>> good afternoon. welcome to the board of supervisors meeting for the city and county of san francisco, home of the 2010 national league champions, the san francisco giants. [applause] please call the roll. >> supervisor alioto-pier absent. supervisor avalos: present. supervisor campos: presenet supervisor campos: present. supervisor dufty: present. supervisor elsbernd: present.

supervisor maxwell: present. supervisor mirkarimi: present. president chiu: supervisor alioto-pier is not here because of a death in the family, and understand. supervisor dufty has requested a motion to excuse her. without objection. could you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? colleagues, we have meeting minutes from september 14 and september 21, 2010 board meetings. there is a motion to approve by supervisor mar. without objection, those will be approved. do you have any communications?

>> i have no communications. president chiu: are we expecting the mayor today? >> e-mail will not be attending today. -- the mayor will not be attending today. items one through 15 comprise the consent agenda. there will be approved by a single vote unless a supervisor requests to sever any of the items. president chiu: seeing none, take a roll-call vote. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: ayre. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor avalos: ayge. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor campos: -- supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye.

>> item 16 is an ordinance recognizing execution and delivery of tax-exempt certificates of participation not to exceed $38 million to fund the hope sf development fund, and item 17. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor avalos: ayge. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: no. supervisor dufty: aye.

>> there are nine ayes, one no. item 18, resolution approving a contract between the municipal transportation agency and hill international for capital controls system procurement and related support services, not to exceed $22,268,541. supervisor campos: i am wondering whether i could ask someone from the mta to come forward. i am trying to understand the contract and how it would go forward. i understand the impetus is that the mta does not have certain expertise to provide these services, which i understand why in light of that why you would

go and do a bid process and higher and outside consultant. i am just trying to understand a little bit more about making sure that you do have the in- house expertise to actually supervise the work of this consultant. oftentimes, when the expertise is lacking to do the work that in turn leads you to hire an outside consultant, you want to make sure you do have the internal controls to ensure that the consultant does what they are supposed to do within the confines of the contract. >> through the chair, my name is arthur wong. i am the construction manager of the subway project. the response is that we do have staff members that have expertise in the area to do supervision, which just do not have enough staff to perform the work that would have to go to the ongoing project. in the central subway project, we have very little expertise in

areas to provide project controls, yet we have a need for a lot of that on the project. that is why we put this project out to get that expertise. with us as project manager supervising or with the stuff that we do have, the small staff of the board can do it. supervisor campos: can you explain exactly the difference between the expertise the consultant has that you do not have and the expertise you do have to supervise the work of that consultant? >> a good example would be that the project would have a time when schedule that needed to be assembled. we have a lot of projects. those project require individual schedules. we do not have a staff to attend to every project for scheduling. however, we do have staff available that can oversee and the other and make sure all the schedules are formed correctly and to integrate them together.

supervisor campos: and is there additional training that will be provided to staff in order to oversee this contract? or is that something that you feel that the current staffing and the training that is in place is sufficient to provide the level of oversight that is needed? >> this particular project -- contract will provide training to staff that will actually man and operate not just the expertise for project controls, but a system that will actually monitor the projects. it will also provide selected training in the area of scheduling and estimating for those related to tunneling and transit projects. supervisor campos: ok. just a final question. in terms of what is the -- how

did you arrive to the number $22,268,000? >> it was negotiated with hill international. that was in a three-day negotiation process. supervisor campos: the reason i ask that is that the original estimate was $22 million. you're talking about a quarter of a million more than was estimated, and so i am wondering why the difference. >> i do not recall the specific difference, but the services that we had initially anticipated were in fact covered. their pricing may be a little bit higher because we may have some elements that are necessary that we kind of left out. supervisor campos: well, that is not necessarily a good thing, because, you know, whenever the amount ends up being higher than

estimated because the service was left out, it makes me wonder whether or not you would have gotten a better price if that item had actually been included in the original rfp. is that something you considered? is that a concern? >> no. the rfp was very encompassing. we do not anticipate anything that is actually left out. supervisor campos: so what was it? i guess i am trying to understand what was left out that led to increasing the budget by a quarter of a million dollars. >> one thing i recall primarily is just the hours that we anticipated for our staffing usage that we had planned. we were arriving at a different number, so we felt that was appropriate. supervisor campos: was that

staffing in the rfp that was responded to buy these two companies? >> the staffing was not included. it was an estimate that we did separated from their estimate, their proposal. we had an initial estimate that was devised and blind to the contractor. they provide a proposal. we essentially took the to and negotiated together -- took the two and negotiated together. supervisor campos: final question. looking at the scores for these two companies, there is a wide variation between the written proposal score and the oral presentations for. in fact, in a written presentation, the vendor that did not get the contract actually scored higher than the vendor that did. i am wondering if you can explain that, because oftentimes the oral presentation portion of

this kind of a process, in my view, can be more subjective. so i am trying to understand what happened. why wasn't this company was chosen over the other company? is it the case that we are really going with the best deal we can get for the city? >> as part of the oral presentation, the vendors were required to provide a demonstration of their product, and one of the products they were supposed to provide was a demonstration of a project control system. what the selection panel found was that hill international provided a system that seemed to be better, well organized, and was able to produce results that we liked to see. supervisor campos: i will be supporting this. i am wondering if maybe we can get products of the backup documentation that shows that. >> sure. supervisor campos: thank you.

