back to the personal items? >> there are three altars. supervisor maxwell: how are they personal items? >> it is personal property. mr. sweeney and i have a long conversation about this when he showed up but the notice of violation, that these are items sitting on the floor of the church. they are not part of the building. they are not like a wall or window in a wall. they are religious items. there is this question of separation of church and state. what is the city going to do with a marble top fed has a relic of a saint certified by the vatican -- marble top that

has a relic of the same certified by the vatican. i do not think the city wants to touch that. >> you had that discussion with mr. sweeney? he still gave you a notice of violation. >> this is after the notice of violation. >> did he it -- did he detracted? >> we went through the items. on the windows he said he did not have an argument because it was a planning issue. he said the building exempts taking glass from a window. we did not remove the wood window frame. he said it may be of planning issue because it is a historic building. we get back to this law, which is the state law willie brown past years ago. i understand the frustration of

the community. i am a catholic. i understand the tension going about my school. i understand the frustration, but i think we need to deal with facts. a lot of this is the law. whether it is a piece of furniture or the historic nature of this building, and we would love to have the dialogue with the city attorney and whoever else, because that is where this really belongs. we apologize for the upset this has caused, but i would really like to get this conversation back on target. you need to understand the work the catholic academy is doing for the kids in the western addition and the inner city of san francisco. >> you do have young people from

the western addition? >> we do. they are here to address you in. i have grocers. they are 60% african-american, 20% hispanic. the families pay $15 to $100. we're using every penny we have to help these families educate their kids. we are not putting money into bricks and mortar. it is not happening. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i am the principal of the catholic academy. the comment i want to make is that the planning department contacted the school. that did not happen to my knowledge. there was no contact between the

planning department and the megan furth planning academy -- catholic academy. i just want to add to the comments but we are serving students from the western addition and bayview hunters point and that the vast majority of our students reside in the tenderloin, and i can submit their zip codes, socio-economic status to verify that we are a schools serving the community and steering exceedingly amazing job at that. the students we have at our academy are outperforming their public-school appears in -- peers in reading and math. we have very little in terms of

overhead in what we spend at our school. everything is invested in our children. we are here to talk about what goes on in the building and sacred heart, but i invite everyone here who has an interest in the future of sacred heart to see what came of the students who are attending the catholic academy and see for yourself the difference we are making in this community. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i did not come to speak on this issue, but it brought back memories, 67 years ago, when a lot of my friends and family came from louisiana and texas. most of them were catholic, and

to hear what has occurred here, it really was astonishing, so i am asking that you supervisors support the resolution before you. thank you very much. >> thank you. i have no other speaker cards if any one of wants to speak. otherwise, we will close public comment >> i have been to -- we will close public comment. >> i have been too sacred heart. i understand the object is to take over raw materials and assets and grab them. that is what the financial sector does common and i imagine -- sector does, and i imagine the owner of this school did that precisely. as an apprentice, i understand

my role in the capitalist economy . now we could replicate these materials and produce them again. it is no big deal if we have the plans. the catholics the sacred heart produces, we should produce this furniture, and there is no big deal. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> seeing none, i will close public comment. >> may i call on the planning department? >> i want to correct a few items that were 7 and mention some that i neglected to say in my opening comments.

the historic preservation commission has been loosely involved in this. we have a lot of public testimony, and make them aware of what they have done, so they are monitoring this, and they are concerned with what is going on corregidor are really want to emphasize the things said earlier. -- is going on. i really want to emphasize some things said earlier. despite the removal of interior features, the church still qualify for an individual landmark dearly for architectural features. it has to go through the process, but i want to put that on the record. the last thing i want to note is there has been comments the church was not his story and was not listed on the national register of historic places.

