status of 1712-16 fillmore street. the building serves as a living embodiment and the tangible community in that neighborhood. it also serves to tell about the landmark and the history and government intervention and destruction in much of the western edition in fillmore neighborhood. i passed a new article in our winter edition. i hope you enjoy that. i will keep our comments brief. i just wanted to reiterate that we recommend this property be confirmed landmark status. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, next speaker. c'mon up.

>> thank you, my name is karen kai. i'm involved in the planning process and community activities and i have also been on the organized committee to support the books jimbo's bop city building. supervisor breed, this thank you for your support and for the summary you gave. i think it's unfortunate that staff wasn't able to do the presentation but i'm sure you know how well documented the landmark status is for this building. this has become a very personal campaign, not just because this building is a bridge between japan town which is my community, but the larger community in which it sits, the western edition and the fillmore and it's the place that has brought us altogether. i'm very fortunate to support a

group of music. part of that program involves taking our students on a tour of their neighborhood to show them how this neighborhood has been really the united nations for san francisco with so many different cultures, with an energy that creates and grows and one of the most important places we go to is the marcus bookstore. landmarking is significant. we need to raise a million dollars to keep it going. we appreciate your support in that. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank

you very much. is there any additional comments on item 4. mr. washington? >> i'm very supportive and very happy that the city has gathered in support. i'm a resident here all my life 60 years in the fillmore and i have seen the history for over 40 years studying. i'm also echoing what is going on in fillmore. the city and county has to be aware that we are in a state of emergency. if they can move on it, the fillmore is what the whole area is about. not only just marcus bookstore, but that is the beginning. i was telling people when the mayor did his work, he went down to the

barber shop and down to yoshi, all of those places have closed down. we do not only need to focus on this. we need a hearing on what the redevelopment has done with the urban renewal because the results of the urban renewal is just an example of what marcus bookstore is about. we have up and down fillmore streets, business after black businesses closing. there is a problem there of all the millions of dollars spent through the era of the urban renewal of the redevelopment. this is just the beginning. i'm hoping and praying that our two sisters sitting in this room can at least come together and meet with the rest of our black organizations to find out how can we champion on this small victory for the mass of our people. i'm here to declare that we as african american, negro, black, however you put

it, we are in a state of emergency. now with this boom tech, this is a backlash, but the blacks are still last. supervisor scott weiner: is there any additional public comment on item 4? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor breed? >> i want to mention we have karen johnson. she runs the book on fillmore street and richardson. supervisor scott weiner: can i get a motion to reopen public comment? okay. without objection. c'mon up. >> thank you for your time. thank you for all the work that you put into this. but also on

-- thank you for the preservation on this city. what you may not know is there is african architecture? did you know this? no. after the greeks and socrates left greece and went to north africa and what they brought back was african science and african architecture. it is so beautiful. and the inside which is european molding. all the work put into wood here. if we kept the term that a lot of cities are where everything is blue and green, we can be sitting here in a glass and green building. i'm so glad that there is something to spare in san francisco that knew to keep this. thank you.

supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much. any additional public comment on item 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any additional comments? supervisor london breed: again, i can't thank the planning department enough and the activist from japan town and the fillmore community and all the folks in our community who have come together to try and save marcus bookstore. it's been just really a heroic effort and i also want to thank my colleagues and others who continue to support marcus books and others that came to my office offering what they can do. this is what we can do as a city and landmark location that is rightfully so being land marked that took a lot of

work from the planning department to do research. i would say there is still opportunities to help by contributing to make a difference so that not only can this bookstore be purchased but it could remain a vibrant part of the historical cultural significance of african americans in a location that it has been for many many years. thank you for everyone to coming out and looking forward and keeping my fingers crossed that it will be a success in the end. >> okay. with that said, cohen can i go get a recommendation for positive recommendation? i will take that without objection. >> madam clerk please call items 5 and 6 together. item 5

and 6 a zoning man adjacent parcels to the western south of market east south of market, and market and octavia area plans. supervisor scott weiner: the planning department is here. >> good evening supervisors. i'm here to introduce the item. it's a bit of clean up legislation in the south of market. this merely covers parcels on mission street making it in the zoning designation in the east of market octavia areas and

corrects some errors from the western plan. this legislation covers adjacent parcels primarily on mission street between 7th and 11 street that were originally part of the mid-market and developed with conjunction with the mid-market redevelopment plan. it was never approved leaving parcels in the streets. the legislation also covers some parcels from the western plan that received incorrect zoning and/or height designation. craig tieg from the planning department is here to give an overview of the legislation and as i understand also amendments to item no. 5. thank you very much. >> good evening supervisors.

