often bragged in san francisco about our 77% diversion rate and how we are the envy of the country, and we really are. we have done a tremendous job as a city in terms of encouraging waste reduction. there are a number of reasons for that success. one of them is recology. throughout this process, i do not recall hearing any actual criticism of recology's service. even folks who are not supporting this today i have heard make positive comments about the service recology provides, a system tailored to the needs of san francisco. if this were a situation where we had a shoddy provider, that would be a different scenario. but i think everybody agrees to provide excellent service.

i have heard an argument that we should somehow delayed this because there is the possibility of a ballot measure next june to repeal the 1932 ordinance. the 1932 ordinance has been around for a long time. this whole process, culminating in today, has been around for a long time. if people want to repeal the 1932 ordinance, they had a long time to put something on the ballot and try to get it repealed. i know there have been efforts in the past that have failed. i do not see a reason just because this late in the game some once again -- someone collected signatures to put this in the ballot, but we should stop the process when we know we are going to run out -- that we should stop the process when we know we are going to run out of landfill space. i will be supporting this item. supervisor kim: i also sat on

the budget committee, and this is an issue that has been brought forward several times. although many questions came up around barging, things i support in the long term, i think questions or answers to this process. we have a good contract in front of us and recology has been a good partner for san francisco in the goals we have tried to achieve. i have question separate from this issue. other supervisors have brought this up. i question whether 1932 is good policy and should be in our charter, and what we can do to increase franchise fees here in san francisco. something which came out of the lafco report is seeing what other counties are doing. even with the free services recology provides, i hope we can continue that discussion without

raising rates for ratepayers. if we are able to give back more to the county, as we do in other counties, i think that is a conversation that can continue. however, i do not see that conversation as being attached to this contract, which i will support today. but i do hope to continue conversation on the franchise fee in san francisco. i think that is where the conversation about the 1932 ordinance. i was committed to not raising that issue as we consider -- continue the discussion to july, but i look forward to continuing the discussion for next year. president chiu: any further discussion? supervisor avalos: i do think the 1932 ordinance is pertinent. under the rubric of our garbage

services, they are all going to be related. if we are approving a landfill contract while there is a question about overall garbage collection and transfer, sorting, and disposal, that is going to be pertinent. i want to make sure -- we have no franchise agreement that governs the monopoly that currently has control of our garbage. i think that is worth looking at. i did not ask anyone to delay the vote, but i am voting against it for that reason. i just wanted to state that clearly. supervisor campos: i do not want to belabor the points that have been made. but for me one of the key concerns, is respected of the issues of the 1932 ordinance -- irrespective of the issues of the 1932 ordinance, is the fact that you are talking about a land fill contract of $112

million. but then you also have the facilitation agreement, which is for $300 million to $400 million. that agreement was not competitively bid. i think that is too large an amount of money for us to do a sole-source contract. that is for me what tipped the balance. -- balance. i just wanted to say that for the record. that is not anything against this company, simply about the process. thank you. president chiu: colleagues, further discussion? why don't we take a 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 weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: no.

supervisor campos: no. president chiu: aye. >> there are nine ayes and two nos. president chiu: this resolution is adopted. item 22. >> resolution approving the united school district expenditure plan for the public education in richmond found. -- in richmond fund. -- enrichment fund. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: this resolution

is adopted. items 23 and 24 are related to continental airlines. >> item 23 approves execution of modification number 6 of the 1981 airline airport lease to provide a retroactive rent credit for terminal round of exclusive use space but it did in terminal one. 24 authorizes the execution of modification one with continental airlines to modify the desired premises by elimination of exclusive use space in terminal one. president chiu: same house and call? these resolutions are adopted. >> item 25, authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute sewer system improvement for an amount not to exceed $150 million with a term of up to 15 years. president chiu: same house and

call? this resolution is adopted. >> item 26, approving the issuance and sale of tax-exempt bonds in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $11 million to finance various capital facilities owned or leased by children's day school. president chiu: same house, called? this resolution is adopted. >> item 27 is from the budget and finance subcommittee without recommendation, approve an amendment one to the agreement for advertising on municipal transportation agency property between the city and tighten outdoor. -- titan of door. president chiu: -- titan outdoor. president chiu: this is an issue that has been discussed on various boards about advertising on buses. i asked mta to cap how many

buses we are talking about. i do not think it is ideal long- term for us to proceed in this way, but we know have a million dollars for our munis system at this time is something we need. i would like to ask ms. bowes, who helped prepare this amendment, to speak on it. rather than having a percentage cap on 5% of all mta buses and 10% of light rail buses, that could be kept to a number of transit vehicles of 15. i would like to allow ms. bowes to provide any additional information. >> thank you. the amendment before you has about 35 on the buses and 16 on the lrv's. given today's market conditions, i do not think the market exceeds -- they do not

