beginning of this process, i don't agree. i haven't been consulted. i voted against it once, but this is a bit frustrating. it seems like we have a department in the public chamber, but it is controlled by the board of supervisors. i don't sense that there is -- the president needs to be oup, probably because there is only one president. that is sort of the feel. we want to change that, and this is a good opportunity. it will be even more accessible than a ramp. there are different levels of

accessibility, why not make it as close to 100% accessible and drop it on the floor, not have a ramp with an incline that is more difficult to access that ground-floor level? i would get rid of the top thing if we could. we could make it accessible for everybody. >> i disagree with you in terms of the consultation. i had spoken with everyone's staff or invited discussion with everyon's staff with two exceptions. this time around, i was told you were not interested in talking with us. there have been many opportunities for supervisors to participate in the discussion.

supervisor daly: i still disagree with you. supervisor campos: think you, mr. president. just a follow-up question for the department. in terms of doing different designs, the one that is presented to us, how much additional time are we talking about if we wanted to go that route? >> we would have to start the process all over again. supervisor campos: thank you. you know, i am not someone who has a history that people who have bet on the board have, and i certainly don't have the history of involvement on this issue.

from my perspective, i don't know that i would choose this specific design. i do think that supervisor avalos and supervisor daly have a point about where the president is in terms of the rest of the board. i don't think the person should be higher than the rest of us. be that as it may, what i am interested in is how do we make the entire chamber accessible. beyond the practicality which is important, there is a symbolism that comes with making every area accessible, whether it is used by the president or an area that is used by the mayor. i think that accessibility is important, whether you have a member of the board that will

benefit from that or not, i can see how the community -- that symbolism is something that is very meaningful. i am not interested in beginning a process, even after the end. i can see how maybe it would result in a happier one. i would want to make this accessible as quickly as possible. i understand the points that are being made by my colleagues. supervisor daly: just on the design process, did one design say -- let me ask this to the folks who have some building and

engineering background. how do you come up with a design and not have options that we want, and alternate design or an alternate plan? that you have to start all over? it seems that this project, the most sophisticated and most complex being the bridge build right now or the transit center, you are never in a place to go a different direction that you are all the way back to square one. was this by design that if we rejected it, if we wanted an alternative, we would have to start all over? that way we would not be able to

engage and talk about some of the different possibilities? >> supervisor daly, first of all, i appreciate the frustration of being posed with only one choice. it makes it somewhat of an upper down position and it is not the best position to be in. supervisor daly: you can change things and it is not like all of the work is lost. you make the alterations. i am confused that the head of the office of disabilities says that if we want something that has elements of your proposal but is a bit of a different path, we would have to start over again.

that makes no sense. >> in terms of getting construction documents ready for a different design, it would not be a significant effort. we would have to pay to get that work done, but that is not really what the time of the restart would really impact. this did start with 18 different designs that went through a lot from the city hall preservation committee, the landmarks preservation board, the disability community, to get to a point where it was narrowed down to seven or eight. and then, in the end, there was only one that was able to get through stakeholder groups and processes that have the consensus to move forward.

it is not an issue of engineering design. the process included a peer review directed by the board of supervisors president. there have been points where tehe board weighed in as well. i appreciate that you believe this is not the best design. the alternative design would be significantly different in cost. it would not be huge, but getting a certificate approved to come back would require vetting through all of those committees.

i did not have the exact history of all the process. it went through many different groups, and this was the design that came out of that process. it would be going back through those groups that would be the time and effort, not generating the construction documents with this. supervisor daly: i know a little bit about how government works at this point. you know, look, if we had a design that has been half vetted, that is not the preference of some stakeholders but that actually would work for the board of supervisors and would be more accessible than the current design and we said this is what we want, i believe that unless there is friction between the mayor's office and the board coming to a decision,

but if there is some agreement that we should deliver that, going through landmarks, going back to the disability community, this should not take that long. it is correct to say that the cost and the timeline to get that work done is not that significant, so i did not see that our hands are bound. it seems to me that we would not be delaying this worked to make the president's seat fully accessible, and we would be working in terms of our vision of where the president should sit and how they should conduct proceedings, not over and above the board of supervisors, but together with the rest of the board of supervisors. i think there's no reason to say -- no reason we cannot say

that is what we want. i think that is a much better designed for people who are here all the time. as opposed to the folks just talking about it who really are not hear much. supervisor chiu: i have a couple of questions -- could you talk about some of the options you did look at over the last four years, and specifically some of the options to make the hire former president's dais less operational in the way the supervisor daly is suggesting? >> what i can tell you is that there were a number of approaches that were vetted to try to put some large blocks on the president's podium so it could not be used, to try to but bars across if so it could not be used. the challenge is that this is a historic landmark, and the historic preservation community

