>> and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting. can you please call the roll? supervisor avalos: present. supervisor campos: present. president chiu: present. supervisor chu: here. supervisor cohen: present. supervisor elsbernd: here. supervisor farrell: present. supervisor kim: here. supervisor mar: here. supervisor mirkarimi: present. supervisor wiener: present. >> all members are present. president chiu: can you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? [pledge of allegiance]

[inaudible conversations] madam car, do we have any communications? >> there are no communications. items one-seven comprise the consent agenda and will be acted on by a single roll call vote unless it is requested to be removed and considered separately. supervisor mirkarimi: four. president chiu: items one through seven without item four. 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: aye. supervisor chu: aye. >> 11 aye's.

president chiu: those ordinances are finally passed resolutions adopted. >> amending the police code to have various sections, requiring a handgun to be kept in a locked container or disabled. and prohibiting the sale of enhanced ammunition. supervisor mirkarimi: just added relevance to why this is so important that we are passing today. headline news shows six victims of gun violence, five people killed, a sea lion wounded by gun shots. it underscores the need for us to stand tall for rational and a measured a gun safety laws when we are challenged by the nra and other gun right advocate groups. it doesn't take away any buddies the second amendment right, we just want our communities safe.

president chiu: can we take this item same house and call? this ordinance is finally passed. >> amending the code to create a parks fund for the emergency relief fund and change the administering agency for the homeless find. president chiu: same house, same call. item 9. >> amending the environment code to update the green building design, construction, and operation of city buildings. president chiu: same house, same call. >> the land use and economic development committee, amending the planning code to create the lombard and scott street housing special use district 3151 through 3155. president chiu: this item needs to be continued to later in the meeting, so we will do that

unless somebody has objection. >> from the rules committee without recommendation, amending the campaign government conduct code. the amount of public matching funds. supervisor farrell: we can continue this item from last week because we did not have the supervisors here. i would ask for your support here. president chiu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i will be introducing legislation as an alternative to this proposal. i was going to speak about it at roll call, but i do have legislation that i will be introducing today. president chiu: any further discussion? supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. president. i was absent at the tail end of

the discussion because we had a for alarm fire in the district. i apologize that i wasn't here for the complete betting through the chair. i would ask the general cons ole a couple questions. >> good afternoon, special counsel. supervisor mirkarimi: i understand the aim of what supervisor supervisor farrell -- what supervisor farrell and elsbernd are doing. i am one of the early sponsors of public financing for the mayoral campaigns. it is a time that we design that legislation, we did so based on a certain level, a trigger level of expenditure in matching donations.

if we were to reassess what that level would look like, the 1.475, theoretically adjust the level higher up, what would you suggest as part of that process? is that an automatic disqualification? is that something that doesn't necessarily assist in the arguments that are trying to correct what doesn't need to be corrected? >> it would not have that much effect. the concern that i have is the connection between an outside expenditures and the public finance. if you change those amounts, eliminating the connections, make whatever changes you wish to make.

supervisor mirkarimi: the connection being is not relative to any specific number? >> even if you raise that to a higher number, the burden is on the city to prove that you have a compelling interest. supervisor mirkarimi: it has not yet assessed by a specific trigger, are we correct? >> it is not one that i have heard. i don't think the ethics

commission who serves that proposal. supervisor mirkarimi: that helps beg part of the larger question of potential remedies. many here have been trying to sort through the possibility either in adapting to supreme court ruling or protecting what san francisco has already passed. it is a possible one, correct? >> it is, in light of the supreme court decision. president chiu: supervisor avalos, will youd efe defer to supervisor farrell? supervisor farrell: raising a cap has nothing to do, except

politically speaking, but legally speaking, has nothing to do with wcuring what ails us. >> the city will still be at risk. supervisor farrell: may be something to mitigate an adjustment, just making sure that we have nothing to do with legally speaking, the supreme court's's decision. >> you could conjure up the argument that the chill won't happen, but it is not a very strong argument. supervisor farrell: what i opposed to my colleagues, the idea is to combine -- or are we waiting on this part of it? the part of it before us exposing us to legal risk? we can take up the other issue when the ethics commission hears it. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. first, let me say that i don't

