i am not necessarily oppose to this amendment, but i wanted to give it more thought after hearing from the public, that is all. but i do respect what supervisor wiener is saying. i would rather see this notification and the cu. supervisor wiener: colleagues, any other comments? if not, i would like to move to another amendment. supervisor cohen: there has been a motion? ok. some moved. supervisor wiener: -- so moved. supervisor wiener: do we need to formally referred back to the planning commission with a motion? supervisor cohen: any objections? ok. we will move it back to the planning commission.

thank you. >> continued to the call of the chair, yes. item number four, resolution 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 by and between the city and county of san francisco and total outdoo. supervisor chiu: you will probably remember this item because it has been before this committee a number of times. there was discussion last time about the specific parcels that would be included beyond the application of this legislation, which would allow for 1% construction fees on various projects to be used not just for on-site art, but are in

community programs in areas in and around wherever the building is being created. of what i would first like to do is specifically discuss the boundaries. remember the last meeting where we added a number of parcels. today after a discussions with a number of other stakeholders, we will be amending this slightly to bring the number of parcels down slightly. let me say for the record what parcells this would include. parcels in the following districts the -- falling districts. [lists districts -- following districts. [lists districts] as well as those that are north of division, dubose, and 13th street, except for those on blocks 4991 and block 7295, the

galleria mall. of what i would like to do, so that this is clearer, for the planning department, if you could show what the map is that is currently described in the legislation before the amendment, and then, colleagues, i will pass to you what i believe is the final map the we are asking this committee and the board to approve. >> ann marie rogers, planning department. >> there are now many of us, but i am one of them. this is the map that the committee considered last time, showing the c three district in red. the colors are not really good, but they are with their color currently applies. there are other areas in the southern parts of the southeast

and southwest of the city that have been proposed for inclusion. what you are considering today is all of the map except for those two areas. let me show you what that is like. this revised amount has removed the rh and rc districts in the tenderloin of that area, as well as was mentioned by supervisor chiu in the east and southwest parts of the city. it remains within the south market zoning districts on north 13th streets and scattered throughout the eastern neighborhoods. supervisor chiu: obviously, supervisor kim's office has been made abreast of these changes and is supportive of the ones we have made today.

in a standard is amenable to u.s. well. >> i also notice that we have the mayor's office here. would you like to come with a couple of words? >> welcome back, to those of you who were gone. very quickly, i wanted to express the mayor's support for the amendments that the president has just made and in appreciation to the staff at the planning department for working so diligently on this in months past, as well as to the supervisors and their staff for engaging on this and the firing to have those additional parcels in the district. we are supportive of the amendments. >> i assume that we have a representative -- supervisor cohen: i assume that we have a representative from supervisor kim's office? >> good afternoon, supervisors.

for the record in for the public, we wanted to express our support for the inclusion of this sovran marches -- sort -- sovereign parcels in this newly revised map. >> we would like to go on record as thanking the mayor's office for their collective effort on this. particularly i am glad to see that this has expanded beyond downtown zoning into urban mixed use zoning districts. supervisor chiu: first i have two sets of amendments. the first is to clarify the map as described. the second would be to just clarify that this fee would apply to all non-residential projects to have submitted their first complete development application on or before 2013, clarifying that once the project

had submitted materials, greater applications would maintain that the exception. this is for 429 .2e. just a point of clarification. if we could move those amendments, i think that that should be it. let me ask if there are any comments that the arts commission would wish to make on this. i would like to thank you for your work on this. i know that this has been many months in the making. >> are there any members of the public that would like to comment? of these come on up. >> we can line up on this side. i saw you first. >> i want to comment on what robert garcia was telling you about. the destruction of the area on

lower nob hill is horrific. much of this was done without public money, as far as we know. they say that no one is paying them. they come and they are destroyed with this edgy graffiti stuff. i've been the thought it would be wonderful to have murals, but i was thinking about what they had in the tenderloin and chinatown. stunning euros that i go to visit. i just did so this weekend again. but in our neighborhood, public money was spent. the mayor's office decided to send us public money. we were informed that market street you were going to put in a hideous cartoon about violence in our district. harvey milk, who had nothing to do with our district, police in

