president chiu: good afternoon, welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting for tuesday, march 6, 2012. please call the roll. supervisor, president. some pressure campos, present. president chiu, present, supervisor chu, president, supervisor cohen, present.

supervisor elsbernd, president. supervisor farrell present. supervisor kim, president. supervisor mar, the present. supervisor olague become a present. supervisor wiener, president. all members are present. president chiu: please join me in the pledge of a of -- of allegiance. "i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." president chiu: are there any items? >> please read the items. could you please call roll on items one to seven. supervisor chu, aye.

supervisor aye, aye -- supervisor: , aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mark, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos. aye. president chiu: item 8. ordinance amending the san francisco environment code and adding section 402. >>supervisor elsberndavalos: t.

we had approved a plan for promoting cycling. we would have 20% of our troops to be by bicycle. the goals of this policy are clear around reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting transit. and on clogging our streets for their needs. we have many tools to help us get there. one of them is building our infrastructure around the city. also part of that is the infrastructure we can build in our buildings, where people commute to to get to and from work. this legislation, what it does is requires building owners or people responsible for the buildings would provide access for bicycles to enter the building. the access is provided to the tenants, not the employees are

cyclists. the tenants will decide about opening up space in offices for iceball entry. this would allow many bicycles to not have to be locked up on the streets or sidewalks where they could clog our public right-of-way. and also could often get stolen. i have had a couple of bucks in san francisco get stolen over the years. we're creating or removing a barrier to people using bicycles to get around the city and it would be great for promoting transit, our policies around greenhouse gas emissions. there has been a lot of talk about what this legislation may do and one thing it does not require that a building owner would have to build bicycles -- a bicycle room for storage. it does not extend the short- term visitors or messengers who will enter temporarily for a

couple of minutes or an hour or so in the building. it is for the tenants and people who work in the building who would have access based on their relationship in the building. this legislation has also been supported by the building owners and management association. we felt it critical to consult with them as the people who are most understanding of how the bike access issues will be carried out. especially in the commercial real estate sector. it has the support of the san francisco bike coalition as well. i want to thank the by coalition for working together to make this ordinance a reality. i want to thank also my legislative aide for her work on this as well. i cannot talk about this legislation without mentioning one of the persons who brought the idea of for me. that was jeremy pollacuck.

i hope to have your support and thank you for your consideration. rote thank you. i want to thank you for the thought that went into it. i will be voting against it. i think the goal of it is laudable and a good one but some of the areas where i am concerned as were the exceptions occur and where it is in all -- we obligate city staff to create those exceptions. there are two exceptions that would be granted. if it is not safe for it if there is a physical impediment. another is if there is comparable street parking or secured low-cost parking in the area. the exceptions read such that the department of building inspection at the request at the department of environment would conduct an analysis. we have enough trouble getting many of our inspectors to go out on life safety issues and

building inspection issues across the city. i am concerned that this will add another layer of requirement to it, the building inspection that is taxed. there is an act -- a requirement if you do an exception or alternative parking for bikes, storage, that would require mta to provide resources to make sure there is adequate space. mta has challenges and those are some of the areas where i have some concerns about the city staff and department resources. given everything we have as well. the goals are great. i wanted to explain my reason for but -- voting against it. supervisor avalos: thank you for your comments. you're reminded me i have an amendment i need to make as well. that is why i passed out the ordinance to everyone here in the board chamber. let me discuss those right now.

on page 6, lines 3 and 4 cannot i will be clarifying what alternate -- lines 3 and 4, i will be clarifying the alternate. the language is here, for secure alternate bicycle parking as defined in article 1 -- article 1.5. that is one of the amendments i will be making a motion on. the next amendment is on page 6, lines 8 and 9. to make an implementation easier for the department of environment and for building owners, rex -- removing the certified mailing requirements. the application for an exception should be submitted to the department of the environment in a manner required. that is the second amendment i will be making. the third amendment is on page six, line 18. to accommodate the mta if they ever rename the level streets

subdivision we're adding -- subdivision. we're adding the language as follows. who will be doing the work of the mta to identify bicycle storage for we have an office building. this is a cost-effective way of promoting cycling in san francisco. we see the impact to be minimal. we see the impact on our city staff, dbi as well to be minimal. we see boma and managers to embrace the policy. that says a lot about where we come from in terms of how much cycling is accepted as a means of commuting in san francisco. i would enjoy your support and thank you for your co-sponsor ship as well. president chiu: supervisor avalos has made a motion to

