-- the department should maintain a mobile food facility page on its website dealing with all issues and pending permits. did i actually make a motion? president chiu: we will do one on the best motion. supervisor mirkarimi: on line 25, same page, just add "and on the mobile food facility" on the department's website. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi has made the amendment seconded by supervisor dufty. without objection. supervisor mar: thank you to supervisor dufty for his leadership on this. i want to reiterate on eo f - -

on-- one of the points of the property near schools. the main one is mission high school, and i appreciate the letter that clarifies that. the november be located close to mission high. and the commitment that he parks department works closely and discusses with the school principal and the various stakeholder groups to make sure that food vendors and carts don't jeopardize the work within the school district and the student nutrition programs to create healthier options. crew supervisor of the -- who supervisor dufty mentioned, because of the activism of parents, there are about 1500

more meals served per day this year than last year. full meals are much more balanced and healthier given the efforts to create solid bars and better choices. i worry that food carts will be like a magnet that pulls students away from the much healthier options. it might address the issue of the produced lunch for lower income families, so that everybody eating together -- i worry that it might lead to an effort where somebody might go outside and leave the cafeteria area for kids and students in the school. i appreciate the very clear

language that addresses the issue. hopefully the task force plays a leading role so that we do not minimize the great work of the parent activists. supervisor campos: just echoing the comments that were made about the great work that supervisor dufty has done on this legislation. i am very supportive of it. on the issue of food trucks being near schools, i have a somewhat different perspective. i do think that we should be on board and making sure that we provide healthy food choices for our students. and i think that the work that has been done are around that is something that should be commended. that said, i don't think that it necessarily means that a ban on

some of the trucks that have been identified is necessarily the right answer. i will tell you that i have worked with many people, many small merchants that on those trucks that will take issue with the fact that such a vendor automatically means that food choices. there are some restaurants that have probably worse food choices than these vendors. i think that we have to be very careful not to paint people with a wide brush because i know many of these trucks and many of these vendors have got out of their way to work with school communities to provide healthy choices. i think we have to be very careful in how we address this issue. to make sure that of the alternatives are provided and we

need to hold every establishment, in respect of of what their means to actually buy or rent a location are, that we hold all establishments to the same standard. and that many of these vendors are doing the right thing and are likely to do the right thing that some of these restaurants have not been doing. i want to say that this is not as simple as perhaps it has been portrayed at times. >> i want to conclude and knowledge the representative of activism a round school nutrition and acknowledge that she has also met with others earlier in the process. and the ways that i could have done a better job, i apologize for that and indicate that with

the approval of this legislation, as it relates to supervisor mirkarimi's concern and that there be a clear process from the parks department and school nutrition leadership, i will be mindful to ensure that nothing bad results from this. we want to see good things happen. president chiu: if we can vote on these two items. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. >> supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aye.

>> there are 11 aye's. president chiu: next item. >> item 32 is a resolution urging support for the preservation of sacred heart church. item 31 is amending the administrative code for the development and maintenance of the irrigation controls to specify new construction and the landscape rehabilitation projects. supervisor maxwell: this ordinance will establish new standards for landscaping projects, ensuring the -- it is another way that we will continue to reduce our water footprint in creative and effective ways. the landscape standards, it stems from a robust style that

will result in a unique urban environment in san francisco. president chiu: can we take this items in house, same color? -- same house, same call? supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor campos: supervisor avalos: -- supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor mar: aye. >> there are 10 aye's, one no. president chiu: item 32. >> urging the support of the restoration and preservation of sacred heart church. supervisor mirkarimi: i will be

as restrained as i possibly can be which i tried to exercise -- and i feel there was a violation of the building code because of the demolition of the important features within what was once known as sacred heart church. that violation speaks for itself. in the spirit of what we press this forward, we think there has been a trail of community. for a number of years, the people in the film more community, many felt there was a relationship or brokered between the arch diocese, the man who bought the church from the archdiocese. in return, he bequeathed sacred

heart church to the academy known as megan firth academy. it is an institution that i welcome for their great work, but the bottom line for us is that this was still able of the historic building and that it was struck home so that it would be lost its eligible status -- it would belie its eligible status for historic preservation. i don't believe that government or church is above the law, and that is important that we solidify the process and move on from here. i am more than happy to answer any questions. there was a number of misinformation. in one newspaper that comes out