is very committed to not marring the historic landmark, so there's nothing that could be down that would not be reversible. we would have to do -- nothing that could be done that would not be reversible. everything that we do would have to be reversible. i can tell you that we looked at a number of different designs, and the potted plant auction was the most popular -- the part of a plant -- the potted plant option was the most popular. that this means putting a table of there with a plan on it. it would be able to be removed. supervisor chiu: when the issue was first raised a number of months ago, i have to admit i had never look behind me, and it was probably not until a week or two that i actually examine what we have behind me, and i agree with supervisors avalos and

daly that i wish the option of keeping the president's desk at a lower level -- i personally think that is a better option in that it would signify the quality of all of our colleagues. it is easy -- easier for us to interact in a more collaborative way. that said, i am aware and have been briefed by your office of the challenges of balancing the historic preservation. the disability issues, and the other functional needs that we have here in the board chambers. to supervisor campos' point, i think that in the spirit of moving things expeditiously, it appears to me that after having spent four years and going through 18 options that we are where we are at, but let me see, colleagues, if there are any other discussions or comments that people would like to make. with that, unless you have any other points you would like to

make as part of the presentation, let me open it up to public -- supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: i will wait until after public comment. supervisor chiu: let me open up to public comment, to any members that wish to speak to the issue. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am share of the city hall preservation advisory commission. some people from the board of supervisors, architects worked diligently on finding the solution for accessibility. the major problem we kept running into is city hall is part of civic center. we are a national historic landmark. the wood in the chamber is manchurian boat, and it is all

that the law has left -- the what in the chamber is manchurian oak. we tried to come up with solutions about how the stairs could be lowered, how they could be removed, and the one that we, after exhausting many hours of time, effort, and energy -- we found that the last option that we selected would be the most expedient and least costly and disruptive to the chamber, so we are asking that you approve the certificate of accessibility that we have come up with, and that the certificate of appropriateness is approved. so that we can get on with the work at hand. thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. other members of the public wish

to speak on this item, if you could please step up to the podium. >> hello, supervisors. associate director at the independent living resource center san francisco. i was thinking yesterday when i was on the bus about what i wanted to say to you today, and this old woman got on the bus after me, struggling, carrying a lot of bags. she said, "you are so brave. i would hate to have your life." i could not help but smile at myself because i realized that the irony is that this woman and i shared something -- we both live in a society that values our contributions in a very limited sense. i urge you to vote and pass the certificate of appropriateness. the message you are sending to

people with disabilities is a strong one. i understand, supervisor daly, why you feel frustrated. i feel frustrated, too. i feel frustrated that yet another newspaper article is going to be printed about how we cannot make our board of supervisors chamber accessible again. our laws on the phone before i got here with the ceo of the american association with disabilities, and i told him what i was here to speak about today, and he said, "you guys have not gotten it right yet?" supervisor alioto-pier, with all due respect, and i have a lot of respect for you, this is not about you. it is about the future. it is about our children. it is about those who come after us. if you make this chamber fully accessible, and that includes the podium -- political

hierarchy has been around forever. what you are saying to the future is the only thing to stand between you and the height of your achievement is your ability to work hard and dreamed big. thank you very much. [applause] supervisor chiu: next speaker please. >> as you know, and i am physically challenged. i was program director for ada. what we have here is a situation in this historic building about accommodation, and if you value without any bias to statements made by some of the supervisors, you will see [inaudible]

is accessible. for you, who think you are an expert at ada, looking at this date, it is not ada-accessible. i would have to make it wide so that two wheelchair's could go in. if i try to consider that, then this desk would have to move backwards. so let's not blow this out of proportion, okay? let's not blow it out of proportion. because there are a few people who basing they are doing the right thing, who may think that speaking on behalf of all the physically challenged -- and i pay attention to all our deliberations, and you have not. you are not a commission, but as a body, you do serve the constituents who are disabled, especially the elderly. i appreciate that, and you

should not give any cause to the press and to those who really do not understand about ada issues to have a debate that does not take us to a better place. thank you very much. supervisor chiu: are there any others members of the public that wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, unless there are any other questions to staff -- yes, supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: i just wanted to make a comment on one of our speakers. i wanted to first thank you for what you said. i think you were probably the most eloquent speaker up here today, and i would like to thank you for being up here today. i would also like to thank you

for saying something that i set for probably six straight months, which is that this is not about me, and i just happen to be in a wheelchair, and as a result, i think it triggered something. but this should have been done when the building was brought up to code years ago. it should not have taken people with disabilities to say that we want the people's room to be made accessible. i am more aware than anyone that this is not about me, so i want to thank you for the comments you made today. also, you said about your story on the bus that the woman got on and sat down next to you and said something along the lines of, "i'm glad i do not have your life." one thing that has constantly amazed me, probably because of the people i have been privileged to know who are part of the disabled community, is that the statement is so -- i laugh because it is laughable.