amend. is there a discussion? without objection, those amendments are made. supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: i want to support this legislation and thank you for that, you have done a lot of work on it. the question that is dragging me here, the small businesses -- that is striking me here. the small businesses that do not have a -- much storage in the bank -- in the back. are the -- how do we have -- deal with it for small businesses that have much -- do not have much square footage. how does that work? >> we are talking about commercial property. we also have to make sure that we are following building code or the fire code and safety code. a lot of small businesses are not going to have the room to be

able to create that kind of space that is needed. the would-be -- they would be subject to an exception if there is not space enough for a bicycle facility to -- a place to store bikes. they would not be subject to a because there's a need to meet the safety code. we do not have passed this legislation is without penalties right now. -- wethis legislation is without penalties. we wanted to make sure we had some flexibility for small businesses in our commercial corridors to see how we could make the program work in the future. supervisor farrell: thank you. supervisor wiener: i will be supporting the legislation. it is important. i want to make it as easy as possible for people to bike and bike theft is also a significant issue. in the city.

and having a place where people can safely store their bikes while they are at work is important. one thing i think would be a good idea is we are probably going to get some questions from property owners and businesses about what their responsibilities are. it would be great if the department could put together a frequently asked questions sheet that we could distribute. i guarantee we will get a lot of questions. it is a good piece of legislative -- legislation and i will be supporting it. president chiu: any other discussion? if we could take a roll call vote. >> president chiu as a, aye. supervisor cohen, no. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mark, aye.

supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. there are nine ayes and two nos. president chiu: this is passed on first reading. declaringrex establishing a onen francisco pilot program. >> on item nine. supervisor chu, no. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor aye -- surprise there supervisor elsbernd, no. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. there are nine ayes and two nos.

president chiu: item nine. >> ordinance amending the san francisco a ministry code by adding article 58. president chiu: roll-call vote. >> supervisor chu, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor a lucky, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor salahi, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu: passed. >> item 10. president chiu: can we do this

same house, same call? without objection, this is passed. item 12. >> report operating $1.8 million from 2010 revenue bond funded projects to the port commission in fiscal year 2011-2012 for the development of the mixed used cruise terminal at pier 27. president chiu: colleagues, same house, same call? this item is passed. item 13. quex authorizing the execution of a permit to enter and use property for installation and maintenance of a northeast facing wall sign at 1650 mission street. supervisor olague: the total project is less than those received in years past. while the potential planning and land use implications of this 3000 square foot billboard have not been properly vented

-- vetted, i would like to request this referred back to land use. if there is sufficient public benefit -- or mitigation. i think at the end of the day look, we may decide that the project revenue was are -- revenue is sufficient to meet those -- that. at this time, it would be important for the land use committee to review this item to allow the planning department to also review this signage from a land use perspective. i know it is considered from a budgetary perspective. i think it would be important to view it in that regard. i am looking for more public process. i am not advocating for any outcome. i do believe the public

deserves some time to view this issue from a different -- through a different lands and more from a land use plans. president chiu: supervisor olague is making a motion to refer this back to land use. seconded by supervisor campos. discussion on decision to refer. when a cow -- supervisor wiener: i do not take a hard line on billboards. there are billboards and advertising that i have supported. my concern here is this is a really large and prominent piece of public property, and what we are earning well have gone down by 75% to a little over $60,000 a year. it is not clear to me whether that is worth the price. at some point, it is so much money that it becomes more and more worth it.

i am just not convinced yet. i think having a hearing and more information will be useful. i am not saying how i would ultimately vote. when it comes back to the board. supervisor chu: thank you. i will be speaking against that motion. we did have a process that was followed. this was a competitively bid process. speaking to the dollar amount, it was less. it was something that was considered during the budget committee. from i understand ink, it went through an rfp process that was competitive, a fair and there was no protest with regard to that process. i do think that is the value we have come out with. with regards to public process and the ability to have public comment, we did provide that opportunity at the budget committee. i would support taking the vote on it today and not referring it back to committee. we did do our due diligence at the budget committee with this item.