financing the seismic upgrade of certain improvements. president chiu, aye. supervisor chui, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor aye, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor mirkarimi, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: item 29. >> the resolution approving the feeder agreement for -- between the city and county of san francisco and the bay area rapid transit district for payment of transferred tips. >> i would like to ask someone from the mta to come forward.

i have a number of questions about the disagreement. i thank you for being here. i understand the importance of trying to get this agreement done. this is the concern i have. at some point the agreement that was in place between bart and the mta took into account the number of trips taken in the system and use that for the basis of reimbursement that the mta received. from a public policy standpoint, it makes sense you would have the nexus. at some point that was no longer the basis for the agreement. i'm trying to understand why we are going into an agreement that does not rely on that nexus because connecting the amount that is reimbursed to the mta to the number of trips that are taken will insure that we get

reimbursed the amounts that are owed to us. in this case according to the report for the budget analyst, we're talking about perhaps $12 million that we would be entitled to being left on the table. >> thank you for the question. you're right. if it does agree that the -- if this needs room for improvement. we have told our we will go back and negotiate. for fiscal 10, the year that is in front of you now, an agreement was made to keep the method of dollars -- meodology. between art and mta while they worked on the issue. -- march and mta. we will be renegotiating with bart back to july 2010 for the

fiscal year agreement. it is -- the other reason the mta is getting approval is we are holding that receivable. bart has not repaid as. for those -- that is the reason we're bringing fiscal year 10 in today. >> supervisor campos: an agreement has not been made until if the board of supervisors votes on -- until the board of supervisors votes on it. >> the agreement has not come back before the board. i do not know when. when we looked at the agreements and started negotiating, we had discovered that these had not been before the board. this is an oral agreement to continue the fiscal year 2010

methodology. it was taken to the mta board which approved the agreement with the condition the agreement would have new methodology. >> supervisor campos: this is an oral agreement between home? >> the heads of the two agencies. >> supervisor campos: the agency had to play an important role but i do not know that legally they have the authority to enter into those kinds of binding agreements. this is one of the things that bothers me. you have to agreements we're talking about. we have this specific agreements under which we are getting arguably the $12 million less than we are entitled to. we also have an agreement, unlike the agreement we are voting on today, it is based on the number of trips that are taken. from 1 i understand, bart wanted to make sure the agreement was

based on a number of trips to the got the amount of money that is owed to them by the city. at the same time, they're not letting us do the same with this other agreement. it is likely are telling us, treatise differently with respect to one agreement. we want to make sure we based the agreement on the number of troops but when it comes to bart paying the money, we do not want to look at the number of troops, we want to look at the number of sales tax. that is inconsistent. i am all for making sure that bart gets its fair share. at the same time, our system, the mta system, receiving $12 million less than it could arguably be entitled to, that is a significant amount of money. i do not understand how it is we approached it this way. >> let me speak to the first issue. the budget resolution provided the ceo with a 42 renegotiate

annual agreements, that is a provision that has been used to have these negotiations. about the methodology, we could concur with you. we have given our that message and we -- bart that message. >> supervisor campos: if i may through the chair, i do not know of this is a question to the m.t.a. or question to the city attorney's office. is there any way to go back to the negotiating table and basically say to parbart, we wat to make sure we have treated you fairly. we based the amount we pay you on the number of trips. we owe it to the writer ridership to reimburse on the

number of troops. let's recalculate for this fiscal year. is there a possibility we can do that? for the chair. >> we approached bart with that question and they have approved the agreement. given the agreement between the two heads of the agencies. we started off there. at this point we're bringing before you the best we can get for fiscal year 10 to fiscal year 11 with the new a mess -- methodology. >> supervisor campos: is it possible for us to make sure that there is a fair renegotiation here and to go back to the bart board in agency and say this is not fair? >> the four's option would be to

reject the agreement and that would re-enter renegotiation. there is an up or down vote here. >> supervisor campos: the reason -- i do not -- i want to reimburse the recommendation from staff. when we are looking at the possibility of $12 million more into the system, even if it is a fraction, we need to pursue every option to see that there is a way we can bring this money back or a portion of it. i am going to make a motion to continue the item for two weeks . so we have further exploration of the possibility of the renegotiation. i do not know if that is possible. maybe that is not feasible. to the extent that that is a possibility, it is something we should explore. we're facing a dire situation

within the transportation system. i make a motion to continue for two weeks. >> president chiu: seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. discussion? any discussion? can we do this without objection, to continue this? that shall be the case. [gavel] item 30. >> resolution approving amendment no. 1 retroactive to april 14, 2011 to the airport spa lease witand amendment no. 2. >> president chiu: same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted.