-- was not historic and was not listed on the national register of historic places. it is deemed eligible, which still means it is of historic resources. it is still a historic church and retains its architectural significance because of that, and despite what the procedures are, the church never was involved. it needed to come to the planning department under ceqa. that had to occur first. ceqa would allow the planning department to investigate and to look at the interior of that church as part of the historic research. we would have looked at that. we would have required an environmental review of environmental impact. i want to put it out there that

the process was not followed, and regardless of it being a simple permit, they still had to do that process under the planning department. they >> i would like to call up dbi. the other speaker had to go. >> i am sorry that our deputy director had to go to another meeting and therefore is not here, but i understand there was some question about whether or not you do need a permit to remove the fixture, and you certainly do. >> it had been asserted by the representatives of the property that this notice of violation is something we should discuss off the record, behind closed doors

and essentially we have a community discussion, but as it relates to the law itself, was there a notice, and was it correct to issue the note of violation? >> i understand the process was filed as we normally do in a standard procedure. >> what about the class issue? about a window verses a glass? >> stained-glass windows are considered a future and not simply an ordinary window, and that is subject to a permit to remove it. >> stained-glass? so the glass itself is considered -- >> i would have to talk to mr. sweeney to know more about that, but as far as i know, that is considered a fixture.

>> i was referring to the altar. >> he mentioned the glass being different, and that is why i want some clarification. >> you already closed public comment. i have no further speakers. i would be happy to provide closing comments. >> any questions or comments? >> no. >> any questions or comments? >> real quickly, i see that the spirit of the law was violated with regard to an agreement we had established with the megan furth academy based on a conversation i had with fred and because of the number of meetings i had looking for their

support of the expansion plans, by the expansion plans were predicated on a strong community component that there would been retention so there would be an ongoing interface between community and the church itself. those plans were never aborted. and we were never informed there was going to be any interruption of those plans whatsoever. i believe the letter of the law has been violated as well based on thorough testimony by the department of building inspection, where there have been prominent features of the building itself that have been removed and not removed in a correct fashion as it regards our building code and planning code, so i believe we have arrived at a juncture where it is -- as uneasy as it is, no one is above the law, and with regards to of being able to

call the question the best intentions of the academy, and the conversation i had in 2005 with mr. furth and administrators was just that. the hammer i was using was to increase the level of scholarship. we are glad to see kids from a disadvantaged communities are gaining access to these institutions. that was the whole point of their being expansion of the school, but that does not exclude them having to regard and respect law. the community in itself had a certain level of anticipation that if there was going to be any dismemberment of the church, that after all those years when you had the community volunteering their time and establishing a relationship as they had for decades, that

overnight they come in, they tried to remove the features that are there, and then they said they did not know they needed a permit because of his personal property. arguable whether that is, i think that is a fait complit. they had it, they could remove it anyway, or what was the point now of trying to remove it with a permit they could as easily obtained? i think it speaks for itself very good >> i understand the sentiments and the motion people feel about this, and i think there needs to be some investigation, but for the board of supervisors to say unqualified support and to bring things back, i think we really need to get into -the first part

of this, which says they would like to have an investigation. i am comfortable with having the city attorney look into this, but i am uncomfortable with some of the other language. i think it is very emotional, and it does not seem to me of those surveyed putnam we have to -- we have to do s our due diligence first area i would suggest we move this forward. i would suggest it could go to the full board, or if you would like to -- if you're not comfortable with that, we could certainly have a vote, a roll call vote, but that is my feeling. i have read through this, and with what i have heard common --

what i have heard, there is significant understanding of this being a historical building. it is not on the register. that needs to be dealt with. there are things we need to monitor and have hours today attorney looked into. -- have our city attorney look into. >> which language? >> if i looked in the back at the resolve cause. it says the board of supervisors of the city and county of san francisco hereby declares its unqualified support for preserving the character of the neighborhood anchored by sacred heart church enand that the boad of supervisors of sentences " urges the parties and responsible for -- of san francisco urges the parties and responsible for the stained-

glass to have it put to the appropriate place in the church. you do not have a copy? thank you. they do not have a copy of the resolution. that would be another reason. >> it is a substitute resolution. can you tell me what line you are on? >> it is the second resolve clause. it starts on line four. maybe i have an old copy. >> hours are all passed out already. here. >> that has been removed? >> yes.

