the response of the board, this resolution largely makes its own, i believe, it sweeps the problem under the rug. it does not accept the fact that we have a serious problem looming over the next few years. when we get to it, we will look at issues. there is nothing real here that says, yes, we have a problem, here is what we're going to do. the thing that exemplifies the point i try to make, this has the following. it is not sustainable without significant cutbacks in jobs and services. that is fact.

it is incontrovertible. there are no facts that say otherwise. the mayor's office doesn't agree. the board of supervisors doesn't agree. i don't know how you can not agree with a very simple statement. five years ago, we contributed $0. even in the best case scenario, three years or four years from now, we will be contributing to the pension system as we do to operate general hospitals. i don't care what we think we might pass, i don't care if proposition b passes. all the various taxes in front of this board, if you put all of that together, you are still not going to do it without job cuts and cuts to city services.

how we can not agree with that statement is beyond me. there is are a number of points that i think have been ignored. this is a report that is going to be like so many other grand jury reports. it gets thrown up on a shelf and gets -- never gets heard from again. if you can point to one thing as to why our budget continues to be in short fall, i am not pointing fingers. but the numbers don't lie. the benefits far exceed the revenue coming in. this is maybe a characterization of pension tsunami or political motives. the fact is a fact. i believe they are poised to except, they truly except --

poised to accept, they don't truly accept the facts. >> i wanted to clarify one point in the report. one of the things that we did, the recommendation of the response was left blank. the budget analyst went back to populate those recommendations. recommendation d-1 on pages nine through ten talk about the recommendations for future changes. we actually agree with some of those recommendations and indicate that in order to implement them, it would require further analysis. it requires further analysis and i wanted to make clear that the action was that we agreed in decided it would require further analysis.

president chiu: supervisor chu, do we need an amendment or are you putting that on the record? supervisor chu: i would make an amendment that it reflects the comments during committee, the supervisors agreed with recommendation d-1 and it would require analysis before implementation. president chiu: supervisor chu has made a motion that is superb -- seconded by supervisor maxwell. if we can now take a rollcall vote on the underlying resolution as amended? supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye.

>> there are eight ayes, two no's. item 13 is an ordinance to provide for a waiver of the annual public right of way occupancy fee for affordable housing projects. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. supervisor chu: -- president chiu: aye. the ordinance is passed on the first reading. >> item 14, the revoke will offer for infrastructure

improvements associated with mission bay. president chiu: same house, same call. >> item 15. president chiu: roll call vote, please. supervisor chu: no. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. supervisor chu: -- president chiu: aye. this resolution is adopted.

colleagues, we have a couple of commendations at 3:30, and i ask that we come around 345 to do that so we can roll into the four-o'clock special orders that will be continued. if i could ask for us to move to the certificate of appropriateness issues around authorizations to the board legislative chamber and call items 28-30? as well as item 34. >> item 34 is a motion to sit as a committee for a hearing on the historic preservation commission approval. a certificate in order to make it accessible to persons with disabilities. president chiu: we should consider whether we should sit as a committee unless there is discussion. other members of the public on whether we should sit today?

-- are there members of the public on whether we should sit today? this is in order to make the board of supervisors chamber accessible to persons with disabilities. is there anyone that would speak to that motion? public comment on that item is closed. unless there is further discussion? can we take a roll call vote on item 34? >> i believe there was someone who wanted to speak. president chiu: is there someone that would like to speak on the issue of whether we would sit as a committee? >> supervisor, it should be an easy vote and i will tell you why. i had to stumble through secondhand smoke and car exhaust. i had to step around certain

barriers that were on the sidewalk. i had to deal with people that don't recognize civil rights for equal access. there is a lot of work we have to do. why is it so important here? this government represents how individuals can participate in our democracy. now that i have given you a little of my perspective, i was lucky enough to be involved in some of the planning. we went on to say -- [unintelligible] it would be maintained, and also, there was an opportunity

to lead. it was a noble motion to equalize, i think that the people that built this wanted to see everyone have a chance to be here and have the opportunity. the disability community strongly supports moving forward. every time you do not vote in support of this, [unintelligible] i know you will have a conscience vote on this. president chiu: are there any other members of the public? public comment is closed. if we could take a vote on the motion to set as a committee? supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye.

supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. this motion is approved. if you could call atoms 28-30? >> the certificate of appropriateness in order to make the president's desk accessible to persons with disabilities. item 29 is approving the certificate of appropriateness. item 30 is the motion disapproving. president chiu: why don't we open up item 28 for the public hearing, alterations to the

legislative chamber. i know after the colleagues that wish to make opening comments, we have representatives from the mayor's office on disability and the public works. i want to acknowledge supervisor alioto-pier. supervisor alioto-pier: i want to think the mayor's office for all the work they have done. really the only comment i want to make is just a clarification that this is about making both the podium accessible and also making it accessible where the court sets. this will enable the board of supervisors to higher people in the clerk's office to sit exactly where she is sitting. i think that is important to make that distinction. president chiu: why don't we

turn it over to the mayor's office on disability? >> we have a power point presentation that might help. i wanted to review some of the history and the processes that brought us to this point. not only voting today on the design the would make the podium and the clerk's desk accessible, if we could bring up the document camera and go to the history, there we go. we can take the history slide? next slide? thank you. the earthquake and the renovations that occurred after in city hall triggered access improvements throughout city hall, a historic building.