item 31. >> resolution approving amendment no. 1 with baysubway airport. >> president chiu: same house, same call. this is approved. >> authorizing the mayor's office of housing to expend soma community stabilization fund. >> president chiu: same house, same call? this motion is approved. >> a motion approving and exercising the final option set forth in the agreement for professional budget and legislative analyst services between the city and

harvey rose. >> president chiu: same house, same call? this motion is approved. > supervisor avalos: the boad had passed last year this right to know ordinance. designating that merchants at the point of sale would have to provide information about the specific absorption rate for cell phone for each make and model of self funds. since that time new information about the new absorption rate, looking at radiofrequency. there are a couple of cell phone communications systems that have varying radio emissions and to one of them is

not pegged to sar. we want to make sure we have an ordinance that met with the reality is out there for radio emissions. we are amending this ordinance that would instead of having a rating per make and model of cell phone a point of sale, we would have a sign that merchants would provide in the stores close to the cell phones. i would say that cell phone emits radio frequencies and that there would have to provide at the point of sale -- they would have to provide at the point of sale a document sharing -- to share with buyers on how to protect themselves from radiofrequency missions. measures you can take to protect yourself, include using a headset instead of having the

phone next to your ear, keeping cell phone in a casing that is less conductive of radiofrequency and other measures as well. this because we're providing the public with information about how you can protect yourself, and has a strengthening of the legislation which we did not provide in last year's ordinance. we look at this as a strengthened right to know measure. we expect this measure would have impact of there is a link between health impacts and radiofrequency. this would help the program -- public to know how to protect themselves and perhaps save lives. i would like to thank the department of the environment for their work on this legislation as well as the many community advocates who have come out to support and testify on this legislation, including the environmental working group, the health trust.

thank you. >> president chiu: can we keep this same house, same call? this ordinances passed on the first reading. 35. >> resolution authorizing the public utilities commission to except and expand the u.s. environmental protection agency administered grant in the amount of 970,000 for a 6 cent -- center sustainable resources district project. >> president chiu: same house, same call? this resolution is adopted. >> a resolution determining the transfer of a type 21 of sale general license from 511 crescent street to 2801 jones street will solve -- serve the public convenience. >> supervisor cohen, aye,

supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor mirkarimi, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, no. >> president chiu: this resolution is adopted. >> 37 is an ordinance amending the official sidewalk width. >> president chiu: roll-call vote. >> supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor mirkarimi, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye.

>> president chiu: this is passed on the first reading. 38. >> authorizing vintage signs and making environmental findings. >> president chiu: same house, same call? this is passed on the first reading. item 39. >>same house, same call? this is passed on the first reading. item 40. >> amending the general plan by amending the community safety element to reference the most recent hazard mitigation plan. >> president chiu: same house, same call? this is passed on the first reading. >> approving the jurisdictional transfer, on phelan avenue. >> president chiu: same house, same call?

this resolution is adopted. 42. >> moshin submitted to the voters an ordinance amending article one of the conduct code to modify registration and disclosure requirements for campaign consultants at an election to be held on november 8, 2011. >> president chiu: same house, same call? this item is approved. item 43. >> motion appointing gill sperlein. >> president chiu: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: i would like to switch out his name with glendon hyde hoda would like to support for this

position. he represents the number of great qualities i think would be exceptional in an entertainment commissioner. it is a neighborhood that is greatly impacted and has had never representative from that district and has -- the committee work that he has done in the neighborhood of a board member of united players has done fund-raising work for many causes. a member of the western soma citizens task force and a fund- raiser for the aids funding alliance, marriage equality, the sisters of perpetual indulgence, the transgendered laz senger come on numerous organizations that have been defeated -- benefited by his work.

also not to only does g lendon understand night live, he is a drag queen and consummate performer in the night life of san francisco. he has a great sense of civic duty and activism i think makes him an exceptional member of the entertainment commission. he believes in community building and creating opportunity, for the community to grow and use its voice to make changes in the city. he understands the community has to fight for its voice and as a drag queen it can be hard to be taken seriously but anna conda has always represented her community proudly. her vision, his vision as a committee boys, we have a strong member and i hope you can support me in supporting glendon hyde for the commission.

