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 little interesting that former supervisor chris daly is here about talk about america's cup. let me say that i'm not inclined to go out of my way to do something for fear that somehow the event authority is going to go after the city because it failed to meet its obligations. given, to be frank, the number of promises that were made about america's cup and how many of those promises were never really delivered, i would welcome any challenge that the city somehow failed to meet its obligations. so, i would say i'm prepared to act. i am convinced something is

necessary, i'm convinced that we are in strong legal footing. i have enough questions at this point that i don't know i'm prepared to move forward without [inaudible] >> supervisor agreed >> i want to get some clarity in terms of the faa. it's my understanding that their obligation is to manage what happens within airspace to provide the accountability around public safety and so on and so forth. i'm trying to understand why we are taking on this responsibility when there's a mechanism to manage what happens within the airspace, whether for public safety reasons he says or what have you. >> john giving a deputy city attorney. i don't know if this question really for me or for

the department >> i want to my biggest concern has to do with the legalities of it. because of my concern is that well first of all i don't think it's worth it for the city to pass an ordinance that potentially we could get challenged legally by the faa. i am just trying to understand what i think supervisor kim helped a little bit with asking the questions about what happens in terms of how do we get access to the folks who apply for these permits. what is there i guess enforcement mechanism but how do we have that relationship? ncl passing this ordinance necessarily gives us a seat at the table based on the fact they can do what they want under their federal

guidelines and we are a local agency, and just because we pass an ordinance doesn't mean they have to abide by that order. just trying to understand the legalities of all of this and why we would even move forward if it jeopardizes putting the city at risk? >> deputy city attorney john giving her again visit the chair. i guess the short answer to the question is that i think the amendment that supervisor chiu is proposing attempts to address those concerns. >> attempts or does? >> does. it addresses the concern that the city that this ordinance could face a legal challenge based on preemption because it conflicts with faa regulation. >> in terms of i don't know fretfully answers the question for you. in terms of the

assessment of legal risk that it's a tow operator were to file a lawsuit what arguments the tow operator, or the city, would make, that is something that i would rather address confidentially. >> okay. thank you. >> president you >> thank you colleagues this is been an interesting discussion. let me try to parse out a couple of issues that i think are here. first of all, under the america's cup post agreement we did have some allegations vis-à-vis are making good-faith efforts to minimize so-called ambush advertising but let's put that aside. i understand callers may differ about whether we need to address that. i do think that the point of this regulation is to address public policy concern about ambush advertising. the fact of the matter then he supervisor

supervisor myself, others we do have an issue when we have evidence about whether we want to have aerial flying with advertising that we have no ability to regulate. i think that is something we should consider. this legislation is only in effect until the end of september. we're really talking about just that over the next couple of weeks through the end of the america's cup season of being able to regulate that. let me also make it clear the amendment that i've offered, which as you can imagine was crafted by the city attorney, is being proposed to minimize any if there is legal risk and that to minimize legal risk. if there's a concern that somehow we might be moving into uncharted territory vis-à-vis federal preemption issues were trying to do with this amendment is to make sure that we deal with those issues as best we can. my hope and my suggestion, colleagues, is that we adopt this amendment if we

can at least vote on it on the first read today knowing that we have a week between now and next week and i hope that mr. and others can brief each of you on these issues he might be able to understand what it is we have. and be able to make a decision by next week, but these issues are a little bit complicated. i do think federal aviation authority does was referred to as occupies a field but to answer supervisor pleads, that doesn't mean state or local regulation can't regulate areas the federal government has not. so the federal government, federal law, makes areas in certain parts of public policy but where it does not speak we can speak. that is the legal doctrine here that is attempting to be balanced by the city attorney's office. again, colleagues, i do hope we can adopt this amendment, though to sit for one more week and if these issues, again, continue to persist next week on beasley

folks can vote as they see fit next week. when trying to do is hopefully allows to be in conformance with our host city agreements. >> thank you pres. chiu. supervisor, was >> i appreciate what pres. chiu is doing and i know you're in a difficult position is. i have to say i don't feel comfortable voting even if it's a first reading vote, voting for something where i feel like i like to understand what the preemption line really is. what is it that the federal government is able to do and what were not allowed to do? what are the ramifications of re-overstep that line and do something that actually is within the purview of the federal government? like you said it's a complicated thing. i just don't know i would rather know what is legal before i vote instead of voting and hope that what we did is okay. >> supervisor agreed

>> thank you. i also echo the comments of supervisor campos. i just have an issue with it over all and i'm not certain about what this means in terms of airspace and where we fit into that puzzle. i just think that we are trying to meet an obligation for an entity that has not met an obligation for us. i think it's wrong to do it at the expense of a possible lawsuit. so, i've not been convinced that anything that changes would otherwise mean something different. so, i can't move forward and support this item is today even to deal with that clarity on the matter. >> supervisor winner >> i think obviously always have disappointment around what we thought the america's cup might be what it's turning out to be. i think that's pretty

broad-based feeling in the city but with that said, i don't think that the reason for us to just throw up our hands and say we agreed that we would pursue this and you know what, without their pursuit anymore because were mad at the america's cup. we agreed certain obligations. this is not some sort of agreeing to buy back some money. this is basic obligation of the agreements. it's also not an unreasonable obligation. in fact, i don't speak for all my colleagues, but i suspect there are number of people sitting in this chamber who may be supporting supervisor kim's ultimate legislation that goes further in terms of potentially turning this into permanent restrictions. so, would this does it will restricted as pres. chiu said, for only a month. just to be very clear if we don't vote on this today then it's going to go into after the recess and doesn't

take effect until 30 days after the mayor signs it and then it's after everything he becomes moot at that point. in terms of the legalities, including ideally we would have more information at this point. i know there's been a lot of back-and-forth with the faa. i do feel comfortable in terms of the information that we have received that we are on solid ground. again, this is a very brief period of time this will be in effect so i am comfortable supporting this today. >> supervisor can >> by the way, i do support a citywide ban on these aerial advertisements. mainly because we've heard so much for a residence about how standard banner towing aircraft flies very low in a neighborhood particularly, the one around the giant stadium. often you will have for banner planes towing several hours before