corey tieg from the planning department. i have a couple apologies to make. unfortunately you won't have the benefit of the seeing it in the screen. and also considering the late nature of the meeting, i will try to keep it brief. this is a small and straight forward project but because there are several small coordinating parts it seems more complicated than it actually is. the map is the most educational piece of the presentation. you will have thought before you but it's not up on the screen. in the mid-2000, this area along mission street is a three separate long planning efforts. that included soma both east and west and you have market

october -- octavia to the west and southwest. at the time these parcels on the south side of mission street were intended to be included in that redevelopment plan and left out of market octavia and east soma and the market did not go through and they were in fekt effect -- orphaned. it had it's own eir and that was determined to have it cleaned up. it included three separate projects, one west of the soma plan itself and the second a project at 358 street and the third item it was rezoning of these adjacent parcels. as you remember, the plan was adopted by the board last year and it

was approved last year and now we are following up by that last piece of eir. we found a couple other items that we thought were worth cleaning up and we conducted an addendum eir in september of this year and there is some additional scope of work. there were two parcels on jessie street, very small parcels that were zoned rsd which is the south of market use district north of mission street. there were no other rsd left in the city. it will make sense to clean those up to be the same zoning as what surrounded them which is 3 cg. additionally the parks southwest near the intermission of 10th street are adjacent to the market octavia plan and the venice and special use district. so we wanted to

extend the special use district to capture those parcels joined as 3 cg and the only within market octavia is it was constructed to work with that zoning. beyond that, the other rezoning that is in front of you is just some very minor clean up rezoning where we had technical errors west of soma and there are a few of those and once we rezone these parcels we want to pull them into different plan areas. this property is being approached and the parcels between 9th and 7th alongside of mission street we pull down to east so many a all of the parcels will be rezoned and will be falling

into the plan area where it was originally intended. we can go over the map and the parcels between 7th and 9th currently slr residential that was again as soma mixed use district we have phased those out. the proposal to redo those which is mixed use office which is currently in east soma in that plan area. the parcels near the area of 10th and mission. there are some of the parcels in the cities left with that designation we are trying to phase out and the proposal would be to rezone those to c 3g and to cast those as well. the two parcels on jessie street are phasing out that district completely to be consistent with the

surrounding. again the western soma, the three parcels again the ordinance was just mistakenly prepared and those high designations are technical clean ups to what we thought we were adopting in the back of april. the maps are the most enlightening changes of the boundaries because it is a n a little bit of a jigsaw. if you have any questions, i'm definitely available for anything you may have. supervisor scott weiner: thank you. mr. tieg, is this adding any parcels into western so many plan that were not in it before? >> it's actually removing one. there is a parcel on 10th street the most northern parcel within western so many a it it was only parcel on c 3g which is in the other two parcels at

the same intersection. there is no other c 3g. supervisor scott weiner: nothing has been brought in? you know i have a bias here and i won't restate why i did so but are there other areas that are more restrictly rezoned? >> no. the heights are the same and the parcels along mission street that were cm, their fairly high. the parcels rezoned the muo and east soma is staying. the muo district is more permissive than the current slr district which allows office where slr does not. the c 3g zoning along market octavia with the sud

controls will allow opportunity but also require that it be primarily residential. >> okay. thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> okay supervisor cohen can we forward item 5 and 6. supervisor malia cohen: there are amendments to item no. 5. supervisor scott weiner: yes, my apologies. supervisor kim had amendments to item 5. can we take those without objection. and recommendation to the board we'll do that without opposition. thank you. madam clerk. please call our

final item. item no. 7. >> the clerk: item no. 7. competitive selection process landfill disposal. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, avalos is the lead on that. >> good evening, poll ok. it's best to turn this over the deputy of the city attorney. there are two subsection e's that substitute that we introduced last week. the one subsection which is related to f. the city attorney can take a look at that. tom will describe that with just the ordinance. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, mr. owens. >> good evening. tom owens

city attorneys off. this legislation is for providing a new landfill disposal agreement. the latest in findings covers the necessary background. i will such touch on a few highlights. the refuge and disposable ordinance provides the board shall designate how this will be deposed of by whom. the current agreement back to 1987 is expected to expire in early 2016. beginning in 2006, the department took a competitive selection process for iefr of a new landfill disposal agreement. the city accepted the proposal by san francisco.

