>> i won't repeat what set. i agree with his comments and i will be supporting this project. despite the fact, once again we have a major project link to this board that will have significant transit impacts and will wear anything in terms of transit impacts these. it seems every few weeks we have a another project moving to this board where there are few if any transact that impact fees being paid. i'm grabbed the pain a number

of very important impact these portable housing and childcare and open space is all very important, but again, once again, transit impact fees are basically left off the table. as a reminder the transit impact development the most likely will not apply. to this project. because it is accommodation of residential and nonprofit development which of the two major exceptions to which you can drive one or more mack trucks. so, it is frustrating that this keeps happening. we feel like i'm a little bit done kyoto don quixote tilting at windmills, but this is real. writing more population. we just had a hearing yesterday in the land-use committee about the fact the we are expanding

population, expanding housing development along all these areas where we are struggling to meet even current demands. sadly that hearing not even single press attention. nothing. it's like it is complete deafening silence about this looming issue. i'll be supporting this project but i want to give fair warning, that at some point we need to draw the line. projects cannot just keep moving through that are not paying impact fees to support critical transit capacity expansion that we need along market street, along the southeast waterfront. a number of different areas of our city. thank you. >>i will be supporting the project. when he can divorce years ago by was over 600 feet and the issue came up and do a lot of concerns, but i think as much as i would like to see the project scaled down a little bit more i think the fact that

the developer has set up and only agreed to provide the shell but now we have potentially in endowment for the mexican museum. it's pretty amazing. i think all the folks who have come out to talk about supporting this project and supporting the mexican museum, i want to also add an endowment is incredible and great, but also fund-raising and activity and making sure people continue to invest in this museum which has an incredible collection is going to be significant for years to come. this is definitely to build out a shell is one thing but to add an endowment really is pretty incredible. i also want to make sure that there is continued support for the mexican museum. i also like to say that before i became a redevelopment agency commissioner, and this project was underway, you were a number of what i believe bad decisions

that were made and the garage was one of them. so having the opportunity to pay down this debt in this capacity is truly significant. sadly, had it not been for a bad decision of this nature may be this amount of investment could be going toward transportation impact fees. i do agree with supervisor wiener that we have got to make a stronger commitment to our actions on the board or if necessary, for these development projects. we are developing market rate housing all over the city and we are not investing enough in our public infrastructure. i think we see this and we talk about it at every meeting, but again there comes a point with a line has to be crossed. part of it starts with our city departments, are planning to borrow department. other places were a lot of this stuff originates. i think it's

important we look at that long-term because it is clear we are feeling the effects of not keeping up with the demand in a way that we should, but the other thing that i also heard today, which is something i'd not heard before, as supervisor ken mentioned, a look at specifically changing the alleyway teared looking at how you get the flow of traffic in the area moving an appropriate way because right now it's not working. lastly, i will say supervisor ken, thank you so much for all your work on this project. it's come a long way over the years. i think we have a good project for the community, for the mexican museum, for a lot of things not completely at the level that it needs to be in terms of public transportation, but i have to weigh in terms of city debt and the bond indebtedness we have accrued over the years in comparison to utilizing the money for one thing versus another and i

think in this particular case we are we've made the right decisions in our using our community benefits. i'm looking forward to seeing this project move forward. thank you. >> supervisor he >> thank you. i also want to commend [inaudible], thanks supervisor kim and her office in putting this project the parties to try to come up with best solution on this. yes, i mean i would have preferred that if this were just a residential development alone, i probably would have second thoughts about supporting it, but it's one of these things in san francisco where we have to weigh out the benefits versus

the negatives. certainly supporting really, fruition of many years of dreaming about having a mexican using them is, for me, outweighing my other desires. i agree with supervisor wiener about the transportation litigation pc. we need to look at it more carefully. i just want to add to that. we need to also look at the impact it has on childcare. here were going to have basically more residential and probably some will be families, but nobody talks about childcare. we need to not only look at litigation for transportation but also child needs. thank you >> supervisor kim >> thank you colleagues for all your comments. i just want to and with a couple things. first of all i forgot to thank my own staff. thank you for acknowledging our office. i

