district met the requirement to how at least 5% of their income comes from other sources, so each district needs to fund raise in addition to the assessment, this district have in-kind donations and some grants that helped them get to the 5% other income. the mission did state within 10% variance between the budget amount and actual expenses, so we are looking from year to year that their budgets stay consistent, but also that they do not spend way more or weigh less than they said they would in their budget. and then carryover funds. sometimes, they have funds at the end of the year that day under state law are required to show in the next year's budget how they are going to spend those carryover funds, and they have to be in accordance to their management plan, and they are going to have to spend any funds they have left by the end of this calendar year because

they are -- they cannot renew unless they are approved for renewal, and they actually have a renewal hearing on october 5, so if they do not renew, they have to spend all their funds by the end of this year, and if they do read it, they still need to spend down their funds, but they would be able to assess for the next calendar year if they renew. this shows the 2010 budget. there projected revenue from assessments is $73,000. they have 36,611 carryover for 11 of 11,000 $900,000 this year, and these are how they are spending these funds. beautification cleaning, maintenance, public relations, 86,006 and $11. on staff management and general administrative costs. >> -- supervisor avalos: that

will all be expended by the end of this year? >> yes, by december 1. we will make sure because they will submit financial statements to us at the end of the fiscal year as well, and we will review that with the controller's offi ce. we have some recommendations for the bid. if they were new, we will make sure they include their in-kind donations in their audits as income, and we also want them to issue detailed -- details about how they plan to spend any carryover revenant. in every year's budget, we need to show how that is going to be spent. not just them, but every district. i believe that is about it. that is all i have to report. supervisor avalos: thank you. do you have a sense of what the

changeover is or recommendation with the changeover is or how much property is turned over? for those 20 parcels, or the same property owners involved? does that change significantly? what do you see as the prospects for renewing in the next year? >> they are in the ballot phase, and next week, the department of elections will count the ballots. there board of directors is quite committed. it is a small block, so they know every property owner on the block, and they know all the merchants and some of the property owners are merchants, so i do not know if there board membership has changed in the past five years. i could ask them that. i go to the meetings at least once a year, and all of the same board members from the beginning actually are still on the board that i can remember,

but i can look into that and get that information back to the board. in terms of property ownership, i can compare the current property ownership to the property owners five years ago. i do not have that information available now, but some of the parcels i know have split into several parcels. but because we had to readjust their assessments when they split, but i do not remember that the property owner has actually changed. i'm sure there must have been some turnover. supervisor avalos: ok, we can open up for public comment. seeing no one come forward, we will close public comment. we can approve this. it is actually a resolution. so we are moving forward with recommendation, and we will take that without objection. thank you for your presentation

, and we do not have any more items, correct? >> that completes the agenda. supervisor avalos: then we are adjourned.

>> good afternoon, welcome to the san francisco board of

supervisors meeting for october 5th, 2010. >> ladies and gentlemen, can you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? i understand that supervisor dufty which is -- wishes to

recognize a couple of guests in the audience. >> i would like to ask the representatives from the ladies and denture-seeking society. they have joined us here at city hall. [applause] they have carefully read and digested our agenda and i have a special place in my heart because -- is one the last members. thank you. >> thank you. madame clerk, are there any to indications? >> i have no communications. >> would anyone like to sever any of the items on the consent agenda? >> aye.

>>ay aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >>aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> item 10 is consideration of the overriding of an vetoed by the mayor which is imposing a fear on the call beverage wholesalers and certain other person to distributors sell alcoholic beverages. >> we have previously excused supervisor alioto-pier for this item.

>> thank you, president. before i start, bob dylan said "there's no success like failure and a failure is no success at all." i will overwrite -- we will have the override vote. this has been foretold by the mayor. this is probably the quickest to veto i have ever seen at the board of supervisors and at my time here. this sends a clear message to people that the mayor cares about most in this city, the people are concerned about the alcohol industry who i feel would not give hit to too heavily by this ordinance. i would like to clear up a major myth that was hammered at me

over and over again in e-mail and certainly at the committee hearings that we had that we were cobbling -- cobbling -- coddling chronic alcoholics. this measure is about recovering costs that are inevitable, costs and services that we inevitably have to render here in the city and county of san francisco due to the consumption of the alcohol. we have an economy that means that in san francisco, we drink more than other places in california and in the nation and this has an impact on our

streets and in the city. this measure issue is trying to recover the costs that we have, that we will have no matter what happens because of our hospitality industry. we have this incredible industry but there are cost and impact. another myth was that this was going to kill jobs, the restaurant industry and the bar industry in san francisco. we had a report and the economic impact and the impact that it would be related to the chimes in san francisco. this would create a fee that would create 5 cents a drink. this is a small potato, minimal

impact, this is to every day san franciscans. this is geared towards charging the fees and not at all levels of the bars and restaurants of the city. the fact of our system works and the people look at how we to our fees, people say this is targeting directly consumers and farmers. really, they should be upset with the wholesalers and distributors who are passing the cost down to them. they are eager to pass the fee over to restaurants and bars to assert their profits. we're just trying to recover costs to the city that we will inevitably be expanding. that is all this is about. the mayor has vetoed this legislation. we know that the mayor has

investments in the alcohol industry. there is a conflict of interest. we have a report from the city attorney the killing one of the mirror is able to veto the legislation despite his conflict of interests. i would like to have the deputy city attorney report on the findings from the city attorney's office. >> mr. president. supervisor avalos asked us last week to do some analysis on what is called a rule of necessity and that provides that where an official may have a conflict of interest, where there participation is legally required in a decision, they might vote and not stand in the conflict of interest we have a case some point that interprets the san francisco charter when dianne feinstein was the mayor and she vetoed a mere -- and

