>> i think the neighborhood organizations should have the goal of serving the neighborhood. the recycling center opened during a time when the environment was at issue. the issue has never been more important than helping. the recycling center has taught our community how to recycle. it is an icon of our neighborhood. i cannot think of any issues that are as important as protecting our environment. we should not do anything to discourage protecting the environment. the recycling center meets that meet. i encourage you to continue the good work that the city does to

improve our environment. the recycling center is just one tool that helps us do that. keep the recycling center. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker. this will be the last public comment on less anyone wants to follow suit. >> i support the resolution. i have used hanc and other recycling facilities as well. by 5 that hanc -- i find that hanc is the most organized. the vending machine on fourth street is completely closed because it has been abused. i would like to support the resolution and i hope that it passes. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: seeing that there is no further, but -- public comment, i guess we will

close public comment. supervisor avalos: thank you. i would like to support everyone who came out to support the resolution. did i say revolution? i did not hear anyone who opposed the resolution. i hope that this is a done deal. i appreciate the folks coming out to support this resolution. or they believe that their voice does not matter. supervisor, any comments? supervisor mar: i think that the target has to be the mayor. that has been identified. the testimony from the last couple of hearings have shown me

what an incredible -- not just recycling center, but a human place that recycles people, as staff brought up the last time. other speakers brought out how it is a serve the people type program that allows people to be educated to build a stronger community and protect the environment as well. understanding of local importance of hanc and the recycling center, as well as the person who brought up the ecology class, really helping to make sure that our community is hole in many ways. thank you for targeting the people that need to overturn this horrible decision, continuing to organize and build the movement. i will probably support this and i hope that my colleagues to his well. thank you.

-- as well. thank you. [applause] supervisor avalos: madam clerk, can we have it roll-call vote? >> this is to send it to the board with recommendation? supervisor avalos: motion to the full board with recommendation. >> on that motion -- supervisor avalos: i was checking the agenda to see if this was the committee report. >> it does not say that. supervisor avalos: very good. go ahead. >> on the motion, supervisor mar? aye. elsebernd? no. avalos? ay.e e. there are two ayes and one no. supervisor avalos: 80 that it

passes. that was our last item -- thank you, then it passes. that was our last item? >> there is no other business before the committee. supervisor avalos: than we are adjourned.

>> and good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting for march the first, 2000 leaven. happy march. could you please call the roll? >> [roll-call] mr. president, all members are present. president chiu: ladies and gentleman could do please join me in the pledge of allegiance.

madam clerk, are there any communications? >> i have no communications. >> if you could read the consent agenda. >> these items will be impact upon by single roll-call vote unless a member wants a separate vote, it shall be removed. president chiu: i understand item 4 needs to be severed. are there any other items folks would like to sever? if we could take roll-call vote without item for. >> [roll-call]

there are 11 ayes. president chiu: if we go to item no. 4. >> item 4 is amending the police code to amend sections -- to consolidate the prohibitions on the discharge of firearms within the city and restate the exceptions to those prohibitions. president chiu: i understand a version in the file was not the correct version. we have been asked if we could continue this item for a week. could i have a motion? second ed. without objection, we will continue this item until march the eight. colleagues, if we could call out

of order, item 36, i understand the city staffer here has an illness in the family and i would like to move on this item to give her a chance to resolve this quickly. without objection, if we could do that. item 36 >> item 36 is an ordnance amending the administrative code to add this city administrator as a member of the justice tracking information system governance council and designate the city administrator as the chair of the council. president chiu: any discussion on this item? without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. if we could now go back to item 25. >> item 25 appropriates 529,000 certificate proceeds for disability access improvement projects and relocation costs in the mayor's office on disability for fiscal year 2010-2011.

supervisor avalos: colleagues, last week, i spoke about waffling on this issue. i was not sure how i was going to vote. since last week, i am more certain that i am voting know. it was a difficult vote for me. i felt there was needs to fix things in the board chambers, but i saw the same sites i see on a daily basis, wheelchair ramps that are not completed, a ramp where groundwork has been started on the corner of san jose and geneva. there are too large plastic barriers so it is very difficult to get through.