, they clearly did not do their homework and investigate a single iota of fact or publish what i had said. if anybody would like me to respond to those, i would be more than happy to provide planning, city department planning data that communicated historic significance eligibility to the archdiocese's that has a relationship to the existing institution. we have all of that right here if anybody would like that. otherwise, in the same vein, making sure that there be respect of an institution, so is a very similar vibe associated with this. supervisor elsbernd: a big, big difference between the sacred

heart and saving bridges. as someone who grew up in the catholic church, i got to know more than i would like to know about the internal politics of the archdiocese and the way things work in the church. big differences between what is going on. one problem, i believe there is very little legal enforcement. it sends a strong message and that might be the motivation here. the problem is, sending a message alone, you better make sure you get the message right and you talk to the entire community. one clear difference between the sacred heart, the academy has done tremendous work for the community and has been a tremendous asset to not just the community there but the entire city of san francisco.

this ignores the entire balance in the entire picture associated with sacred heart church. i think it is very important if we pass resolutions that send messages, we better make very clear that we understand it. this resolution misses a number of important points about what is going on in and around sacred heart church. i am not comfortable sending a message that mrs. of number of important points. -- misses a number of important points. supervisor mirkarimi: we get this. we are not comopeting on -- competing on a level of value system, except it has concurred that this institution does good work with the community. that is not the focus of the resolution.

i recognize that if they do good work with the community, let's include that in the resolution. to the grounds of where this institution is, they did not ask for permission and did not seek a permit in order to eviscerate and demolish this building. they knew very well based on a letter that was sent by the planning department to this institution that it required a certain level of environmental approval before -- anybody is welcome to a copy of it. to the people that have inherited responsibility of administering this church. why? it wasn't until 20006 in 2007 that the academy -- 2006 and 2007 that the academy --

[unintelligible] please continue to do what you do in the community and you have our support. as it relates to the letter and spirit of the law, this resolution is dead-on accurate. no matter what the denomination is, they are not above the particular standards that we told everybody to. -- hold everybody to. president chiu: any other discussion? supervisor elsbernd: you can't say one thing and have the other way. the city wants to see the academy thrive. the resolution complex absolutely an directly with the survival of -- conflicts with the survival of the academy.

i tell you, the archdiocese is unique unto its own. it is not like any other country in the world. supervisor dufty: i wondered if i could ask miss sullivan to comment. it would help me with the background. >> thank you. i'm from the planning department. this church does have a history with the planning department. the landmark preservation advisory board initiated landmark designation of this church in 2000. it started to go through the legislative process, ultimately trying to be approved by this board of supervisors, but at that time, during that process, there was a state law that was passed that prohibited properties owned by religious institutions from being locally designated landmarks, so that

process stock. we then got involved with the church several years later. in 2004-2005, when the church was sold from the archdiocese to a private institution or private owner. we were contacted by several community members as well as supervisor mirkarimi's office asked what the permitting process was for the church to do any kind of alterations -- as to what the permitting process was for the church to do any kind of alterations. then, it was very quiet until about last spring when we received word that the academy had removed many of the significant interior architectural features. we have worked with dbi and issued notices of violation. they did issue a stop work

orders. since then, the director has issued some letters to the academy to try to get them to come to the table to discuss possible landmark designation, which is still possible for the exterior of the church, and/or rectifying some of the issues and making sure there is a compatible replacement. i can go through additional questions if you would like. >> one question i would have is that the resolution calls on the city attorney to investigate and or take legal action -- and/or take legal action. are these steps that the planning department is contemplating if there is not satisfaction with respect to the concerns that have been raised with the academy? is this something that, irrespective of the resolution, would undoubtedly happened as a result of major code violations?

>> the resolution mainly speaks for the department of building inspection and they're permitting process. they are here to walk through that. the planning department has issued a notice of violation, which is a little more complicated and slower. we will be following up. there are times. the property owner can appeal our letters and/or commit to compliance. obviously, we would rather them come into compliance by somehow replicating the rose window with something similar or more historically accurate -- by somehow replacing the rose window with something similar or more historically accurate. it allows the interiors of particular buildings, including publicly owned or publicly accessible buildings to be reviewed under ceqa. again, for the interior, there

is little we can do, but in terms of the exterior, the rose window, which is a significant feature of that church, we would ask them to put something more compatible in, and if not, we would proceed with further enforcement actions. supervisor dufty: could i ask if someone from the department of building inspection could come up and maybe respond to the same questions? supervisor chiu: mr. sweeney. >> good afternoon, supervisors. what was your question again? supervisor chiu: part of the language of the resolution calls on the city attorney to investigate, publicly report on, and take action on violations of laws. this sounds similar to our code enforcement process, which would take place, i would imagine, in an instance where there are major violations that take place, and i wondered if you