>> i do not always agree on every issue. but knowing his commitment to the community and the city. i want to think of a commissioner for his service. we have two superb people before us today. this is not about one person being more committed than another.

there was a perception ash and a minimum that there was too much influence by the entertainment commission, the commission was not being aggressive enough regulating the industry and holding the industry accountable. for those of us passionate about having a great guy like and

entertainment in this city, we understand is that entertainment commission does not have the credibility it needs in terms of having that balance, that is not a benefit to the entertainment industry and undermines the industry. gil brings undoubted neighborhood credentials to this commission. he has been involved in traffic coming efforts along roosevelt street, he is a co-founder of the friends of corona heights park group to help take care of the park and has been involved in castro community on patrol. he has been deeply involved in his neighborhood. he is not a political person, he is a neighborhood person. i think there are some seed thomas commissions -- on this commission for which i could be

gladly support anaconda, but gil de best at filling the neighborhood seat and help keeping the strong balance this commission needs. so i will be voting against the motion to amend. president chiu: colleagues, we have a decision in front of us that's is an embarrassment of talent and i also want to join supervisor wiener in congratulating -- we have two outstanding candidates in front of us and i've spent quite a bit of time speaking with both of them. they could both serve our city and this commission extremely well. i do come to a slightly different perspective and i will be supporting the plan for a couple of reasons, but i want to start with the same premise supervisor wiener started with. the entertainment commission has

gone through significant transition in recent years. it was not long ago that there were suggestions of conflicts of interest where it did appear the entertainment commission was not doing what we needed it to do to ensure we didn't have public safety concerns, that we were ensuring a peaceful coexistence between our entertainment venues and our neighborhoods. that is a principle that is important to me and this is something i have discussed at great length. from a number of perspectives, i think he not only understands community, but the issues confronting our neighborhoods. if we do not figure out how to clean up of violence that happens around some of our troubled night clubs, if we do not figure out how our neighborhoods can peacefully coexist, this will affect the perspective others have a around our entertainment industry in san francisco and how we have fun in san francisco.

we need to deal with this issue and this is something he completely understands. as far as the perception of conflicts, he informed me that it has been several years since she received any payment from the industry and will not accept payment from any representative or venue within that industry as service occurs on the commission. with that, i am comfortable supporting clinton, but i think we can find a future place for a deal to help participate in ensuring we have one of the best night lives in the united states. >> thank you. supervisor kim: just agreeing with my colleague, we had three great applicants. i would like to thank him for

creating what that commission is today. he has been an important advocate for our neighborhood and will continue to be an advocate along with the up many things in the city and i look forward to working with them. i will also be supporting the london. as i mentioned earlier, he chaired our budget town hall meeting for district 6. something i noted would be immense respect our district has and i have a varying gauged district and i have the honor of serving a district that is very involved and participates in many of our process these. london -- i have heard arguments

that because he's a performer and organizes events in our venues, there may be a perception in the community that he is more favorite -- more favored toward entertainment, but i am confident he will prove to residents that he is an advocate for the neighborhoods and is someone residents can go to and he will listen. that is something i have come to appreciate and respect. his incredible capacity and tireless capacity to our region and all listen to everyone and bring people together. his calm demeanor and a willingness to take politics out of discussion has been incredible. i am proud to support him. if this motion fails, i will support gill. i think he would do an excellent job, but today i am supporting

this motion. >> supervisor campos: i do not want to repeat what has been said. i want to thank the commissioner for his service. i know he spent a lot of time and energy in the last few years working with the community on these issues and we would like to thank him for serving the city and county of san francisco. with respect to the individuals names we discussed, either would do a great job and i am proud to be supporting glendon. but i also want to recognize that gill brings a lot to the table and hopefully there'll be an opportunity to serve the city and county in the future. there is a motion and can we take a roll-call vote? >> [roll-call]

there are a 6ayes 5os. >> the motion to amend passes and now the underlying motion which would include appointing glendon to the entertainment commission. supervisor wiener: i will be supporting anaconda's appointment. we had to exceptional candidates and the canada i was supporting in the final vote is not on the final blow but i will be supporting anaconda. -- the final vote.