want to acknowledge april who doesn't when you speak she's done an extraordinary job coming back from maternity leave and danny who worked on of your windows coming before the board. i just want to talk quickly about the transit fees. i agree that i'm certainly not against assessing market we developers market rate residential transit impact fees. the fact is we don't have that in our policy currently. i don't want it to appear the developer trying to get out from this fee. it doesn't exist currently. if we, as a board, want to put that into policy for all development, that should be the discussion that we should have. so, i look forward to having that conversation then. the big thing that really came out of our neighborhood though we were discussing this project, were of course, open space

pedestrian safety, even some alleyway third street corridor and stabilization efforts for the existing community. those were the things we had asked for and we really appreciate the developer working closely with us on that effort. i also want to thank the mexican museum two. we had current concerns and i'll say is this museum that's going to be relevant that people are going to want to go see? is this going to be an attraction to the city or an obligation, politically correct obligation that we as a city have. i want to knowledge, first of all, the extensive support and outreach the mexican community is doing but also the mexican museum is already parting with youth programs in our neighborhood, working with gallery to connect. historically our latino millis and graffiti artists that have been along part of the san francisco arts tradition, and making sure that we are treating museum that is going to be a site that people a diverse sector of folks are going to want to go visit here in san francisco. also sean

jeffries wants to make sure it wasn't just a $5 million endowment, but you also be joining the board of mexican museum and continue to fund raise outside of that. i think that's incredibly important because it's not just a one-time operating feed that are ongoing funding needs for the mexican museum so i want to appreciate that commitment. thank you >> supervisor wiener >> to the chair i appreciate the willingness to consider expansion of the idea as we convert it into the transit sustainability program. those are to be some hard conversations about expanding the reach of our transit impact fees. as we saw last year. when we continued some blanket even before that happens, and it's going to be another couple years probably before that ei are comes back to the board, even though the key idea does

not currently reach certain types of development, we routinely, as part of negotiation, for development whether it's development agreement or other kinds of entitlements, we negotiate impact fees that are not automatically triggered absent negotiation. for example, we do a superb job negotiating increased inclusionary fees for affordable housing well beyond what our inclusionary housing ordinance requires. that's terrific. that's because someone has been negotiating it. is being prioritized by the people who are negotiating the agreement until it happens. the same can happen with transit impact fees. we've seen that with some projects. just as a matter of making sure were minding the store when it comes to the transit system and seems at times we are not. >> any additional discussion? madam clerk with stable on item 66

>> >>[roll call] >> there are 11 eyes. >> this ordinance is passed on the first reading. [applause] >> colleagues, when we go back to our second 3 pm special order related to the central market community benefit district i do understand the perceived the results back. medical >> yes mr. pres. return weighted balance voting for the central benefit district was 67.15% and the return weighted balance voting against the central market community benefit district was 32.85%. indicating there was no

majority protest >> at this time david a majority protest would be in order to request a vote when he asked if the district supervisor you have any comments supervisor jim? >> if there any members (the hearing for the central market committee benefit district i want to congratulate you on this great result. i know it was a lot of work. >> if i could ask if you could please before sliced off quite a bit of business left and right if you could please exit quietly. that would be appreciated. >> yes, i'm saying good job. i want to thank congratulations this is a large and that a lot of property owners. it's not just a number of buildings. there's a lot of different age weight members. i know a ton about reach happened things to the dedicated and belgian and if i may say anal work of the leadership and members that ari. it was a heavy left a big

effort not just the renewal but also the expansion so congratulations. [applause] >> the score i'm sorry president announced it but there were some noise. the return ballot voting for were 67.15%. >> so we got investors any other comments, let's take a roll call vote on item 46. >> >>[roll call] >> there are 11 eyes. >> without the resolution is adopted. colleagues, let us go back to no item 37. >> item 37 to be adopting 2009

bicycle transportation plan rescinding ordinance number 0109 05 and its entirety. amending the general plan in connection with the san francisco bicycle brent cheshire " can you also call item 38 >> item 38 ordinance banning environment codes regarding the bicycle working standards including % >> supervisor % >> thank you pres. chu. i appreciate your cosponsorship for these two items along with supervisor wiener. item 37 is a general plan and amendment that's consistent with the findings of the court of appeals based on the anderson versus city of san francisco litigation about the ei are report and our big plan. these moments are doing no other things besides cleanup language recommendation of the court of appeals. i would urge your support for that. the next item is about how we can actually look at building our building