president chiu: any additional discussion? if we can take a roll-call vote on this item. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. >> there are 10 ayes. item 19, authorizing the department of public health to expend retroactively a grant from the department of rehabilitation in the amount of $7.60 million. supervisor mar: i just wanted to acknowledge that the first five commission hsa staff and others

of us are looking hard for bridge funding to address this draconian cut by the governor that leaves 1214 families in san francisco and 81,000 families statewide without child care on november 1. we are looking to find local fixes, but also temporary fixes to find money so families are not left without child care. i would appreciate my colleagues' support for this. president chiu: can we take this item? this resolution is adopted. >> item 20, authorizing amendment of four existing leases to extend the lease term for the department of public health, the human services agency, and the department of child support services. president chiu: this resolution is adopted. >> item 21, an amendment to the budget of the redevelopment agency, authorizing expenditures

not to exceed $521,000 for positions associated with the implementation of the candlestick point-hunters point shipyard face to project. president chiu: this item is adopted. >> item 22 adopts airport lease and use agreements with various airlines to allow them to conduct domestic and international flight operations at san francisco international airport. item 23 approved modifications to the terms of two airport land in use agreements with alaska airlines and continental airlines to modify the rental of terminal space. president chiu: these resolutions are adopted. >> item 24 is an ordinance adopting and implementing amendment to to the 2007-2012 amendment of understanding with the service employees international union local 1021,

fire rescue paramedics. president chiu: this is passed. >> item 25, amending the employee relations ordinance to update provisions consistent with state and local law and related clean up provisions. supervisor mar: would like to continue this item for november 9, 42 below weeks. one of the unions would like time to complete their internal process with the gardening -- with the bargaining team. president chiu: that is seconded by supervisor daly. without objection, this will be continued to november 9. >> items 26 through 32 are the ordinances that pertain to repealing and replacing various codes or sections of codes and incorporating various sections of the california vote, including the 2010 california green building standards code and other san francisco

amendments, providing the operative date of january 1, 2011 for the fire code, the building code, the electrical code, and mechanical code. president chiu: these are passed on the first reading. >> item 33 is an ordinance amending the environment code requirement to require any person who produces a drug offered for sale to participate in an approved drug stewardship program for the collection and disposal, and to provide for implementation, enforcement, fees, and penalties. supervisor mirkarimi: colleagues, i would like to share with you the motivation as to why this ordinance is before you. i would like to thank the public utilities commission of san francisco and the department of the environment, and a number of stakeholders in the nonprofit community who contributed to the development of this legislation, and my staff. on a human level, kids under the

age of six account for literally two-thirds of the drug-related emergency room visits throughout the united states. that means that 68.9% of the e.r. visits, which amounts to 100,340, is due to the accidental ingestion of prescription medicines. this is a major problem throughout the united states. it is also a problem here in san francisco, as well as in the state of california. a 2010 report from partnership for a drug-free america found that over 60% of our teenagers in the united states are able to obtain prescription painkillers for free through a family, friends, or other unregulated access. on a much more horrific level that people would not expect to see, san francisco has more suicides and homicides each year in our city.

nationally, there were approximately 6000 suicide attempts each year, or one every hour and a half. it has been estimated that more than 6000 attempts take place with pharmaceuticals or over the counter drugs. the "journal of american medicine" association members say one of the best means is removal of drugs from a person in crisis. states have contemplated and san francisco is now considering this. on the water contamination side, recent water studies by the u.s. geological survey and the estuary institute found numerous common drugs in the u.s. and bay area water bodies have been well identified and will found. that means that because of the compromising and breach of our waste water systems, a

considerable population of paint free steroids pump hypersexual marine life that is benefiting from everything being excreted or discarded into our water system. there has been a number of states around the country that have attempted to do what we are suggesting as well, although we have tailored and tweak our legislation differently so that it would meet, i think, san francisco's needs. what we have learned and what we have studied, really with great interest, is how the pharmaceutical lobby has descended in san francisco. as well, they have descended on the state. i want to report to you that the pharmaceutical lobby literally is the strongest lobby when it comes to the comparison of the insurance industry. the pharmaceutical lobby has lobbied more than the insurance

industry has had to file. the oil and gas industry comes under the pharmaceutical lobby and the defense industry comes under the pharmaceutical lobby. the registered in the center -- a registered in washington $267 million in washington and in the dispersing of their lobbyists, having 449 clients in the various states that have also attempted this legislation. those states being california, minnesota, maryland, florida, oregon, and washington. in all those states, they have failed to succeed in the passage of the tape back drug program. it does not go unnoticed that we have a huge phalanx of lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry envelop in city hall right now. we have been listening to what they have been saying to the number of elected officials and others.

