decide to have the 50 your deadline and then decide to make changes to it, but thought would be a problem, so something you might want to consider is having some deadline for a final draft and made a really clear it is subject to final changes of a later meeting. >> i will take comments. >> i appreciate what the speakers said about the fifth being too close in their opinion, and i am beginning to share the opinion, to the fourth, and i am beginning to share that idea of needing a little more time to have access to its common and i would be

comfortable moving the state to the ninth instead of the fifth region moving the date to the fifth if he is open. the other analogy is a construction analogy. if we think of substantial completion and are open to making small adjustments after the ninth should we take that approach, but i am very uncomfortable with the thought of making open ended changes all the way to the 14th. i do not think it is going to set us up well to make good decisions and to report in an effective way about them, so we do take this task very seriously. i am hoping people do not interpret this conversation as a signal to the contrary, but it is because we want to take the process and our deliberations so

seriously and our reporting of our work so seriously that we should create some interim dates by which we should be substantially done with our deliberation, make that explicit, make unreasonable, and communicates, but we shall believe that interval for the next couple minutes. >> i want to offer both states, the fifth being the preliminary final days of the public is aware of that, and if the map is published so on the ninth we do our final final. cracks in reflecting for the last few minutes, as an intent to get to substantial compliance, i am with it.

i think they're voting against the motion common and i am not sure i want to lock myself into a particular date, because things could change. if there is some persuasive thing, i am open to it. i am not sure if there is going to be something huge and persuasive, but there may be a need to make a final tweaks somewhere. if we could really advance the report, i am very comfortable with that, but i am not sure the setting an earlier date right now helps. >> i think i am on the position that the fifth is possibly -- i

think we should be ready to draft an ad nauseam to the point where we feel comfortable about where we are, and i think we will not decide on the ninth we are moving to the 10th. i think the fed is probably the right statedate, and i think we should leave the last day. >> i will amend my motion to allow a final drive that addresses the larger issues of leave open to polishing and tweaking after that.

after the fifth. >> if we can to roll call. >> are we accepting that amendment without objection? >> without objection, they will be excepted without the amendment. >> on the motion as amended -- [calling votes] there are six ayes and one no. the motion pass those -- the motion passes.

i think maybe we need to restate the motion for the public debt on april 9 the task force will provide a preliminary draft -- i am sorry. on the fifth. a preliminary final map which will allow for changes to be made at a later date, and it is april 5. >> correct. >> of his time, i am going to conclude the work plan agenda item. we will move on to task force's budget. i do not have any new updates, but overall we are so well in in thin as a task force overall expenses.

>> i have a point of clarification, but on item 4 regarding mali's suggestions for inclusion, i did not know whether or not we have arrived on fact. maybe i just miss that. we can taket it offline if that is easier. >> if we can take it off line, that would be great. >> i do not care when, but sometime in the next 15 and a half days, could we have some kind of budget reconciliation in writing that shows where we are in various expenses? i would like to feel comfortable but we did our task within the budget as amended.

>> thank you. >> public comment for task force and budget? task force member reports? >> nothing. >> nothing. >> i had to add we are receiving a few media inquiries, but i wanted to be able to alert you about that, and i anticipate we will continue to get more requests as we get closer to our final states. >> are responding -- are we responding to those requests? >> that those requests go

directly to the clerk as well as to our share, and share macdonell will decide whether he wants to delete it goes to individual taskforce members. -- if he wants to delegate to individual task force members. >> we will move on to public comment for any items that were discussed this evening. >> regarding the blocks south, i recently learned our new supervisor reside in that area, specifically near baker and fulton, so i suggest you find out where she actually live

cents so you can see which blocks might be affected. >> i did not finish what i wanted to say about out reach. i said good things, but it now predominantly turned out bad. there was insufficient software, insufficient training, insufficient everything, and although several people were at that meeting, not a single mouth came out of that, and that is a function of the budget. the budget was insufficient. the first thing that goes is advocacy, and things get really bad. let me close by putting on my predict perhaps -- predicter

hat. i am going to predict a couple things. portrero is going to turn of the way it did 10 years ago. it is going to be put back north of market. there are a couple of differences. we are not in the brown administration, and it is interesting to see the appointments not be giving in lockstep. a representative from chinatown was claudine, and she was completely unresponsive to the requirement, and my question to you now is where is she now. >> as a matter of record, i want to stay faste that as far as i ,

if you umbrella organizations were contacted, and no input was taken for the community unity map, and so i do not know which community they were united, but it was the neighborhoods. just because you have drawn blinds does not mean they cannot be changed. i would encourage you to take a look. redrawsf.org and is really good. it is a lot of fun. it does not take long, but you can actually see where you aren' and the racial makeup of y

group in the area, which is what i did on the map you have, so draft the lines yourself at home. it has been easy. thanks. >> do we took the words out of my mouth. i do not know how many of you have actually gone to san francisco and drafted your own map, but if you are proficient with it, and it took me about a month before i got proficient with it, but i could probably move to 40,000 people in rotation in about 30-, and it can be done.

there was a lot of testimony from people supporting the community saying, you cannot change it. it is going to be too difficult to change it. nonsense. the fact is you only need five rotations going in a counterclockwise direction, and 5% will beat weeks you can do in the next two weeks. protrero hill into district 6. the theater district, the islands into district 3, 3700 people interdistrict two 3300 people into district 5, and you have accomplished in 95% of what you need to accomplish, and it

does not take a rocket scientist to do it, and it does not take more than one hour to do that. >> my name is benjamin gonzales, and i am a filipino american born in san francisco. i have been to a couple of meetings. i thank you for being able to stick to the process. i heard in the last meeting only have showed of -- only half showed up, so i am glad you guys as a committee are able to hear what the public wanted. in february i sat in with a group of filipinos, and we asked who we are and what we wanted. i came to the meetings and saw

these different groups defending their areas, and the lines you create are going to build those communities the filipino community have not had an actual larry get it was designed as theirs. i heard a long time ago there was a question about japan town becoming little manilla. i am asking and requesting that you recognize there is a filipino community in san francisco, and i hope they stay together in one consolidated area. thank you. >> thank you. at this time and we will take --

>> i did spend many hours 10 years ago of these task force meetings, and i do recall changes were still made on that day, but i do see the value of having something before the last day in place. obviously a little tweaking if need be. i do feel we are very late in the game to do something as big as taking potrero hill out of district land. i feel as people felt strongly about it it should have been discussed more seriously early on, so i urge you refrain from doing that. i do appreciate the fact you have been sensitive about traditional communities as in restoring japantown in district 5, along with other important cultural components of district 5. i hope you can keep it or bring back the west side community

into district 5, where it really belongs. thank you. >> i will take future agenda items. i heard earlier this evening and we wanted to keep pretty similar to the agenda items we had this evening. are there any admissions -- additions? >> i would like to request that i would like to get some numbers, demographic information for the latino population in district 9 based on how it looks now compared to moving the boundary north to the freeway. >> if there are no other

adaptations, we will adjourn, and our next scheduled meeting is for wednesday. public comments for future agenda items? we will adjourn, and our next meeting is wednesday, april 4, 6:00 in city hall in room 406.

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. supervis