we have beautiful access with the exception of the board of supervisors chamber. we know that the architect at the time recognized the need to make accessible, but they were unable between the disability community to come up with a design that would work during the actual renovation of city hall. we assembled a team of experts, both historic preservation and access experts. those familiar with the renovation -- there were 18 formal separate designs that involved a number of options. the process from 2004-2007, it was to the rules committee of the board of supervisors with

options we were able to find. those options were viewed as the next year with the joint session of the disability council and the landmark preservation board. we narrowed it to the two best options interview that formally with important stakeholders. and the board of supervisors staff narrowed it to option 10, that was lowering the podium. in 2007 and 2008, the committee approved the project, and it was appropriated by the board of supervisors. also in 2007, we assembled a panel of experts to provide a review for the final design and contribute some discussion to that.

we got the final and formal presentations presented to the city hall preservation advisory commission. all of which approved that design unanimously. in march of 2008, the certificate of appropriateness was voted down. we're coming back to you with this final design that lowers the president's podium three steps so it is 12 inches above floor level and lowers the clerk's podium 14 inches away from the president podium toward the center of the room to provide access. and we would build a short ramp, and if we could have the next slide, this is a tutorial demonstration of what this would look like with the handrail slightly different. as you can see from that slide,

it preserves all of the president's desk and the historic detail, providing with a very short wrap -- ramp. it vantage is with a disability access perspective, this design is that we have a ramp, not a lift which is strongly preferable. a lift would be noise and interrupt proceedings and probably break down. the ramp is short, so access is quick and direct. they're ready access to both the president's podium and the clerk's desk. the perspective is that the small footprint it creates in the chamber, it is the latest

work that would be done in the chamber of all of the designs we have considered. it preserves, as i said, features of the desk and the historic function so that we don't abandon the podium altogether. the action before you today is to approve or disapprove appropriateness. the funding mechanism will be brought to you at a later date. i would be happy to entertain any questions. president chiu: any questions for the head of the mayor's office of disability? supervisor avalos: a question about -- was there ever a

discussion about, you mentioned the end of your summary was doing away with completing the president's dyad-- this seems to me, the best way i would like to be able to do witit. that raised platform seems like an antiquated 19th century idea of what it is like to have legislative chambers, someone separate up there from the rest of us. i wonder if there were other designs having the equivalent of what we had here with the clerk and the president of the board working side-by-side.

i also know from experience of watching the president conduct business here, and having a clerk at next to the president is an important function. i wonder if there was a discussion about configuration that would provide ample access for people with disabilities. >> there was a great deal of discussion about that as an alternate design. there were a couple of reasons why that approach was rejected. the most important perspective is that we did not trust that the podium would be permanently there.

once they don't have someone in a wheelchair on the board like we have changes in administration, someone wants to use the president's podium, we would have one of two situations. we would start using the podium again and we would have another situation, or we would have a backlash against the disability community. this is a common occurrence. why do we need to use it? ada is just a ridiculous law. we get that all the time. another thing i can say to the design is simply that when you remove three steps, the desk will be much closer to where it is right now. it will be much more of the experience, closer to the board

of supervisors. there is room at the desk to have both the president and the clerk side-by-side if that is what they choose to do. and from the preservation perspective, it is not that we remove the podium altogether. we couldn't just take it. >> i guess the question is, how much did you explore creating a space at this level that would provide ample room for access? >> it would be one of the designs that we explore the most. it was very thorough. it was a strong competitor to the design that we have settled on. >> it seems like if we make that change in investment, that

argument about having the podium up there, it is something begging to be done. i don't think that is necessarily the case. if we create access at an hour -- a lower level -- >> starting over with not only cost us a great deal of money, but delay us many years again. personally, from the disability community, i have heard that we would never feel that there was a permanent resolution for access. we would still have a president 's podium there. we will use that for the clerk, and the person who is the president would like to be up

higher and have a fuller view of the room. it would start using the podium again. there is nothing that we could do to permanently block off the president without changing it. >> i understand that it was used by the mayor and the board chambers at not necessarily the president of the board. >> it is used by any number of people depending on the use of this room. there could be pressure from any number of different parties. if the governor comes to visit and is holding a session and he asks to be able to use the podium and wants to walk up the steps, i think it would be very hard for whoever is the clerk of the board at the time making that decision to say that you cannot go up to the president's

podium. and we would have been inaccessible feet -- seat of power. supervisor daly: i am having some of the same issues as supervisor avalos. there is one thing going on from the office of disability, but what hasn't seemed to happen, if we are going to do a significant redesign, this department, what does the board of supervisors want? it has been in front of us before, so we know what we don't want. for all the time and energy put into how to make this accessible, i was never asked

whether or not i think this are re should be rearranged to moving forward for future boards. i am not going to be here, but i agree with supervisor avalos, this whole notion that whether a person with a disability needs to be up in some perch looking over the other members of the board of supervisors. whatever number it is, this is a much more kind of hands-on work with the president, these chairs -- i would prefer to see them on the same level that other members of the board of supervisors.

i have never been asked that question. it seemed like that would be our presence. i am wondering if we can lower the current perch, why can't we leave it the way it is and take out the steps? it would be very difficult for me to even get up there wanted to. -- if i wanted to. i move forward with the design, ideally bringing it down to the floor level. that way there is proper clearance in the back. that would seem to be what is right. we can put something in the ballot, in the charter that

this would be the president's spot. you don't say that you trust future administrations, they can put another million dollars of work to redo it or change it. all sorts of things. what about taking up the steps? -- out the steps? >i might be overestimating my climbing ability. >> the concern about simply removing the steps is financial, that is not the expensive part of this. there is nothing that would prevent any president from a newly accessible design 14

inches. supervisor daly: i am recommending a charter amendment. >> with the design will have presented, the president and the clerk could still set at the desk if that is what they chose. they would not need to use the podium. supervisor daly: i am saying i don't want that torus available. >> i thought you wanted to the president and the clerk -- and supervisor daly: to be on the same level. >> they can choose to do that. supervisor daly: you are not hearing me. i don't want the choice. this is what is frustrating.