people with disabilities will sit and say over and over again , "i don't want your life." i thought for sure that that was how you were going to respond. one of the things i think that is so important about this project in particular is that there is such negativity surrounding people with disabilities. for some reason, the view that it is bad or that it can be. one of the things about this project is that it brings beauty do something, and i think that is very important. we talked about the symbolism. i look at it now and see something that is very ugly because it pushes people away instead of bringing people in and bringing them closer and making it more inclusive. what the project is about at the end of the date is making this room much more beautiful than it currently is, so i want to thank

you for your comments and for the people who come from the disabled community for such a big part of this and for people from the historic community who are also such a big part of this. there have been so many conversations and discussions, and i think it was congresswoman pelosi getting up and saying she had pushed it through as the federal level that made the mayor asked why we have not done this again. for all those involved, i would just like to say thank you. supervisor chiu: let me see if there are any comments or questions to city staff. otherwise, i will close the hearing at this time. supervisor avalos: actually, i do have a follow-up. my concern -- i was actually prepared to support this certificate of appropriateness before coming into the board chambers, and i still may do that. my biggest concern was we had

discussion about the president's elevated dais, and i had a reaction to see that we were again creating a space that was elevating someone above everyone else, and that is what i was reacting to. i guess the question i have is we make the modifications to create accessibility for the president's area. below where the clerk is sitting, is that going to be accessible as well? if we do choose not to use that elevated side, down below, we will have the accessibility there? >> yes, the clerk's desk, which can be the president's desk if he chooses, will also be fully accessible. it will be at the floor level, and it will be pulled away from the back of the president's

podium. supervisor avalos: that will be for anyone who wants to use that space? >> for anyone who wanted to use the space. supervisor campos: i simply wanted to add something. i was very moved by the comments that were made, especially the comments by the woman who spoke about how this is not about a rq(q(rt)h individual. a member of the disability community, some of the challenges that they go through, but i think what is happening right here transcends this community. i know that, for instance, as we were talking about the need to pçmake meetings accessible to people who speak other languages, that people who need

translation services would want that accessibility right away and may not necessarily be that concerned about differences of opinion, about how technically -- what would be the best, effective way of doing that he but -- of doing that. i think people will want to see the translation services as soon as possible, and that is the way i see it, so i hope we move forward on this. supervisor chiu: thank you. at this time, i suggest we close this public hearing, and at this time, items 29 and 30 are in the hands of the board for discussion or motions. superxc-unpçó elsbernd: move to item 29 and table item 30. supervisor chiu: supervisor elsbernd has made a motion. seconded by supervisor alioto- pier. any additional discussion? with that, can we take a roll- call vote?

>>5z chu aye daly aye know. dufty aye. mar aye. alioto-pier aye. avalos aye. campos aye. chiu. 9 ayes, one no. supervisor chiu: this motion is approved. madam clerk, please call item 31. >> item 31 was considered by the land use and economic development committee at a regular meeting ahead carried an ordinance amending the planning code.

>> as we discussed last week, we passed the item back to land use, and yesterday, the committee met and decided we needed to move forward with the item we have in front of us because old state mary's is an important historic institution that is in desperate need of seismic funds and has some significant deadline's coming up such that we need to move the legislation quickly. that said, there have been some broader issues around the specific requirements for transferable development rights, and i want to let you know that item 32 waséh yesterday and will be back in land use committee next week. it is the intent of our party to move forward with the legislation to dealño)ñbó withf the broader issumññ i know a couple of you had some questions on that, i would like to clarify that, but i ask that

we move item 31. item 32 is not in front of us because it did not yet come out of committee, but it will be back in front of the board in about two weeks. supervisor chu: hankie. quick question -- actually, clarification for my understanding. i was intending to divide the question and vote on several pieces of the legislation, but i wanted to clarify if i were to vote entirely on the item, that the changes you were talking about refer to page 15 through page 17, beginning on lines 17 through line 3 on page 17, just to clarify the changes that we are talking about deal with that section. >> that is true. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. supervisor chiu: