attorney. i recall in the first proposition -- this had to be approved prior to the budget being finalized, and the facts that these are amendments, that requirement is not necessary? >> this is been deferred to the project. >> human-resources director -- the 2000 legislation did remove the june 30 deadline for the concession agreement so this particular amendment is not subject to the deadline, the may 15 deadline for public safety and this contract. >> thank you.

>> is there any further discussion? do we need to do a roll-call vote? we will take these items, the same house, same call? these ordinances are passed in the first reading. item 29. >> this is a man into the 2013 mou, extending this -- >> without objection -- she will be excused, and if we could take a roll-call vote on item 29. >> mar, eye. mirkarimi, aye. weiner, aye. avalos, aye. campos, aye. chu, aye. cohen? cohen, aye.

10 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed on the first meeting pick -- first reading. but us go to the special order. >> items 30 and 31 comprised the board of supervisors pursuant to a motion approved on july 19. a public hearing of those objecting to the proposed resolution with a property based community benefit district, item 31 well up and and rename this community district as the film more community benefit district. >> this is a public hearing that was continued from july 26 to today, and i understand with murder ramey, he would like to continue to keep the public hearing open and will ask if he

has any comments that he would like to make. >> this is a motion for another continuance but realizing that the hearing should at least allow for anyone who would like to give them put, i have sent a message to the office of economic workforce development, which has been leading the charge on the renewal of these throughout the city. i am not quite there and i know others have concerns about this renewal, so until those points of concern are satisfied, i believe we should continue this to october 8. >> if there is anyone here wishing to speak on this item, we will open public comment but this will also be continued to the 18th of october. the public will have additional

times to make comments. to any members of the public wish to speak about this plan? each member of the public will have two minutes for comments. please step up. >> i am susan king, and i run the foundation program. the community benefit districts -- >> would you like to start over again? >> i run the sunday streets program. i wanted to speak on behalf of the important role that they play in supporting sunday streets. this is an effort that is presented by the fda but the

organization has done by livable city. we don't have a lot of resources. in the various places we visit -- this has provided much-needed support in terms of programming, outreach and marketing and other things we would have to go without or pay for. fillmore has been a great partner, and i don't know if you were able to make it out last weekend on september 11, but there was a lot of activity in all the neighborhoods, and most robustly in the film more and meghan mitchell worked very diligently to marshal fantastic music and great events, fun things for the whole family, helping with programming and

marketing, letting the neighborhood know about changes to parking and traffic, and including sunday streets as part of the international artists week. in closing, this is an important institution and meghan worked very hard to support the merchants that bring life to this corridor. i really wanted to go on record by saying that sunday streets would not have been as successful without the staff. >> other members of the public? >> supervisors, i am as washington. i was one of the persons at the inception of this in our community. the western admission is like no

other part of the san francisco area. where redevelopment agencies have created this. they can flaunt what they had, to help them, to let the community know. this was not for the community and we had no part in this. in a minute and 20 seconds -- you will delay this section again. but the community is being held hostage right now, because they don't care about the community. we are built up for the property owners and the taxpayers. they have been trying to change the name from communities of this is not a problem. i am here to say that they are corrupt.

one thing for certain. there needs to be an internal investigation on the cbd. the latest document that was passed around, this was on june 11. you cannot say for two minutes, no bookkeeping records and writing checks when they want to. i know that you have this copy. so why are you not investigating any of this stuff? there needs to be an investigation because they are corrupt along with a lot of other things. they are corrupt. when it finally comes down to, you will not approve of this. >> i watched my son die in the

western addition. i am glad that this will be a continuation, because this is the first time we're hearing of this and the name change. i did not think enough people really know what this entails. i am happy that this will be continued and i will investigate more about this, because the true people in my community are not being informed about what is really going on. thank you. >> supervisors? i did read the letter from the secretary, and it was very disappointing to see the transparency over the years --