could reflect on, from the standpoint of the building inspector and's point of view, if there is an effort by the institution to come under greater compliance or ameliorate some of their issues, that this could be pursued for code enforcement? >> yes, there was a violation. the violation was that they should have obtained a building permit to remove the finishes. the altars, the pews -- anything that is nailed in place becomes a fixture. to remove that, you need a permit. it becomes something like a kitchen remodel. when you take out your cabinets, you need a building permit. >> in that case, the cabinets were viewed as being significant? is that a case where we might say no? >> the building department does not really go there. the building code is simply you

either need a permit to do the work for you do not, and that is where planning comes in. they are the ones who tell you what is and is not significant. >> thank you so much. supervisor chiu: any further discussion on this item? colleagues? if we could take a roll-call vote on the resolution. >> on item 32, maxwell no. mirkarimi aye. alioto-pier no. avalos aye. campos aye. chiu aye. chu no. daly aye. dufty no. elsbernd no. mar aye. there are six ayes and five nos. supervisor chiu: this resolution is adopted.

item 33. >> item 33 is a motion confirming the mayor's appointment of art torres to the san francisco public utilities commission. on item 33, maxwell aye. mirkarimi aye. alioto-pier aye. avalos aye. campos aye. chiu aye. chu aye. daly aye. dufty aye. elsbernd aye. mar aye. there are 11 ayes. supervisor chiu: this motion is approved. item 34. >> item 34 is from the rules committee without recommendation. motion confirming the appointments of larry del carlo and larry mazzola, jr. to the

treasure island development authority board of directors. supervisor daly: by just want to raise my voice in opposition to these items in reference to my comments of last week -- i just want to raise my voice in opposition. supervisor campos: i just wanted to reiterate what i have indicated before, which is i think that we should move the completion of these appointments collectively. because of that, i think that since we do not have a deadline with respect to this set of appointments, which are knock -- legally, we are not required to act today, i would simply make a motion to continue these items so that they can be brought together at the same time that the vacancy for the treasure island resident is filled. i'm not necessarily against

these appointments, but i think that -- because i think each individual has something to offer, but i think it makes sense that we vote on them together. as the mayor indicated, once the treasure island resident is brought forward. make a motion to continue, i guess, until next week. actually, i do not know how long it would take. two weeks? the first meeting in december? supervisor chiu: supervisor campos is making a motion to continue this item until december 7. that is seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mar: in the rules committee, i supported moving this forward, knowing that the mayor's office committed to appointing a resident from treasure island as soon as possible, so it seems like the deadline of november 15, i

believe, has passed, so there is a number of applicants from treasure island, and my understanding was that there will be an immediate appointment as soon as possible. is that correct? supervisor chiu: ms. charo -- ms. terrell? >> that is correct. the application period completed yesterday. supervisor dufty: i just wanted to reiterate the point that was just raised. i received e-mail from the mayor's appointment coordinator, indicating that they did close applications, and certainly, i have received e-mails from many residents of treasure island, very supportive of 01 -- owen stephens, so i have expressed my hope that what has been regarded as good work on his part will be

recognized within the framework of other candidates that are applying. while i will not support the motion to continue it because i believe these two excellent nominees that i'm ready to vote for -- i support that there needs to be both a resident, and certainly, there is a candidate that has demonstrated good work on this panel. supervisor mirkarimi: i will support the motion to continue, and i want to reiterate that stemming from the boat, the conversation we had last year about the other candidates before us that succeeded on to the tida board, that they be careful that politics are put by the side in this case because strong voices send a signal to the mayor's office that a strong representative who resides on treasure island be appointed, which we understand is the intention and the gesture that is forthcoming, but it also confounds this thinking when in fact they already have that

person. if that person was not to be reappointed, and if that person, for some unexplained reason, fell out of the good grace of the mayor in that regard, then we can only deduce that politics is being played here, so let's make sure that we have sound representation on what is obviously a critically important board, and let's just have the proper complements as we see them. i look forward to this legislation coming back up in a couple of weeks or so. supervisor campos: again, i do not want to belabor the point, but my motion to continue is in no way an indication that i would not support these individuals. just simply a recognition of the importance of having the presence of a resident of the island as soon as possible. i just want to make that very clear because i know that the

individuals involved have a lot of things that they bring to the table. supervisor chiu: with that, why don't we take a roll call on the motion to continue? >> maxwell no. mirkarimi aye. alioto-pier no. avalos aye. campos aye. chiu no. chu no. daly aye. dufty no. elsbernd no. mar no. there are four ayes and seven nos. supervisor chiu: motion to continue fails. the underlying motion. >> maxwell aye. mirkarimi aye. alioto-pier aye. avalos no. campos aye.