in 2011 the city negotiated. one of the competitors sued along with the groups from the county. in 2012 to allow the review process of the recology proposals to take place. at this point there are no agreements and three lawsuits have been dismissed by the courts or by stipulation. one plaintiff has filed an appeal of dismissal. the legislation in front of you dated january 27, 2014, will do three things. it will state that any landfill agreements resulting from the competitive selection process used here will not be subject to administrative code chapter 21 which is one of the arguments made in the remaining appeal. chapter 21 establishes

rules for city and services itself. in the current landfill agreement under the proposal, the city does not buy or pay for the disposal of refuse and the disposable site for san francisco and established charges for disposal that recology in turn in a separate capacity and the city may charge it's customers and the rates for customers must be approved by the director of dpw. although the legislation would clarify that chapter 21 would not apply to the contemplated landfill agreement would not prevent the city from a process for a provider. there is no legal requirement that all public contracts be competitively bid. competitive

bidding is only required with the required law. the department voluntarily understood a comprehensive competitive solicitation here before deciding on the current recology proposal. second thing the legislation would do is back up the first point is find that the competitive selection process that resulted in the city's selection of the recology proposal nonetheless meant any requirements of chapter 21 and the competitive solicitation in general by that process, the legislation would ratify the actions taken by the officials to care out the solicitation process and to select a recology proposal. the third thing that the legislation would do is to endorse the current -- ceqa

produced for the project here in san francisco. what the legislation would not do is require the city to contract otherwise accept recology proposal, proposed ordinance would not limit the city's options going forward and under charter section 9.118. the board of supervisors would still need to approve any landfill agreement with a term more than 10 years. unless you have any questions. supervisor scott weiner: thank you. okay. we'll now open for public comment. i have one public comment card for matthew who i don't see here. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor cohen, can i get a motion to forward item 7 to the full board for positive

recommendation? supervisor malia cohen: there is a change. supervisor scott weiner: is there one minor? >> yes, on page 3 of the draft should be designated as subsection f. supervisor scott weiner: okay. can we take that without an objective. can we move that forward. without objection. madam clerk any further business? >> that concludes the business of today's meeting. supervisor scott weiner: we are adjourned. thank you very much. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>

>> >> >> i think it ae's public and private property. i'm against graffiti. >> who can get it out the most who can be noticed the most. >> i i've seen seniors doing graffiti. >> the city is art, other people who have their names tag --

>> [inaudible] our unit there are 2 sections we are doing one is abating and others are notice of violation to private property. all the utility boxes in public right-of-way we abate. >> we abate calls that come within 48 hours. >> we are a small group in g f graffiti. we don't have enough help. >> i have a group in town down and china town and the north tunnel. [inaudible] the graffiti we abate everything is coming up to the areas now. >> i'm willing to take it on. i think -- >> you are telling me you are ready for this? >> i think so. >> okay. >> there you go.

>> all right. >> all right. >> ready to do it. let's go. >> want to get the gray signses this over here and the garbage can and normally we don't do private property since it's on the corridor route you can come with me we will use black. >> we had a lot of changes in the graffiti unit. we do private property if someone moved we remove it and send it to the attorney's office and they take appropriate action. >> damage their property there. it's important to write the color in case they want to say what part of our house you abated the graffiti on. >> using your safety glasses the gloves. >> you got it.

>> you know some places we gashi, people appreciate that. you know, a lot of timeses they say, thank you. >> the time where it's visible. a lot of people put it on the ground. >> i like when tourists come and say, you do this for your city and you get paid for that? >> we use the [inaudible] for the holes and the retaining walls. [inaudible].

white on the fire hydrants. fire box red for the fire boxes. our brown for the pg and e poles. >> we are not painters we do our best. >> i'm assuming it has to do with gang activity. >> if it's territorial i mind. >> in case it's gang related and they are marking our territory i would like to paint it over. >> anything with numbers like x iv or x 13 west side mob and the bay view those are gang related. with gang related or profanity we will