somehow, we are not getting the information and i am of lying to a lot of what they are doing. the last time i spoke about this, i supported them but i was speaking about some kind of condition. if we are going to have this with the community that we can monitor and work directly, you would have this going back and forth and then when this is time for renewal, people do not know to support this or not. and i have tried everything in my power to connect with them, to make sure the community has a voice. i know a lot of people -- rooted in the community, but in a way with the community does not feel left out. we need some kind of investigation because at the end

of the day, you are responsible. some people just say to do away with it, and i do not think this but i think we need to read everything that has been done in the past. and this board and this body should protect them and guard them. it seems the office of workplace development does not step up when this is critical but they want to support when everything is going great. let's get some further information so we can see where we are going with this. >> you asked for an investigation. i would like to hear what aspects you would like? >> i have requested information but this was not forthcoming in

a timely manner. some of the minutes are not in place. and since they operate and we get secondary information, it puts us in the position where we cannot speak intelligently about what is going on. the other major property owners are stepping back because nobody wants to be liable for what may happen down the line. -- everyone talks about transparency. without transparency, you don't have people who feel that they're working for other interests rather than the community. and renaming this is even a controversial issue for the community. >> thank you. >> supervisors.

i see some of you are paying attention and some of you think that this is a circus or something. the constituents here talk about these machinations with no transparency, and someone has a history of what is happening in the film more starting with the redevelopment, and with people coming here and just making general statements, and you are supposed to represent, not paying attention and then there cannot be education. let me put this assembly. so we can get to the point. 35% of the population of san francisco were african-american. with the unfinished agenda, find

out what is the state of affairs. the supervisors have come back from a vacation and i hope that you are refreshed to do some research on this. you think that everything is rosy, but we are in dire economic times. when the constituents come to speak on the things where they need to your help, the least you can do is listen to them. some of you have been bought by the big developers and you have sold your soul and not represented -- you are buffoons, thank you very much. >> and are there any other members of the public wishing to speak?

>> thank-you, chairman and members of the board. i have appeared before you on this matter, some time ago. i am here to set the record straight about the transparency of the operation as well as the ongoing efforts to renew this. with respect to transparency, i urge members of the board and the public to take a moment to access all of the activities, the minutes, the latest audit, the annual report, which is managed by the office of economic and work-force development and the events going on in the community. we make an effort to send e-mail

notification about all the meetings, and we actually pose them around the neighborhood, physically, and furthermore, we make an effort to reach out to the community, up and down the street. the issue of transparency and information is one that each and everyone of us has to take some initiative to learn about. and i just ask everyone here to go on the web site, what is that website? the fillmore district, and just learn more about this before you pass judgment. thank you. >> any other members of the

public. >> i am not on this and i never have been. i don't plan to in the future. the biggest problem that they have had and they are having an no one has mentioned this that there are two giant elephants in the room. the fillmore center and safe way. they are pulling back because they don't want to be associated with what may go on. fillmore center has been in control for any realistic purposes since the inception. this has existed and the general manager has been the chair and they have had three or four votes on the board at all times. and now, they and safeway don't want to give their money.

not even discussing the millions of dollars that they take out of that community, every day. at one time, this was the no. 1 safeway in northern california. and if you look at that safeway, and i have gone to every safeway in san francisco, every one of them is better cared for. i want to talk about where the responsibility is in that community and the lack of support has been murderous for any of the efforts we tried to handle in our community. they do not support or give back and that is why they're having these problems.

the reason you are being put over his unwillingness to support these efforts. >> the next speaker? ♪ i hoep you name the district right in the filmore district you love so much. how i love to see it turn out great in the district filmore above after a while you will find a new name and then it will be a better change share your jazz love underscore me my disguise. oh hope you name it right and fix it up today ♪ >> are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

>> thank you, board members. thank you for continuing this item. i don't know how many people -- i hope to look more forward into this issue. the young man talking about transparency says he thinks this is transparency. one thing we ask for was transparency. the two people who went to negotiate came back with an idea of having the fillmore center, the biggest real-estate organization, having to veto power. this is the kind of fundamental human right, this is where they were confronted and i need you to understand what is behind this, that we are upset about.