the background and a rainbow flag, we thought that had nothing to do with our district. people that were residents came and this was the first menu of anything. we knew that this to be a public process and that it would be too late. it made for newspapers. then the person from the mayor's office and the small business administration said -- we decided it will be transportation and it will be this guy who is going to do it, this other person. when he came to us he said that he was going to do murals about the gay hustler era. we objected. the same way they did in fillmore when they suggested prostitutes on the walls. this was about the exploitation of young vote -- young boys, sex for drugs as one of the

homeless outreach workers said -- living under the freeway, they are older now. or dead. we should have some control over what is being put on our walls. we also need some control over these things that are not sitting. they say that it is free and they go to the merchants and said they will put it up for free and the emergence, some of whom do not speak english, are persuaded to except this on their wall. many controls about that. money for public art is great, but we need to make sure it does not destroy neighborhoods. a couple of years ago on the walking to work, it was so hopeful and you could see what it could be, but the entire area it has been wracked by what we have seen robert garcia talk about. much of that drug messages. >> robert garcia?

linda is absolutely correct. the san francisco art commission is sponsoring these murals and paying them up to $10,000 to do it, and it is mostly people who have been arrested and convicted for vandalism. now we are rewarding them. $10,000 for a mural is insane. i go back to the brochure. right here. inspiration comes out of -- it goes through this -- every empty wall. you are taking them literally and they are attacking our buildings. this is the masonry district, as i said before. it is brick. you cannot clean graffiti off of brick. it means to be blasted to do it properly, and when you do when

you remove a layer of brick and it damages the mortar. brett does not mean to be maintained, but once it is -- bricks do not need to be maintained, but once it is painted it needs to be repainted every seven years. this is a serious problem, what is happening here. you know, this is what people come to see. our historic district. what do they see? this nonsense with a graffiti everywhere. the mayor put out a directive that the city did not have the money to help private property owners clean graffiti. they used to do it at least three times per year, sometimes more as needed. but he said they did not have enough money to keep public property clean. who pays the taxes for those buildings to be cleaned? property owners. now we are telling them fitted

out in 30 days and if you do not pay the fine, we are going to attach your property. this is an attack on people. i mean, they are coming out with any kind of paint they can get their hands on, covering over their graffiti on brick, marble, or whenever, and sometimes it looks worse than graffiti, but they do not want to get fined. we have one day. let me tell you about your money building. was an art studio. -- art student -- let me tell you about the our money -- armani building. was an art student. he admitted to it and they saw his sketches. i was a professional witness. the judge said he would have to pay restitution. this was the public defender.

she said he did not have the money and that he had to pay it. he reached in his pocket to pullout at $100 bill. he said that he was satisfied. where are the punitive damages? he did 50 hours of community service, but his lawyer jump in and said that he was a student and did not have the time and that he would do it when he finished school. i said that he would be out of the city by then. he lived on the east coast. he was on probation. he offended three times before he finished school and never spent a day in jail. this message has to stop. thank you. supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. i am here on behalf of the san

francisco arts democratic club. my riding may not be pertinent or in time to e-mail to you, but i do have something for future reference. we are definitely in support of the legislation at its core. the original rezoning was a fantastic in a ground-breaking idea, and we had the opportunity to expand this on a much greater scale with concerns that include areas that are not specific, including ones that have shown an interest in significant development, but we have gone from what was approved through a great equalization, giving opportunities for public art in a community space much needed funding to provide services to new residents and businesses that, when i look at the map as presented today, is a tiny fraction of the city. our concern about this is how far back we have pulled this.

