010 The San Francisco Regulatory Division is in the process of updating and confirming the recipients of our Public Notices and providing recipients with the choice ofwhether to continue to receive paper copies or to start receiving electronic 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 proposed activity and soliciting comments and information to evaluate the potential impacts. Public notices are issued by the Department ofthe Army for Individual Permits, Regional General Permits, and other activities conducted by the Regulatory Division that merit public feedback on potential impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. 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 from date 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 notification of our Public Notices, you will need to resubmit your mailing information by June 1, 2010. Please indicate which county(ies) you are interested in (see Figure 1), and whether you would like to receive a hard copy ofthe Public Notice and/or be notified bye-mail. You will no longer receive Public Notices if you do not provide us with 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: Via mail: SPN Regulatory Division Via email: [email protected] o:J Office Automation Technician -< r-o= U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers I = 1455 Market Street, 16th Floor San Francisco, Califomia 94103-1398 'J:>.:- W Contact information to provide includes: 7"- -0:rr.: Name and Affiliation (ifapplicable) C:'? .c- Street Address, including City, County, and Zip Code en Email address Preference for digital and/or paper notification Ifyou are on our updated, confirmed mailing list and your contact information changes, please notify our Office Automation Technician and provide your new and old addresses. Hard copies or e-mails returned due to a non functioning address will be deleted from our mailing list system. Figure 1 California Map of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory B,oundaries SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT Prepared by the San Francisco District, 1012000 Malcolm Dudley To Honorable Eric Mar Dear Honorable Supervisor Mar: My wife and I are extremely concerned about Live Nation's plans to convert the Masonic Auditorium into a Rock Concert Hall. This would completely transform this entire neighborhood, removing 1,500 seatsto allow for a capacity of 4,000 general admission standing room only audiences, create more serious traffic problems, exasperate parking problems, negatively impact Huntington Park and add to pollution and noise created by tour buses idling for hours on California Street and buses and trailers parking overnight in front of the Masonic Auditorium and Grace Cathedral. Underthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), government agenciesare required to consider the environmental consequences of their actions before approving plans and policies or committing to a course of action on a project. In enacting CEQA, the legislature explained that this process is intended to: (1) inform government decision makers and the public about the potential environmental effects of proposed activities; (2) identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; (3) prevent significant, avoidable environmental damage by requiring changes in projects, either by the adoption of alternatives or imposition of mitigation measures; and (4) disclose to the public why a project was approved if the project would have significant environmental effects. The negative environmental impacts identified above would seriously impact the quality of 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 request that 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 be no direct communication between parties and the consultant, after the consultant has been chosen by the city, but we respectfully request that Protect Nob Hill members be involved in the selection of a consultant. We request that this Conditional Use Permit be denied; on the basis that it is not an appropriate use for this residential neighborhood. In lieu of a denial, we would request a list of conditions for issuanceof the Conditional Use Permit, as required under CEQA. We request that mitigation measures include: Parking be restricted to neighborhood owners, 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 officers to maintain the public health and the general welfare of the neighborhood. Require Live Nation to pay for a number of hotel rooms to accommodate the performers and deny their request to add restaurant and bar service. The San Francisco Police testified at the Planning Commission that they were opposed to the conversion ofthe Masonic Auditorium into a Rock Concert Hall, asthey would not 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 to convert the disabled entry into an entrance for moving equipment. This is not in compliance with state law, which protects disabled facilities. As a resident of Nob Hill we urge you to please grant the Appeals for the Categorical Exemption and conditional Use Authorization for the California Masonic Memorial Temple. (Case #2008.1072EC and Case #2008.1072) Sincerely, Malcolm Dudley 1255 California Street, Unit 704, San Francisco 94109 Board of To BaS Constituent Mail Distribution, Supervisors/BOS/SFGOV cc 04/19/201002:14 PM bcc Subject Meatless Mondays "David Mendenhall" Angela Calvillo, Dear Madam, To make an endorsement based on erroneous UN Climate data is one thing, but I do not fault someone who has recieved bad information from a supposed Authority who was mis-informed by a group with an Agenda sponsored by crooks and thieves. The following quote is an excerpt from a study that would show your project "Meatless Mondays" has the potential 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: it helps 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 of climate chaos and ever.growing global greenhouse gas emissions, anything that helps vast swaths of farmland sponge up carbon would be a stabilizing force. Moreover, carbon-rich soils store 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 synthetic nitrogen makes plants grow bigger and faster. As plants grow, they pull carbon dioxide from the air. Some of the plant is harvested as crop, but the rest--the restdue-etays in the field and ultimately becomes soil. In this way, some of the carbon gobbled up by those N·enhanced plants stays in the ground and out of the atmosphere. Well, that logic has come under fierce challenge from a team of University of Illinois researchers led by professors Richard Mulvaney, Saeed Khan, and Tim Ellsworth. In two recent papers (see here and here) the trio argues that the net effect of synthetic nitrogen use is to reduce soil's organic matter content. Why? Because, they posit, nitrogen fertilizer stimulates soil microbes, which feast on organic matter. Over time, the impact of this enhanced microbial appetite outweighs 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 to store organic nitrogen declines. A large amount of nitrogen then leaches away, fouling ground water in the form of nitrates, and entering the atmosphere as nitrous oxide (N20), a greenhouse gas with some 300 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide. In turn, with its ability to store organic nitrogen compromised, only one thing can help heavily fertilized farmland keep cranking out monster yields: more additions of synthetic N. The loss of organic matter has other ill effects, the researchers say. Injured soil becomes prone to compaction, which makes it vulnerable to runoff and erosion and limits the growth of stabilizing plant roots. Worse yet, soil has a harder time holding water, making it ever more reliant on irrigation. As water becomes scarcer, this consequence of widespread synthetic N use will become 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 Be They must find it difficult... Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather truth as authority. Mayor Gavin Newsom Philip 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. The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department appreciates the patience and understanding you have shown while the work is completed. We apologize for any inconvenience this extended and temporary closure may have caused you. Please consider joining us at other public aquatic facilities near you, which includes San Francisco's only outdoor pool - Mission Pool. Below is a listing of the closest facilities to Garfield Square and an update on the renovation's progress. BALBOA POOL 50 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 POOL 19th 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; since then, two tests were conducted .and completed for asbestos and lead. At this time, the Project Manager is working with several contractors to coordinate the scope of work and confirm a completion 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 old lighting 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 the natatorium; (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 you have any questions and or concerns on the project please contact Mr. Danny Ogawa, Aquatic Supervisor, at [email protected]. The San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department thanks you for your patience and we look forward 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 nter APRil 2010 Maintenance Update EXTENDED & EXTENSIVE REPAIRS The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department appreciates your patience and invites you to join us at other aquatic facilities near you. We apologize for any inconvenience this temporary closure may have caused you. BALBOA POOL 50 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 POOL 19th 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]