demand right now to do more than 15. so we are comfortable with the 15. we will report back at the end of the year to assess whether demand is greater than 15. but starting at 15 is ok with the mta. we believe we can get the 500,000 with the 15. president chiu: if there are no objections, i would like to make the amendments circulated in the draft amendment. supervisor farrell: second. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: no. supervisor campos: no. supervisor chu: aye. >> there are eight ayes and

thre nos. supervisor kim: i just had a quick question for ms. bowes, an issue that came up. the question was about visibility from the windows if there is wraparound advertising. this is a question i asked the budget committee that came up through some of our constituents. >> that has been a repetitive question from the public and public safety officials concerned about looking out. while it is not exactly the same as a non-wrapped window, staff have confirmed it does not stop the visual impact of looking in and out. however is not as clear as an unwrapped window. we will assess this over the year and if the review indicates we are having significant problems about this, we will come back to you with that

information. but it does raise concerns about that. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor campos: through the chair, if i may, to the mta -- thank you, ms. bowes for your hard work on this. i do have a concern about the experience of the rider. we want to encourage more people to ride public transit. we have seen a decline in some segments of the population, 2000 or 3000 fewer youths riding the mta. i am worried about the impact this will have on ridership because of the experience. it is not going to be the same as a bus that does not have this kind of wrapping.

can you say a little bit more about what that looks like? related to that, has there been an effort to get direct feedback from riders on what they think of this idea? >> let me take the questions first. certainly, it has impact on ridership, but it is a trade- off. it could be we do not have the bus if we do not have this money. if it is the question of providing service cuts or fare reductions versus having erupt window, i think almost anyone would prefer the wrapped window. that is a question the board has struggled with. well $500,000 might not seem like a lot, it seems -- for us it means five mechanics and parts and vehicle availability. ideally, we would not be doing this, but unfortunately that is not the case. that is the way we have been

assessing alternate revenue sources. while they may not be ideal, if it means keeping service going and keeping fares down, that is what we would like. on your second question, i think it was related to -- supervisor campos: feedback from riders. >> we had a pilot where we wrapped fall vehicles -- full vehicles. we got very few negative comments. most of the comments were that if it means keeping service and reducing fares, most of the public would rather see the wrapping. i have written these buses myself, and there is an impact, but if this keeps my lines in service, i would rather have the wrap. only 16 would be wrapped at

any time. frankly, i do not think there will be 15 even with the cap, because of the market and the cost is so high for these wraps. that is the feedback we got is that there would rather see the wraps and have the service. supervisor campos: i appreciate the feedback. not to minimize the amount of money -- $500 thousand is $500 thousand, but in the scheme of things, relative to the size of the mta budget, i hope we would take some time to see if there are other options in terms of finding additional money. i do worry about the impact on the experience of riders. i do know there are many people in parts of the city who have no choice.

we want more people to ride muni. i do not think it is a good thing for us to create that kind of experience for them. i do worry that in the end it might be counterproductive to our efforts to increase ridership. >> this amendment requires an annual review process. the mta board did this reluctantly as well. after the first year of this, there will be an opportunity for both you and the board to discontinue this after the first year, if the feedback from the public is significant, if we find alternate sources of money. then we will not have to do this in the second and third year. that texas strategy is available in the contract. -- exit strategy is available in the contract. supervisor campos: i appreciate that. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: i came in here thinking this contract will

generate -- was going to generate $500,000 before the amendment was made. this is reducing coverage but still produces $500,000? >> $500,000 was a conservative effort. with the 15, we will have to work harder to get to the $500,000. i cannot guarantee we will get the 500 dozen dollars. we will work as hard as we can to try to achieve that amount. $500,000 was our estimate. it was not an estimate from titan. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. i was sitting at the president's dais, so i did not get a chance to explain my no vote on the amendment. i voted that way because i am concerned we will not hit our 500 dozen dollars.

for me, i am -- $500,000. for me, it is the quality of the ride. as a writer -- rider, i am more willing to put up with an obstructed window than to have to walk several blocks because the service has been cut. do i want to pay $3 for that ride instead of $2? i will take the obstructed view. supervisor mirkarimi: to ms. bowes, please. i will stand, since you are down there. to the point of supervisors elsbernd and campos, i remember when we were piloting this i would be on the bus and ask people next to me what their experience was like when the buses were wrapped. i did not get positive reviews.

one described as looking out as a feeling of for to go. they were not feeling it was a pleasant ride -- o. f -- feeling of vertigo. they were not feeling it was a pleasant ride. but there were not many people on the bus. in one respect, in the interior of the bus there is unpleasantness. on the exterior, i hear arguments from people who think it adds to urban blight. >> when we did the pilot, the material that was used back then has been approved -- improved. the visual ability to look inside and outside of the material we are testing is much better. we expect to see a little more acceptance by the public. i have ridden those busses. the material has changed and is more porous because all of the transit systems that use them

are concerned about the same thing. advertisers have made the material much better for looking in and out of buses. we have been testing to see if it makes a difference. if we hear a lot of negative feedback, we will come back during the budget cycle, and the mta board will decide not to continue this program. supervisor mirkarimi: since we are struggling with severe deficits of about $680 million, $500 -- $500,000 is an important strategy to defray the hit. but when not something more robust in a strategy to try to add revenue or alleviate the deficit? why not reform the management of the paratransit funding? all these other issues are ruminating out there that portend to yield a much greater savings, and potentially revenue

