clerk avalos, present. campos present. chiu present. chu present. cohen present. els bernard present. farrell present. kim absent. mar absent. olague present. wiener present. mr. president, you have a quorum. president chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join me in the pledge of allegiance. (reciting the pledge of allegiance. allegiance). president chiu: colleagues, we have board meeting minutes from july 10, july 17, and july 24 of this year. could i have a motion to approve those minutes? motion by supervisor campos, seconded by supervisor cohen. they re approved. do we have communications in. the clerk: yes. pursuant to charter 14.102 and california election, we are in receipt of a communication from john arts, director of the department of elections dated august 1, 2012. a petition of referendum against ordinance no. 10412, the eighth washington street project, the zoning map amendment has been certified by department of elections. due to the s
2012. madam clerk, would you please call the roll. clerk avalos, present. campos present. chiu present. chu present. cohen present. els bernard present. farrell present. kim absent. mar absent. olague present. wiener present. mr. president, you have a quorum. president chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join me in the pledge of allegiance. (reciting the pledge of allegiance. allegiance). president chiu: colleagues, we have board meeting minutes from july 10, july 17, and july 24 of this year. could i have a motion to approve those minutes? motion by supervisor campos, seconded by supervisor cohen. they re approved. do we have communications in. the clerk: yes. pursuant to charter 14.102 and california election, we are in receipt of a communication from john arts, director of the department of elections dated august 1, 2012. a petition of referendum against ordinance no. 10412, the eighth washington street project, the zoning map amendment has been
the next item? item 13 is general public comment. is there any general public comment? public comment is closed. item 14 is new business. is there any new business? the next item? item 15 is adjournment. do we have a motion to adjourn? i moved. i second. thank you. commissioners, the meeting is adjourned at 6:34 p.m.. 3-6r7b8g9sd good afternoon. welcome back to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting. it is tuesday, september 4, 2012. madam clerk, would you please call the roll. clerk avalos, present. campos present. chiu present. chu present. cohen present. els bernard present. farrell present. kim absent. mar absent. olague present. wiener present. mr. president, you have a quorum. president chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join me in the pledge of allegiance. (reciting the pledge of allegiance. allegiance). president chiu: colleagues, we have board meeting minutes from july 10, july 17, and july 24 of this year. could i h
authorization. traditionally personal service was prohibited above the ground floor because of a concern for dwell units. however that concern has been addressed here in the valencia street nct because there have been recent controls that ensured the preservation of housing. and since personal service is currently conditionally permitted on the second story in the district the use should also in our estimatation be permitted on the third story. the last item i have is a hearing request on an item that has been reported recently in the press and that has to do with the number of arrests that are done by the san francisco police department, in getting the information broken down by race and ethnicity. in as we may be as we may recall, the base citizen recently reported the san francisco police department has been underreporting the arrest rates for the city s two of the city s largest racial and ethnic minority groups, specifically the latino community and the asian commu
the butler case in 1936 and the south dakota v. dole case in 1987. neither of these cases actually held that there is a doctrine of coercion. they refer to the possibility that a conditional grant might be made under terms that went from compulsion to coercion, but they didn t say anything about exactly what it meant. a number of courts of appeal have concluded that it doesn t really exist as a doctrine. no court has ever actually applied it to hold that a traditional grant was unconstitutional. so one thing that these cases will decide is whether the doctrine actually exists as law or not and that in and of itself will be very important. the justice department is arguing that it actually doesn t or shouldn t. there s a good argument for that position. the states that i was talking about, the democratic states who support the medicaid expansion, argue that there should be a coercion doctrine. they re much more pro-state interests in their orientation than the justice departme