i thought the department of water was working on that but it looks like they have not done any work whatsoever and i see these large plastic barriers lying's a scant and making it even more difficult to pass through. i feel like we do not have the luxury of making symbolic acts to fix the wheelchair ramp when we have real things in our district that people face every day. is not just one or two people. it is hundreds of people on a daily basis. look at each and every rampant understand it's difficult to cross. is unsafe at times and we need to do better about how we allocate our precious resources, not creating a bridge to nowhere in the chambers but looking at how we can have a meaningful impact on every day san franciscans. we also have a budget crisis we are dealing with. $528,000 can go far on our street corners. it can go far in fixing

elevators that might go out of service in the tenderloin. it can go far to preserving key programs in the department of public health, which is going to be cut dramatically. i also feel we are making more of a political allocation rather than a live allocation that will be affected for everyday people. the chambers have never been accessible to get around this desk. it would make it possible for someone in a wheelchair to get around. last week, i was on the fence and this week i hope to be able to pick up a vote or two to reject this appropriation and i hope you can join me on that, colleagues. >> supervisor wiener: i would like to thank my colleague for his comment on this item. this is an item i have struggled with that was very persuaded by

the supervisors comments last week and i did consider changing my vote on this because we have so many accessibility needs in this city in areas that are used by an awful lot of people we are not funding. on balance, given that we know this chambers is not accessible, that it should have been made accessible in redid city hall after the earthquake, and given the symbolism of having one of the seats of power in san francisco not be accessible, i will be continuing to vote in favor of this allocation. >> supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the comments. from my perspective, the way i see this issue is that we have heard from many members of the community, the disabled

community, that wanted to see this board take this action. on something like this, it is important, at least for me, to provide deference to the community that is impacted by that. the last member of this board who was disabled, on this issue: definitely made this a priority and the fact she is not here, in my view, does not change the question or the answer to the question of whether this is a right thing. on balance, i believe we should move forward and approve this. supervisor avalopresident chiu:l vote. >> [roll-call]

there are 10 ayes and one no. president chiu: this item is finally passed. item 26. >> ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code, chapter 16 of the par 1 amending section 16.703. [roll-call] there are a 11ayes. president chiu: this item is

passed. >> without objection, supervisor avalos will be excused. if we could take a roll-call vote on item number 27. >> [roll-call] there are now ayes and one no. this item is approved. item 28. >> item 28 is an ordnance

amending the part code to increase the parking fees at the kezar parking lot. [roll-call] there are a ayes. president chiu: item number 29. >> resolution approving the agreement between the city and the olin corp. for sodium hypochlorite which is estimated at $10 million. president chiu: without

objection, this resolution is adopted. item 30. >> item 30 is a resolution authorizing the tax collector to sell a public auction certain parcels of tax to all of real property. president chiu: this item is passed. item 31. >> resolution approving an emergency public-works contracts under san francisco admitted trade of code. president chiu: item 32. >> to establish a governance structure and procedures for application the allocation and distribution of federal urban areas the security initiative grant funds to the bay area urban area to extend that term to june 30th. >> this resolution is adopted. item 33. >> resolution approving and

authorizing a lease with china airlines for cargo warehouse and support office space in building 648 at san francisco international airport. president chiu: this resolution is adopted. next item. >> item 34. borden amending the transportation and police code allowing vehicles for hire and enforcing parking lots. >> the legislation you have that item 34 is very modest. it provides the mta with additional tools to fight illegal taxicab's which have been a threat around the city. it also includes clean up language that moves violations from the police code to the transportation code. that being said, this legislation does not address the fact that the legal taxicab's exist in large part to fill a void that has been left by the illegal taxicab industry. i want to thank our colleagues

on the public safety committee for to link the hearings they have on this subject to highlight what we all know -- that taxicab service is absolutely not where it needs to be. it is too hard to hail a cab on the street and we all know calling taxicab dispatch is about as effective as calling muni to pick you up. this is particularly true the further you get from the downtown core. it is very difficult for many severance siskins to get a taxi cab -- for many san franciscans to get a taxi cab. i know supervisor winner has a couple of items i support that would send a signal to the mta that this enforcement approach is not going to do the trick. i think many of us are committed to working together to hopefully improve customer service for taxi patience. supervisor wiener: thank you.