>> unless you can point that out to me, supervisor maxwell. >> starting at line 13. the board of supervisors strongly urges the party responsible for recent removal, sale, and transfer of historic features from sacred heart the church to take all necessary steps to ensure the restoration of features to their rightful place in the church. i do not know there is anything

that says the features are historic. the inside could be -- i think there needs to be -- something needs to happen so we can at least be able to say these are historic. something officials as says that, and since nothing has been declared officially historic, that has some concern. >> why not strike the word historic if that concerns you? >> i understand. i think of this point to start doing it this way is not the way i would suggest we do this. >> if that is the salient point of the concerns. supervisor maxwell: there might be other points. i think it has been established

that people feel it is historic, but there is nothing saying it is historic, so a lot of what we are doing is based on this being historic, and that seems to be a problem. >> the church is not his doric then? -- not historic then? supervisor maxwell: that is not what i said. there is nothing officially that has established that. it is not officially -- from my understanding from the planning department, they feel like it is, but since it did not go four or five years ago through the process of officially being made that, that is my concern. >> it would easily be cured by taking of the word historic -- taking out the word his story.

-- historic. it is still a violation. supervisor maxwell: i am not comfortable with that. my colleagues could outvote me. we could do a roll call vote. if you all are comfortable with that, that is what we could do. supervisor mar: given the testimony, i feel comfortable with language. it is a strong statement. i think we could wordsmith it, but i do not think we have the time. i so comfortable voting for this. supervisor chu: i have to agree with supervisor mar. it was mentioned with the church in my district dealing with the

similar legislation involving a law passed a number of years ago were you have a church that is well-deserved of landmark designation but has fallen into disrepair, has involved an owner who has moved forward with certain actions that have surprised the city if not potentially violated building inspection codes, so i would define if you wanted to remove the word historic, and perhaps we should do is, but i would like to ask if the parties could meet before we consider this with the full board. there is a lack of for a meeting of the mines, and it appears both sides have done that. i do think in the interests of moving forward this question, if

we want to remove the word historic, i would be prepared to move this forward. >> are you prepared to move forward with it as it is? i am not prepared, so i would like to make roll-call vote and vote no. we can leave it the way it is. >> if taking of that word would make it? >> no. -- is taking out the word would make it? >> no. as soon as she gets a copy, why don't we vote on this item? roll call vote. [calling votes] supervisor maxwell: no. >> we have two ayes and one no.

>> madam clerk, i would like to take a three-minute break, and we will be back for our next item.

>> will you please read the item? >> item #63 good information hearing on higher -- item #6. informational hearing on the san francisco local hiring policy for construction and related industries. >> it is informational only. i want to thank supervisor avalos for bringing this to us. supervisor avalos? >> thank you for coming out. yes, this is an informational hearing common -- hearing, and mostly we wanted to have this

during the 30-day wait. because we have complex legislation, and we want to your concerns from community and stakeholders better concerned about this legislation -- to your concerns from community and stakeholders that are concerned about this legislation. the actual hearing where we vote on it we are planning to happen november 22, the monday before the thanksgiving, so this is an opportunity to your concerns, and my office is planning to make amendments based on the comments that come to rest during this hearing. i want to thank you all for being here. sentences go's unemployment is holdings -- san francisco's unemployment is holding steady. supervisor maxwell: i would like

to ask you to please find a seat, and if you could not, please go to the chamber. i see some empty seats in the middle there. thank you very much. please find a seat. supervisor avalos: san francisco's unemployment is holding steady at 10%. we are in the worst economic crisis since the great depression, and there are some neighborhoods that we know the unemployment rate is much higher than 10%. in view. in a black community, it is much higher. fortunately in the next few years, we have a great opportunity. the city is investing $30 billion in public works projects.

we have a great opportunity to create new jobs. it is inevitable jobs will be created. tens of thousands of new jobs will be made available because the city is preparing our tax dollars into building a waste treatment plant, and use your system program company a new police command center south of market. there are major projects being planned in the next few years, especially the next five years, so while we know this work is getting done, how do we make sure our public investments get the mass the -- the maximum benefit. that is what i have introduced, and i have worked with stakeholders over the past year to develop this. the past decade the h