measure where it was undisputed that she had a conflict of interest. the court found that the mayor's participation was legally required and she was glad to be. notwithstanding the existence of a conflict. whether the mayor has a conflict or not, we find that based on the ruling from the california court of appeals that the mayor's participation and busy til process is legally required and under the rule of necessity, you may do so. >> thank you. i will defer to supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president. thank you for that explanation. i'm trying to understand what

the implication of the ruling as because it seems that what you are saying and i imagine that that is intent of the memo and sent the nature of the interest does that matter and come direct or close to the interest is in terms of any economic benefit that they may or may not get from a decision that under the rule of necessity the mayor has the authority to veto legislation. >> supervisor campos, the court said that and if the mayor was required to recused him or herself every time they had a conflict of interest, this would obliterate ability for them to exercise his veto power.

>> he attached to a 1986 court of appeals case. has the supreme court decided this? >> the supreme court has not. our charter has changed since then but this it -- be asked of our charter are identical and the provisions of the reform act are all the same. there has been no change in the underlying structure. >> with respect to the political reform act, is there any language or legislative history that talks about the intent of that act with respect to the exercise of vat tell when a conflict of interest exists. >> i am not familiar with the history silicon not answer that question. >> mr. anyone that would know that? i know that you work with the political reform act on a number

of cases. is any light and is provided that is underlying the decision of the court. >> i would be happy to have someone looking to that in the meeting and get back to you later on if that is feasible. >> since this was a case decided in 1986, has the city attorney's office given any consideration as to whether or not the facts involved here would be of such a nature so that there could be a different conclusion to the court should the matter go before the court? >> as i think all members of the board no, it is our longstanding practice that we did not disclose discussions that we have with various officials about whether they have a conflict for a variety of reasons including that we want to foster those kinds of communications because we want

people to be candid. i am authorized to tell you that we have spoken with the mayor's staff about this and we did get information and i think that it will be confirmed that i can share some of that information with you >> the concern that i have is from a public policy standpoint that you have a situation because of a conflict of interest you have a supervisor that is not being allowed to vote on an item and yet notwithstanding the existence of a conflict of interest, the mayor is provided the ability to exercise the power of the veto. this seems to the strange because we were talking about a conflict in each case and won collective official that is able

to vote and not the other. >> i can see why he would think this. the way the executive branch functions is that there are a legend -- 11 legislators making that decision. there is only one executive member of the executive branch you can exercise the veto. that is the distinction. >> is there any of limitations in terms of the conflict? it is there any point in terms of the political reform act where a conflict become so severe that the exercise of his veto would be prohibited? >> this is not a question that has come up for us in the feinstein case. the fact involved in rent control ordinance and in that case, the mayor had an interest

in some of the properties. where the mayor owns five properties and a conflict that is such that they are voting that this can be passed. we know what the point of view is on the operation of the will of necessity notwithstanding their being a conflict. that is what we look to for guidance and that is not something that comes up on a daily or a yearly basis. >> what i'm trying to understand is that if it interpretation is such that no matter how severe the conflict is that there will of necessity allows the exercise of the veto without consideration. is that what you're saying? >> based on the backs in this case, we are satisfied. >> there might be a situation

where different facts and conflict would lead to a mayor in not being able to exercise that? >> i read this case to spleen with the rule of necessity cents and the facts that outlines. i cannot it impact what the court might be faced with and how they might do this and whether this might be in the format. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. president. based on the questions that supervisor campos was asking, there is an intensified interest affiliated on form 700.

, would that not disqualified if this is on the municipal level? wouldn't there be a question about having them be reduced? >> are you speaking about the mayor or are you speaking about a different elected official? >> we are talking about the mayor. >> what i can tell you is that we can have any business the cells are called and sent to cisco and the mayor has an interest in them. we conducted an interview with his staff and associates to discover the information. based on what we there -- what we have there, we would not

impact those differences. this requires us to look at the customers of those businesses and determine whether the feed what impact those customers. we simply don't have the ability to determine whether we would have the impact of the customers of those businesses in such a way as this would have a material economic interest. what we suggested that the mayor do in an abundance of caution is to file a memo with the ethics commission and explaining what the economic interests are so it is clear what the role of necessity will being vote.

is any question about the role of necessity or declared interest by this mayor on state related business? >> the way the rule works is that it applies where there is only one person who made legally participate in the decision. another person who can veto the measure is the mayor. that is how the analysis work. -- that is how the analysis would work. in your memo to me and the board, the mayor has a conflict of interest.

they have been into a staff that this is not the case. never mind, excuse me. let's take a rollcall vote. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> this is not approved over the

mayor's veto. >> this is appropriating $2.2 million to provide indigent defense expenses before the superior court. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> the site and is passed on the first reading. -- this item is passed on the first reading. next item. >> 12. this is to modify the modification of a lease with

japan air lines. >> same house, col. >> next item. >> item 13, this is a resolution received in approving the 25 credit log a message read business improvement report. >> same house, col. >> item 14. exempting certain on profits from guide permit. >> in house, same call. this item passes. >> item 15, item requiring that health code to amend the help code by requiring the help or to declare one month out of the your restaurant appreciation month. >> thank you, president chiu.

according to the local tourism europe, restaurants are with the main reasons people come here. they contributed local cottage by providing jobs for thousands of people and in recent years, they employed nearly 10% of all direct jobs in san francisco. i would like to thank the department of public health for offering to establish this selection process and i like to think a small business commission has recommended this ordinance for approval. i would also like to think supervisor campos who has a friendly amendment of that he would like to make that only strengthened this. i urge your support. >> thank you very much,