with the non-inclusion of residential projects, several of which are referenced at the bottom of this document, we are seeing a return of the residential housing boom. if you look at the numbers that these projects generate, there would be money to afford a 1% for public art proposal as put forward in the legislation. it is my hope that this legislation continues to go out through and we can talk to the individual supervisors for the districts to find more areas to include bulk of what will be the new development in town. perhaps there is an opportunity for non-profits. we all want to see more working- class housing in san francisco and nothing that would preclude that from being built. but there are opportunities to have this funded included, which

is the bulk of our concern, how far back it is scaled and the non-residential development that is currently included. i would like to see it continued in the language as moving forward with the other areas and further opportunities for the area. lastly, what is a bit of a change is how this money can be spent. there are now allowances for community arts projects and we want to make sure that the advisory body that can work with the arts commission to make sure that the work is done, as well as a variety of projects are not funded rather than just sculpture maintenance. so, those are the concerns of the san francisco arts democratic club. thank you very much for the work you have done so far. hopefully the mayor's office will see the light.

supervisor cohen: thank you. >> good afternoon, land use. are the stars out -- ♪ are the stars out tonight? i do not know if it is cloudy or bright. i only have eyes for artwork to see and i only have artwork to see. fix the graffiti and i only have our work to see. fixer graffiti. ♪ thank you. supervisor cohen: thank you very much. is there a motion to adopt these? supervisor wiener?

supervisor wiener: i wanted to clarify some things. first of all, i want to make it clear that this ordinance is expanding the use of the 1% fee to not just public art, but the creation and installation of temporary and permanent artwork in the public realm, as well as restoration of public art, and also the distribution of funds to nonprofit organizations and artists to fund various projects. this is an expansion in the use of these funds that should be more supportive in the community than the current feet. with regards to the application city-wide, i want to make my perspective clear, as i hope it has been through the course of this discussion.

obviously, this is the legislative process in different people have different perspectives. when this was initially proposed a number of what months back. -- number of months back, it was a 75,000 square foot requirement. by dropping it down for commercial, you wind up bringing about the same amount of money into the system, focusing rally on commercial development. the reason it was not was not something we should focus on at this moment. many of us are still focused on how to figure out the veteran communication of housing around the affordable housing trust fund and other ways to be asked to residential development community to provide more benefits. in that context it made sense for us to not include the residential projects, but we are doing right now is a good, substantial step forward to free the use of this money and

substantially increase the area where many of the projects that we expect in the pipeline over the next couple of years will happen in the surrounding districts. wanted to put that on the record. with that, madam chair, i would love it if we could move this piece of legislation to the full board. supervisor cohen: second, thank you. so moved. supervisor wiener: adopted, then? supervisor cohen: without objection. supervisor wiener: is this a committee report? supervisor cohen: know. supervisor wiener: move forward with a positive recommendation. supervisor cohen: thank you. thank you, supervisor chiu.

item #5. >> item #5. resolution 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 by and between the city and county of san francisco and total outdoor corporation, a delaware corporation, permittee. supervisor cohen: is there any member of -- mr. john updike. >> good afternoon, members of the committee. supervisor. i wanted to briefly outline we have done since we were last before you on this item. we were asked to do community outrage -- outreach, which i will go over for you. a roughly one block radius around the site would extend it further in a northerly direction. really, a sideline of walt, which is where my finger is.

reawe also take a jet -- outreah to the condominium complex, to capture their attention on this item. in doing so, we also offer the opportunity for direct details. all the comments received through 5:00 on friday -- i do not think that anything has come in to my office. not today. we captured the totality of that for you. a couple of petitions were signed. i think you have all the letters as well, in the package. a visual might be helpful. one of the issues that we discussed was the difference between the proprietary apartment, the item before you today, city acting as a man

board, against the regulatory permit, which the city and caltrans has a role in. this shows an old photograph of what was some wall. the irony is rich. it is a vodka advertisement. posted on a is the regulatory size of the 20-60 board. it is currently allowed by committing. while the leased premises in the document before you has the wall face showing with and at the time, the right side is 20 by 60. i wanted you to see that visual difference. i believe that we also heard from some folks about certainly as department director, i am not opposed.

hopefully we will continue to have alternative and agreeing uses throughout the state, but it comes down to looking for whenever income generation can be reasonably secured. this is all about the cost of managing the building. those funds go right back in. the alternative uses that we look at, we heard from community