supervisor chiu: good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, march 27, 2012. could you please call role? >> [roll call] mr. president, all members are present. supervisor chiu: thank you.

ladies and gentlemen, could you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? madam clerk, are there any communications today? >> yes, mr. president, we are in receipt of correspondence from mayor lee, dated march 21, 2012, communicating debaters notice to the board of supervisors that the mayor has suspended share -- sheriff mirkarimi from office and seeking his removal from office. supervisor chiu: thank you. we could now go to our regular agenda. >> item 1 is an ordinance appropriating $1 million of general fund prior year fund balance for the small business revolving loan fund program and

placing $500,000 on budget and finance committee reserve pending an update to the program. on item one -- supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. supervisor chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. >> there are 11 aye. supervisor chiu: this ordinance is finally passed. >> item two is an ordinance a minute the administrative code to established a policy regarding participation in federal counter-terrorism activities. supervisor kim: i am asking again for another week of delay, continuing to the following

tuesday, and this will be my final request for continuance. supervisor chiu: supervisor kim has made a motion for continuance. can we take that without objection? this item will be continued to -- i believe it is april 3. without objection. our 3:00 p.m. special order -- we will pick that up at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the america's cup and the various documents we have received from city staff. our 4:00 p.m. special order will be continued at 4:00 p.m., and this is at the consent of both parties. if we could now go to our committee reports and item 10. >> items 10 and 11 were considered by the land use committee at a regular meeting monday march 26, 2012 and were forwarded as committee reports. item 10 was forwarded to the board without recommendation. it is a resolution authorizing the execution of a permit to enter and use property for installation and maintenance of

a northeast-facing wall signed at 1650 mission st.. supervisor chiu: colleagues, any discussion on this item? >> on item 10 -- supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: i should have pushed it earlier because i was going to -- i guess is it too late to comment on it? supervisor chiu: why don't we rescind the vote and have discussion? supervisor olague: i am sorry, i should have said something sooner. supervisor chiu: does cast a vote, and we will resent it and go through it. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: no. supervisor campos: no. supervisor chiu: no. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: no. >> there are five ayes and 6

nos. supervisor chiu: the resolution is not adopted. is there a motion to rescind the book? motion rescinded. supervisor cohen has made a motion to rescind. is there a second? can we take a motion to rescind without objection? without objection, the item is rescinded. let's go back to discussion on item 10. supervisor olague: yesterday, we discussed this at the land use committee. we were informed by the person who was creating a contract, who i think might be here, that typically the signs would be reduced that there should be language in the contract that would reduce the size of the sign, and the specifications were not included in the contract originally.

i just wanted to, if this was going to move forward, i thought this -- there should be some language that would limit the size of the sighted. supervisor chiu: do you want to direct your question to mr. updike? supervisor olague: seems like a mute point after it was voted down. >> yes, there were discussions yesterday with the firm total outdoor, who has agreed to regulate through the permit issued a city as landlord the size of the billboard to retain it to no larger than 20 feet by 60 feet, so that if in the future there was a regulatory change at the state level that permitted a larger size, wall facing assigned to occur, we would have regulated through our document the inability to

increase size, it would be a 20x60 versus 28x99 size, so that is about a 60% decrease. it could be done administratively through my authority as director of property. does not necessarily need an amendment, but happy to accommodate that, and the signing board company is as well. supervisor kim: thank you. i wanted to speak briefly on why i support this item. i only got to hear it at the budget and finance committee, but i support this because it is the current -- currently the only bill or that the city owns and operates, and it is revenue for our city and it was competitively bid. in a stand that with the voters -- and i agreed with the sentiment that we do not want new billboards popping up in the city and county of san francisco, but that this was a previous billboard sign that does generate revenue for the city, i am supportive of the

item, and also i felt that it went through the proper channels. what would have been helpful in terms of the land use committee discussion is getting a cost- benefit analysis of what this means. the cost of the potential blight of the billboard compared to the revenue generated -- that discussion i felt was not properly vetted, but i certainly understand the concerns of books that are opposing the billboard here. supervisor olague: i just wanted to comment that i think that this does raise the question about billboards and publicly- owned property. i would like to be part of the discussion that would look a little bit more deeply into that. i believe that publicly owned properties were exempted during the conversations, so i would like to at some point continue to look at how we might amend --

i do not know if i'm men might be too strong of a recommendation at this point, but i think we should discuss this at some point. supervisor chiu: are you offering an amendment today or not? supervisor olague: um, no. supervisor chiu: all right, unless there is further discussion, whether we take another roll-call vote? >> on item 10 -- supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: no. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: no. supervisor campos: no. supervisor chiu: no. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: no. >> there are four ayes and seven no. supervisor chiu: the resolution is not adopted. item 11. >> item 11 is a resolution

authorizing the issuance and delivery of a multi-housing revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed approximately $40.1 million for the purpose of providing financing but the acquisition and construction of a 150-unit multifamily rental unit housing project. supervisor chiu: roll-call vote? >> and added 11 -- supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor chiu: aye. supervisor chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. supervisor chiu: the resolution is adopted. colleagues, what we go to roll