back into the city. why not that? >> supervisor, music to our ears. we will bring before you a variety of measures, which we hope you will support. it will require support from state legislators to make it happen. we will have a menu in front of you to make it happen because in next year's budget cycle, we will be struggling because the numbers do not look good at this point. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor chiu: supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: this conversation reminds me somewhat of the botanical garden fee. this is a contract we have had before. it came before the previous board of supervisors as well. it seems to me that if we open the door for this to happen, even if it is for a pilot program, we open the door for it

to happen permanently. i think all of us feel somewhat squeamish about this contract going forward. i think if we open the door now, i see having this measure or this type of bus wrap around for the long term, forever. it is not that we are wrapping the buses. we are wrapping the buses with the people inside. i think the experience you have is vastly different, and i just cannot support it. i do feel really pained about it, knowing just what the mta is facing in terms of revenue, but i just cannot bring myself to vote for this. supervisor chiu: further discussion, colleagues? why don't we take a roll-call vote on the resolution as amended? supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye.

supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: no. supervisor mirkarimi: no. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: no. supervisor campos: no. supervisor chiu: aye. there are six aye -- >> there are six ayes and five no. supervisor chiu: the resolution is adopted as amended. if we could call items 28 and 29. >> item 28 is a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of special tax bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $100 million. item 29 is a resolution approving the administrative terms and conditions for the greenfinancesf financing program and identifying the san francisco department of the environment or its city agency

designee as the program administrator for the city, and setting reporting requirements, and authorizing the execution of a loan loss reserve agreement. supervisor mar: my staff has discussed this with the city attorney, and i understand these are non-substantive. you should all have the version of this resolution in front of you. i have proposed the following amendments -- pages -- page two, lines 11 and 12, and on line 17 of the same page, we are replacing eecgb with doe, and i have added a section on a first source hiring that reads, "first was hiring, to the extent permitted by law -- first-source hiring, to the extent permitted by law, will create jobs and will work with city administrators to promote first-

source hiring by program participants." those are the minor, non- substantive amendments. i will also work closely with the department of the environment to include progress reports to my office on local hiring efforts. i urge your support on these amendments and the ordinance before us. thank you. supervisor chiu: supervisor mar has made amendments to item 29. discussion on the amendments. supervisor avalos: just want to differentiate between -- under the ordinance and the amendments you are making, the first-source program, is that the same as our local hire ordinance? my intention was we would replace the first-source program. i am not saying the language is clear, but i would like it to reference local hire -- i am not saying the language is not clear, but i would like to reference local hire. supervisor mar: is there some

language you would recommend? supervisor avalos: if we could reference the local higher for construction ordinance. maybe we could come back and continue this item to later in the day to get the exact language. supervisor mar: yes, i would be open to continuing this to later in the meeting until we get the language added in. supervisor avalos: i just wanted to question of that was your intention. supervisor mar: that is my intention. could we continue this to later in the meeting? supervisor chiu: at this time, you do have a motion to amend on the floor. we can continue these items to later, and when we come back, if you could clarify exactly what we want to do. let's continue items 28 and 29 to later on in the meeting. why don't we move to our 3:00 special order regarding the fillmore jazz community benefit

district? >> item 30 is the public hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the proposed resolution of item 31, establishing a property-based community benefit district to be known as the fillmore community benefit district. supervisor chiu: let me start by saying that the purpose of today's hearing is to hear testimony on the proposed levy and assessments against the property to be renamed the fillmore community benefit district. and in an engineer's report dated may 10 of this year, and the ballot for property owners. the proposed, renewed, and expanded fillmore community benefit district, per the plan, dated june 7, 2011, contains approximately 227 identified parcels. at the conclusion of today's

hearing -- actually, my understanding is that it is likely that this hearing will be open for public comment but will be continued. i will give the district supervisor an opportunity to talk about that, but we will hear some public testimony after hearing from our district supervisor, so why don't we go first to supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. president. we have been in this position before because of many cbd's that are presented to us and renewed. not all are created equal. this is the first that has been created as the jurisdiction and government -- jurisdiction of government and development was ending its tenure. i have 41 and continued to echo that warning to the office of economic workforce development and the people of the fillmore and western edition that great care has to be taken -- i have

for warned -- i have forewarned. i had put the first cbd on a five-year -- which was the shortest of any cbd city-wide -- on a short leash of five years to see how they would do. i had my concerns, certainly in the first half, i think, of the existence, but i think in the last two years, there has been great progress. i want to thank everybody from all sides, i think, of the community spectrum who have contributed to, i think, the advancement of the cbd and to the enrichment of the merchant corridor on fillmore and to those who have dissented, in contributing to the larger conversation. as is prescribed by law, since it is noticed, we should move forw