i would like to thank president chiu for working together on some amendments. when i initially saw this legislation, i had been intending to simply strip out all of the provisions related to enhanced enforcement against nonpermanent cat -- non permitted cab companies. his remarks 3 diplomatic, as always. the state of the cab industry in this town is unacceptable. several years ago, we provided this mta with follow-up legislation from this board with the tools to transform the cab industry in san francisco. in a way we have been unable to do in the past. several years later, very little progress has been made. i want to stress that the staff

working on this at mta have been doing a very good job in trying to bring these issues up and trying to move the ball forward. unfortunately, i don't believe senior management at mta has sufficiently focused on making this a priority. i understand that muni is the 800 pound gorilla, but the mta is responsible for making the caps work in san francisco. it is a critical part of the transportation in our city and i have been frustrated by the slow pace of progress that mta. as a result, i'm going to offer the following amendments. the first is to section 7.3.5 to strip out the second sentence reading "the penalty for a violation of this subsection

shall be $2,500 for the first offense and $5,000 for the second offense or such other about as set forth in the california public utilities code. -- the rationale being that the only reason these uncommitted cabs exist or can flourishes because of the inadequacies in our system. to come down with very heavy penalties does, make sense from a policy perspective. in addition, the second amendment would be to add a section 7.4 to status follows. i apologize for not having a ready copy of this but this was done immediately before the meeting. 7.4 would read "beginning april 1st, 2011, the sfmta shall report quarterly to the board of supervisors on their progress increasing and improving taxi

service in san francisco. such reports shall include quantitative data demonstrating the agency's progress in meeting demand for taxi service as a way to reduce non-permitted taxi services. i move those amendments. president chiu: could i ask you to have your staff prepare that in writing and we can skip over this item and have them and amended from of us and take up the item? supervisor wiener: i believe that would be fine. the city attorney is sending them to us. president chiu: if we could just for comment until we have the amendment on paper in front of us. president chiu: let's move to item is 35. >> item 35 is norns amending the power code to amend the

membership, powers and duties and sunset date of the reentry council. >> this is a mild amendment in enhancing the authority and reach of the reentry council. we created the reentry council several years ago, three years ago to be exact, and much to the surprise of the city family and the general public, there had never been a formal body that brought together the offices of the district attorney, the public defender, the sheriff's office, the mayor's office, and the network of citizen-based organizations and non-profit working on issues for juveniles and adults. this is the first opportunity to bring in a more formal setting those departments together, not that they had not been in an ad hoc or offline way, talking about strategies of violence prevention and mitigating

recidivism. it had been long overdue that the city had commenced with a more public process that answered some long-term questions. that is what this reentry council serves to do. if you think about it, there are no commissions that exist on behalf of most of the criminal justice departments. there is only the juvenile probation justice commission and the police commission. that is it. there is nobody representing the adult probation, nobody representing the district attorney's office, maybe the police commission does our share of the department. maybe the police commission can. but as a specialized question, as an issue of reentry, there has never been anything that has been spotlighted in any one particular commission, unless a was a sub theme of that commission. when we think about the staggering numbers of parolees who live in san francisco with a

recidivism rate of over 75% in san francisco, likely to repeat their offenses once returning to san francisco within every three years, that means of every four people arrested and convicted, three out of four are likely to repeat their offense. for those in county jail, it is over 60%. this reentry council is a good fix for now, but i want to tease the question, there may be a need to go to a higher level and that is possibly for the creation of a department every entry where you would look truly help knit together all of the department's struggling for funding, struggling for overwhelming case work like juvenile probation and struggling in order to innovate good programs that deal with massive population scales that they cannot keep up with. that is what a department might have some muscle in helping

support and certainly in rich because of the budgetary ingredients that come with that particular status. or at the very minimum, maybe committing to creating a commission on reentry. this is what this council does now and hopefully it will segue into something much larger. that is what is before us, but this is just a first step. >> supervisor cohen: my colleague has done a good job of articulating my thoughts. i just want to reiterate the reentry council did an excellent job in providing documented, quantifiable data factoids as to the reason this council should exist and the benefits to the reentry population they're serving. as a representative of the