knwo that -- know that having this discussion in open session in terms of the viability, i will be voting against it. i appreciate the reasoning behind it. i think it is important for us to address what the supreme court has decided to. it takes into consideration some of the policy reasons why we have public financing. >> i look forward to having that discussion and conversation as the matter goes forward. i want to thank supervisor kim and her staff for trying to

serve -- comply with the supreme court ruling and taking into account some of the decisions that everything has to be taken into consideration in a way that is responsible. my colleagues indicated the need for us to come forward the proposal as an alternative, and i appreciate the fact that supervisor kim has done that. supervisor mar: thank you. i wanted to thank mark from the city attorney's office for the great advice he's given us. i support the efforts of supervisors elsbernd and farrell. i wanted to couple that with increasing the spending caps for the mayoral eletions. i will be supportive of supervisor kim and otehrs tohero

couple the removing of the trigger with increased spending caps. i think they voted overwhelmingly for campaign finance reform, and that will have efforts to improve our public financing system and make it legally indefensible. -- legally defensible. i appreciate the work of supervisors farrell and elsbernd. supervisor kim: thank you so much. i wnaant to that supervisor elsbernd and farrell. this was not something that we have been paying attention to. to directly address the question of why waiting to address a supreme court ruling in separate legislation, our office thought

it was strong that we have levels of accountability for public financing. including supervisor mirkarimi and many of the advocates that worked on framing that issue. we spent some time doing outreach which is why it took us time to come forward, examining multiple options. it includes supervisor farrell and elsbernd's amendments. exactly as the supreme court ruling had indicated. we want to couple it with other amendments that will continue to address the original intent of public financing without this incentivizing candidates -- disincentivizing candidates. we also wanted to become a public finance candidate as well. this is something that the ethics director -- thank you for

your assistance on this as well. it was a strong position, many of the advocates wanted a full hearing on this legislation. this will now give the community opportunity to give feedback for both the ethics commission and the board of supervisors. supervisor elsbernd: thank you, mr. president, and thank you, supervisor kim, for coming forward with this legislation. the amendment that you are introducing is exactly what supervisor farrell and i have introduced. i just want to point out a couple of things that perhaps have not been thought through. first, a rule of the board, and a supervisor can divide a question -- any supervisor can

divide a question. if the intent of this is to ensure that there are eight votes, let's use me as an example. you will not get me to vote for the supervisorial races. i will divide the question. by not moving forward with the the item today, i will say that we'll need a budget analyst report as well, because this is increasing the cost of government by increasing how much candidates will have. you are opening up a six-week period where there will absolutely can be a lawsuit and attorney fees. they are now on record saying that you agree with what supervisor farrell has done. presumably you vote for the way

that you said you agree. the other piece will fall, but it will all be about increasing the campaign and that -- limit. there are a lot of people sitting up here that are running for reelection next year. the way that it is presented will do a lot more harm for the desire to improve the public financing system because it will look so self-interested for incumbents to raise their limits and couple it with something that everyone else already agreed we are not going to vote for today. if the effort is truly designed to improve the public finance and strengthen in for the city, what this is doing is really going to sour supervisor mar's point. this will look so self interested, particularly for those of you that are running for office next year. supervisor wiener: i'll be voting for the ordinance today.

i think that discussing whether to increase supervisorial spending caps as a worthwhile discussion. having just gone through a raise last year, there is a pretty decent argument that the cap is too low. it is a worthwhile discussion. supervisor kim: i want kim: -- i want to thank supervisor kim for raising the discussion. the two have nothing to do with each other. if we have a part of ordinance that all we can tell is patently unconstitutional, i don't like that it is. i think the supreme court was wrong, but they've ruled we should repeal it. i will