infrastructure to sport bicycling for the 21st century. as we all know we have been growing in san francisco recently and this legislation will provide a secure place for people to store their bike while at home and at work. since the started the bicycle count in 2006 there's been 71% increase in ridership. many of these people are writing to work or safe secure place to their bicycle safe secure place for the bicycle during the workday also at home is essential. many building owners continue to retrofit their buildings with secure bridegrooms were simply allowed tenants to bring bicycles in the rental space. new buildings also including bike parking. this legislation would help these projects keep up with the growing number of tenants that need bike parking. the current

bike parking regulations were adopted nearly a decade ago are intended to provide parking for only about 2% of tenants. today bicycle ridership is much higher. most recent american community survey showed citywide vote share 3.5% for work trips but other neighborhoods like the mission and hayes valley show shares high as 15%. this new legislation will bring the numbers of required by parking a new buildings up to a level more consistent with san francisco's growing bike ridership. the legislation provides more clarity on types of building uses the previous legislation and more guidance on design and types of bike parking. these changes will help allow developers more effectively plan for quality bike parking and provide necessary facilities for their future tenants. i hope to have your support on this ordinance. thank you very much >> supervisor jim >> i want to add this my name as a cosponsor and what think supervisor for his officers work on this legislation leadership on this item. >> colleagues, can we take

these items in house in? without objection these ordinances are passed on the first read. item 39 >> item 39 is an ordinance amending the please go to prohibit use of aircraft so propelled or buoyant objects and display any sign or advertising device in the airspace over the 34th america's cup course area and making environmental findings >> presidential >> colleagues, as you know under how city agreement for the 34th america's cup we made a commitment to do what we could as a city to ban aerial signs and advertising in airspace over the race area. until the end of september. there have been some questions raised about competing jurisdictional issues between the federal aviation administration in our local rules and at the good advice of our city attorney, i circulated some language to make it abundantly clear that if there are faa waivers in this area that this legislation would not apply. i just want to read the language into the record. inserted at page 4, line 10, at

subsection c. section 4901 shall not apply to any person who has a valid certificate of authorization or waiver from the federal aviation administration authorizing the use of any type of aircraft were other self-propelled or buoyant airborne object as prohibited by section 4901. i like to make amendment to include this language in this item. >> doing the motion to amend can be a second? >> second by supervisor you. supervisor % >> thank you. just on the moment, i actually i'm not sure how necessary it is. it's my understanding that planes are only allowed to toe if they have faa waiver. therefore the toll operator has a waiver in san francisco. also, i'm just

wondering if there's actually concerned about a legal challenge in honolulu the ban has actually been upheld despite multiple legal challenges. although faa regulations have changed since the last challenge, there was nothing in the new faa handbook that prevents municipal bans on telling. i'm not clear whether waiver is actually necessary route to go. on the overall underlying legislation, i actually don't think it makes sense to make an exception just for the america's cup event. i'd rather go much broader. we looked at legislation that does go much broader. so to me i'd rather do something consistent with what we want to achieve across the whole city. i would be supporting just a piecemeal measure around the ban on aerial advertisement another's neighborhoods across san francisco that really impacted by ariel advertising. noise, pollution, almost intolerable for some folks. i think makes sense we actually move citywide on that effort and i'll be happy to work with supervisor

kim's office to achieve that end. >> if i could, briefly, as supervisor knows, we duplicated files to consider broader citywide ban which i think is entirely appropriate and when i'm open to considering, but this is language we were advised given the legal challenges that other cities have faced to include. i like to ask our deputy city attorney if he could address this and why this would be helpful. >> deputy city don as supervisor indicated, there's a decision from the ninth circuit court of appeals which applies in california upholding a similar ordinance in honolulu. against a challenge based on first amendment grounds and also on federal preemption grounds could as supervisor indicated, the faa tradition on preemption and the handbook that the ninth circuit provide in that case has

changed since in the 10 years or so since the ninth circuit decided that decision. there have been other challenges based on preemption grounds, other ordinances in different jurisdictions in the country, although not resulting in a court decision that binds us. we are office is speaking to communicate with the faa to understand that agencies should it position on federal preemption. in terms of the timing of the america's cup ordinance that's before you today, in order to go into a fact in time for the race, the board would have to adopt the ordinance finally at next week's meeting. adopting the ordinance with supervisor choose amendment that accepts exams to operators that have