all the people you have heard so far are not property owners and some of them do not even live there. you need to get stakeholders and board members negotiating. this means, at the expense of losing my rights or my people's rights, my democratic rights, this will not happen. they have the publicly funded properly for $200 million in five years. the safeway got their land at $5 per square foot. this is not just the legislation, because there are underlying issues here. i ask the supervisors to give the stakeholders -- get them

involved in the negotiations, and not just individuals who don't know if they are coming or going. >> are there other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? at this time we're going to continue the hearing to october 18. >> to reinforce, i think the feeling in the room, this is what i warned about. most of these are on the track of 10-15 years and i put this on the track of five. we have the governance by redevelopment, who were just including their 45-year reign in the film more in japan town. the city was not equipped to deal with the conversion of a community that had been

developed with redevelopment policy, and despite what the redevelopment may have thought that they were doing to better the exit, there was still not an efficient exit plan, when the redevelopment jurisdiction on land use, in the merchant corridor, the terminated in 2009. i predicted that there would be concerns and i put this on a five-year renewal. i am is still not satisfied, even by great efforts in the community to make this the more of a collaborative medium and large businesses. but when i detect that the largest businesses benefited from the redevelopment capital, that are not paying their fair share, this does of firm the

arguments of myself and others, where they have too much influence and not being the continuation of a collaborative process. i appreciate your indulgence, unless these conditions are made clear, it is tough for me to endorse this. but open-minded to hoping that the negotiations lead to a different result. what you hear is a continued ventilation that has been ongoing for many years, but it should not go unnoticed that this percolation that has been going on for many years has just manifest itself in another discussion. if i did not detect that there will be -- proper resolution to

this argument, in questioning the renewal by the 18th, i will send this back to committee, so this will not occupy any more time on the board by itself. i think the stakeholders in this discussion -- they have a tough decision to ensure this from redevelopment. this did require that like a military base -- as this is exited, this requires a closure plan on that level of knowledge. there should be a closure plan relative to the impact of the two generations and that plan, this by the demands that this should be in place, this was not in place to the extent that it should have been.

this was an agent that could make up for all of those years. we do need to see the economic development and vitality and they have all the merits of being that one creature, but not that one creature alone. >> thank you, we have a motion to hold the hearing opened, and continue these items to october 18, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. so that the difference stakeholders' including the business and property owners can work on a possible management district plan. is there a second of the motion? colleagues, can we continue this without objection? that should be the case. we don't have any 3:30 special orders, and the 4:special orders will be continued. if there are members of the public who wish to speak to that, they can do this at 4:00

p.m.. can we do the roll call for introductions. >> supervisor? >> thank you very much. colleagues, i want to come back to an item that we spent a great deal of time talking about in the last few weeks. this is the legislation that i introduced a few months ago to close a loophole in assisting the health care security ordnance. as many of you know, there exists a loophole allows certain businesses to charge consumers in the city and county of san francisco money to provide health care for their workers by way of helping with reimbursement accounts. the loophole allows the

businesses to collect that money but we have found out from the office of labor enforcement standards at 80% of that money, collected from consumers, most of this is not expanded on the health care of workers. we have gone through an extensive process of deliberation, hearing the matter at the small business commission and the health commission here in the city and county of san francisco. the matter has come before the board. and based on that input, and comments from a number of individuals including members of the business community and workers and members of the board, myself and a number of sponsors have a revised version of this legislation to provide

modifications that make the legislation be consistent with the current practice that the health the san francisco program follows, and as revised, the legislation will require that these accounts remain open, not indefinitely but for up to 18 months, but if an account is not active following this time, along the lines of how the health the san francisco program works, the account will be closed. this is consistent with the feedback that we have received from members of the business community and the health commission, in supporting this legislation, to underscore the importance of making certain that the practice that the legislation puts forward is the practice the city currently follows with healthy san francisco. i would like to thank my cll