we notice that the arguments limit a lot of what has been said on the state level and on the federal level. and i think that those arguments should be challenged. so i believe that we will give the pharmaceutical industry an opportunity to come to the table with the department on the environment. in order to do that, i would like to hear some specifics that helps us to address the overarching problem of us being able to manage and regulate, i think, the pervasive problems of unwanted prescription medicines. they basically get thrown into our landfill or waste water system, into our water systems. the adverse effects of well chronicled. before i go further, i would like to motion the acceptance of some amendments that i had submitted. i can read for you what those amendments are.

they are pretty basic. the highlights are the amendment of the whole, dated october 26, 2010, requires drug wholesalers to provide certain information to the city but does not provide duties on them as producers. the next amendment excludes cosmetics from the definition of covered products, and delays the chapter to control substances in nonprescription drugs until january 1, 2012. those would be my amendments. president chiu: that is seconded by supervisor campos. without objection, those amendments shall be adopted. supervisor mirkarimi: next, i would like to motion for a continuance of this measure until november 23. the pharmaceutical industry must meet with us. the department of the environment must also be part of that meeting. downtown is welcome to

participate. i want to hear what their proposal is. it is time that they came out of the shadows. if they want to spend the kinds of dollars they are spending in san francisco, hoping it does not register with our ethics department in terms of their lobbying efforts, because we are in that transition of political season between early november and the end of the year, now is the time they have this opportunity. we will give them a four week rest, and then will be able to decide how real their interest is in helping us find a shared solution. motion to continue to november 23. president chiu: that is seconded by supervisor maxwell. supervisor dufty: thank you, and i appreciate the author's motion to continue. i simply want to point out that i am not going to pay for the entire pharmaceutical industry. i recognize their industry is big.

there has been a corporation in san francisco for 100 years. they have an interest in this legislation. they are a major employer in the city. they are very involved in distribution of pharmaceuticals. i think it is important for them to be talked to. i do not think it is a bad thing. i appreciate your having a continuance. genentech came in. the federal government has within the past month passed legislation covering some of this area. it is reasonable to talk with them. i appreciate your passion for this legislation. i simply want to say i do not think it is unreasonable to have them come speak to us and want to speak to you as well. i appreciate and support the continuance. supervisor mirkarimi: keep in mind that while we open the opportunity for, i think, us to advance the dialogue, at no time did anyone of these companies, whether they are locally based,

homegrown, and once we could be proud of -- have instigated any particular measure that speaks to this, that speaks to the kind of policy we are trying to enact. whatever the motivation is that wants them to participate in this hopeful collaborative effort, we have also looked at the track record of what these companies have done to exercise their ability to blunt back other efforts across the country. so we will come with an open mind, but the track record speaks for itself in the moneys they have certainly applied toward the defense of their profit motive. supervisor dufty: i am back up. i would like to point out that this legislation -- i have pointed out there are instruments that exist. walgreen's has a program where people can return. they sell envelops. i was not aware that pharcology

also has a program. it is important to let people know there are means by which the can do it. stakeholders are everybody. part of the legislative process is reaching out to stakeholders, and i appreciate the initiative that is being taken. president chiu: can we take this motion without objection? this item will be continued to the 23rd. >> item 34 is an ordinance amending the health code, amending an uptick in enforcement and compliance procedures for nuisance. supervisor avalos: thank you. i am going to carry on a trend at this meeting and ask for a continuance to november 16. there is something i have left undone and would like to do before we vote on this measure. president chiu: supervisor avalos has asked to continue to the 16. seconded by supervisor maxwell. unless there is objection, this item will be continued to

november 16. if we can now go to roll call for introductions. >> supervisor elsbernd, supervisor campos, supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: i am working on a resolution that will make this week superstition awareness week, because the giants are playing and all of us have our own method of assuring the will win, whether with our ties, our socks, or whatever aubrey huff is doing with his beard. >> fear the beard. >supervisor mar: i am submitting and accept and expand for an and accept and expand for an important gift by chase fre