received faa waivers would comply with our obligations under the our agreement with the america's cup event authority to take effort to prevent the [inaudible]. i'm happy to further discuss the issue in terms of the preemption issues with regard to the citywide band which, as you know, [inaudible] >> any further questions? >> supervisor compass >> i guess i would like to have more information about what our legal obligations are relative to the event.. i do feel a little uncomfortable having this conversation in open session, especially given that we're talking about legal analysis relative to how the

federal government may interpret an ordinance there were about to vote on. i imagine that part of the analysis involves whether or not we have a contractual or any kind of legal obligation relative to america's cup. so, i don't know. i certainly would like to know more and and understand the full nature of the legal implications are. i don't know this is necessarily the right forum to do it. >> mr. % >> john given her again. i think supervisor campos, i think you're raising asking two separate questions. one is about our obligations under post venue agreement. the second is the preemption question that supervisor raise. i agree that it would be best if our office gave to give the board full briefing either in a closed session or

in confidential memo on any legal risk that would accompany this legislation. >> thank you. supervisor kim >> you might address this, but i might've missed it. could you go over again what kind of significance this amendment would make because i have asked the same question previously. if we were to make an exception for airlines telling that have this faa waiver, what would be, then, the point or purpose of us passing this legislation? >> i guess i would answer that in two ways. first, i believe that only debbie d and the mayor's office introduced this legislation in order to satisfy its commitment to the america's cup event authority that the mayor's office would

make efforts to combat marketing at the events. in terms of the practical effect of the ordinance with supervisor choose proposed amendment, you know, i'm not entirely sure, and part of that is because we do not know how many then towing operations in the city currently have waivers from the faa and would be accepted from the scope of this ordinance. the ordinance would, at least, allow the city to have some enforcement authority, the director of specifically if anyone advise with a banner or an ad over the event authority prevents airspace. without an faa waiver. we don't, frankly, we haven't been able to figure out

yet how comprehensive and practical terms the faa's enforcement is >> with that enforcement look like? >> [inaudible] >> maybe i can assess to the mayor's office of economic development. with her aerial advertisement during the trial runs last year? is this something that has been of a concern that we know that this is going to be an issue and what is the concerns are? >> sure. mike martin office of economic and workforce development. there has been aerial advertising and banner towers over the preliminary initial around the event. there was last year as well during the august event. the october event is during fleet week and with the flight restriction does in place blue angels not a problem there. i would add a little context to what mr.

given her (sp?) said. we do have these broad indicting ambush marketing obligations on the host agreement that was approved, but the dialogue with the faa made clear we weren't able to create sort of a exempt zone where only america's cup authority would have rights to put advertising. as we continue to have a dialogue with emeritus, authority they're looking more to safety issues and how much traffic there was in airspace. i would say we've already seen a number of different aircraft kind of crowding in on that airspace. i think part of the goal of this legislation is to keep this particular type of aircraft away from where the helicopters that are actually providing gps services for officiating the event, tv for the event, would operate. i would add that even if there are a broad sort of

waivers for a lot of these banner towing aircraft where we would reach out to them and we saw you in this area, we believe you violated our ordinance and they say this amendment is adopted no, we have a waiver from the faa, we in the event authority still think that's a good thing because were now in a dialogue with that person and can say let's make sure on the same radio channels. but make sure you're not actually conflict with the other traffic that's low to the ground. so, i was a broadly i think the goal of this ordinance is again to give us one more tool to be in that conversation and not just the faa having a conversation with the banner towers and hopefully that also provides a savory event. i would add that there is no exception for the event authority so it's not going to be that they're going to do affirmative marketing. this is really focused on the conflicting traffic >> my last question is is this a public document companies that get this waiver from the faa, is this something we can get a list of so we have an understanding of the number of companies? i know in your case you're going to reach out to everyone whether they have one or not not knowing but for looking at a broader band is a way for us to have a list if

there is an airplane that goes up there that doesn't have this waiver that were able to actually enforce some type of estrogen on them? >> were seeking some information from the faa now. we haven't we don't have everything we need to understand really the practical scope. in terms of your question earlier before mr. martin spoke about the potential penalty, the violations of the ordinance would be punishable as misdemeanors. with an increasing penalty depend on how many days you violate the ordinance. the executive director of the court would also have the authority to impose administrative penalties on people who violate the ordinance. >> thank you >> supervisor combos >> thank you. i guess it's by the way a