call? then a supervisor kim, you are first for roll call for introductions -- >> supervisor kim. supervisor kim: first of all, i wanted to take a moment today to briefly highlight a public health crisis that our office has been focused on. preventing pedestrian collisions. some of which and in fatalities, and all of which could have potentially been prevented if we were making pedestrian safety a top priority for our city. this past sunday alone, two pedestrians were killed in two separate car collisions. our office has been contacted regarding numerous pedestrian collisions, even those that do not occur in our district. i was extremely horrified, as i'm sure many of you saw, to watch the video of the paratransit shuttle, which mode over one of our constituents -- mowed over one of our constituents. i think we were fortunate to

have video of the collision occurring. we are waiting for a statement from the police department of what they will do to keep our residents say, and i am hopeful we will have a written agreement outlining clear guidelines on how we enforce traffic violations, and also, criminal charges when they occur. ultimately, cars are moving weapons, and we should treat collisions as such. second, i would like to end this board meeting tonight in memory of some of the past when on march 14, 2012. she was known as grace to her friends and was preceded in death by her husband but is survived by her two loving daughters. she is a very proud grandmother. grace was born on june 30, 1932 in the philippines. in 1952, she came to the united states with her family but returned to the philippines to study to become a pediatrician.

she graduated in 1958 and returned to her family in san francisco, taking classes at uc berkeley to fulfill requirements to practice medicine in the u.s. she fell in love and married mario in 1962. she was finally remembered by many of her patients and family. she is joined in medical practice in the mission district. they have a medical practice for 36 years. she was a trailblazer pursuing a career as a dedicated pediatrician during a time where there was a dearth of immigrants and women doctors. she retired in 2001. she was a loving and about catholic and enjoyed playing at st. cecilia. her daughter is an active community advocate and leader here in the south of market. we just want to recognize her family and their commitment to

our neighborhood, particularly in the south of market. thank you very much. the best i submit. supervisor wiener: thank you. -- the rest i submit. supervisor wiener: thank you. today, i am introducing significant amendments to articles 10 and 11 of the planning code, which govern the creation of historic districts and landmarks. this is the first significant update to articles 10 and 11 in a number of decades. this has been approximately a four-year process, starting after the passage of proposition j in 2008, and it has been a long and winding road. as you may recall, last may, i convened a hearing at the land

use committee to talk about historic preservation and its role in our city and specifically how historic preservation fits in with other policy priorities, such as the creation of housing, retaining families in the city, having usable and modern parks and library facilities. it was one of the most well- attended hearings in recent memory with hundreds of people in attendance, and it showed how important this discussion is. these amendments reflect a significant attempt at balance in our approach to historic preservation, an approach where we embrace and celebrate the best about our past while also recognizing that there are a number of important values and goals in san francisco that we need to embrace. these amendments modernize articles 10 and 11 and in

addition contain a series of amendments that i proposed, including, for example, a requirement that residents of a proposed historic district vote in an informational vote before the creation of the district so that we actually know whether those who live in the proposed historic district support creation of the district. historic preservation should be community-based, and it has moved us in that direction. the amendments will also address, and i hope of boyd, the risk of gentrification of our historic districts by providing an economic hardship provision so that people will own property in historic districts but who are of modest income and cannot afford the full historic treatment do not have a choice of either living in deteriorated

homes or moving out of the district. this would allow unlimited pop out to the people of all income levels to continue to live in historic districts. another amendment will make clear that historic preservation should not and will not undermine our efforts to improve pedestrian safety in the city and that just because a road or sidewalk happens to be inside a historic district does not mean that we will have impediments to creating pedestrian ball bouts and making other pedestrian safety improvements. affordable housing projects will be given special consideration so we do not unnecessarily escalate costs for the is already at times tenuis project financially. in addition, the planning commission and historic preservation commission will be required to collaborate to come

up with local interpretations of the secretary of interior standards, which govern historic preservation in a lot of areas, so we have our own vocal interpretations that are specific to san francisco's unique, urban setting, and so that we are not applying rules that are better suited for suburban areas. these amendments have been approved unanimously by the planning commission, recommended unanimously, and have really resulted from a very broad collaborative process. i want to thank sophie and tim from the planning department, who have done and less work on these amendments -- endless work on these amendments. i want to thank mike bullard of san francisco architectural heritage. we have not always agreed, but

it has been very productive working with heritage. spur and the historic preservation commission. a lot of people have had input in these amendments, and i look forward to seeing the move through the process of the board and seeing them passed into law. the rest i submit. supervisor chu: submit. supervisor campos: submit. supervisor olague: couple of hearing requests. colleagues, i would like to introduce a resolution to create a local summer jobs-plus plan that would create a young -- connect a young san franciscans to summer employment. i would also like to thank supervisors campos, avalos, and kim for cosponsoring the legislation. the board of supervisors adopted a resolution sponsored by our colleague, supervisor elsbernd,