say thank you, because it was just last wednesday we asked for a quick turnaround in helping us revise and upgrade the agreement presented to us. i think some improvement has been made. i appreciate that. and i want to thank my office for helping take part in that negotiation. and i think supervisor came for her support. -- thank supervisor kim for her support. in terms of what is today, we realize the agreement must be solidified by october 11. what is attached is a community benefits agreement. so this is the proper time to move the whole enchilada. i ask one zip code to be added. i ask that you also add 117.

the rest comports with our interest, i think, in trying to at least take care, for those in the film more western addition, who are struggling to bring back attention in a jazz historical way -- i believe this institution can add to that. >> i also want to thank supervisor chu, who advised that they and service if they do not comply in the community benefits. we were able to negotiate that in this process. supervisor mirkarimi: that is a good point. i will not go into all the details, but it has been impressive. >> thank you very much. supervisor chu: i just wanted to make a comment about why this item came out of committee without recommendation. overall, it is a new type of program we have been using in

the city. typically, we use redevelopment credits, but this is a new market tax credit. it allows san francisco to use tax credit to attract capital investments in to certain neighborhoods. one reason it was scheduled so quickly is there was a timing issue with potentially lose in other funders for the committee. we scheduled it in committee, but did not yet have a budget analyst report, so we moved it without recommendation pending the report. since that time, you have received the report. it came out yesterday. supervisor kim made amendments. one of my concerns is the city would be on the hook, that there is indemnity. what risk will we be taking? previously, it would be the redevelopment agency indemnifying a contract. currently, it is the san francisco general fund. after conversations, i have

learned the risk is minimal. it had to do with whether our city department heads and the redevelopment agency -- if there is fraudulent activity that happens. for the most part, many of the items that would constitute a recapture -- if we were not in compliance with one or two of the items, we would have time to fix that. because the risk is very low, because the project is positive in terms of community benefit, because we are leveraging $7.60 million in tax credit from the northern community loan fund, $5 million from the property fund, and others, i think this is a good deal for the city. i hope you support it. president chiu: further discussion? supervisor kim: i want to express my support for this

project. i am excited we are bringing a jazz center to san francisco. jazz is an american classical form of art. it is good to honor that next to the symphony, the opera, and other arts institutions. i want to thank supervisor nurjarunu -- mirkarimi. these benefits specifically come for benefits in low income communities. we want to make sure our community benefits agreement is targeted for the communities where jazz has historically been a large part of the history and tradition. i appreciate your work on that. i am excited to see this project open, i believe next year, in the fall. president chiu: is there further discussion? can we take these items same house, same call? without objection, this is adopted as amended. >> item 23 is from the city

operations and neighborhood services committee, without recommendation, an ordinance amending the administrative code to prohibit limited services pregnancy centers from making false statements to the public about their services. president chiu: is there anything you want to say about this measure? supervisor cohen: thank you, president. i am still collecting myself over here about item 11. i would like to move for a continuance. president chiu: to what date? supervisor cohen: one week. president chiu: that would be the 18th -- two weeks, given we are not here next week. supervisor farrell: i would like to be added as a co-sponsor. president chiu: unless there is an objection, this item will be continued to october 18.

item 24. >> a resolution responding to the judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations in the civil grand jury report entitled "hiring practices of the city and county of san francisco," urging the acceptance of the findings and recommendations through the department heads. president chiu: any discussion? without objection, same house, same call? this resolution is adopted. >> item 25, responding to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations contained in the report "san francisco's ethics commission -- the sleeping watchdog." supervisor elsbernd: i think i have been informed -- i know i have been informed that there is a mistake in the file in front of us, and the committee

disagreed with the recommendation, recommendation four. excuse me. finding four. no? recommendation number four. president chiu: supervisor makes a motion we disagree with that finding, which is my recollection of what happened in committee. supervisor avalos: i will second that motion, and that is the correct representation of what happened in committee. president chiu: the motion has been made and seconded. without objection, the amendment will be made. on the underlying resolution, as amended -- supervisor elsbernd: just to be consistent, recommendation 7, which the committee agreed to, to maximize transparency and broadcast meetings on sfgov

television, i like the previous item, where there was a recommendation to hire a new employee. you put in language that suggested we agree with this legislation, subject to our typical budget process and insuring dollars are available. i would like to see that language year. i do not like to write a blank check. i would suggest we amend the resolution to include language similar to item 24, which says we agree with recommendation no. -- number seven, subject to the budget process. supervisor campos: something related to this -- i am introducing today an ordinance that would require the ethics commission meetings to be broadcast on -- be broadcast on

sfgtv. obviously, whatever is done must be within the confines of the budget. it is my hope and believe this is such a priority that the ethics commission should move forward. my understanding is they are already committed to doing that. i do not know that i object to what supervisor elsbernd is saying, but i do know -- do not know whether the ordinance changes that. supervisor mirkarimi: i want to remind folks we have passed legislation where we compel that everything of commissions that are not televised car audio stream to -- are audio streamed now. it has taken a long time to get that up and running. the ultimate goal is to broadcast on tv, but we audio

stream all the important ones, like ethics. president chiu: there is a motion they should be subject to -- supervisor elsbernd: on page two, line 19, add the clause, taken from the work on item 24, that says "within the constraints of the budget." if we are going to do it on one, we should do it on the other. president chiu: without objection, the motion passes. supervisor avalos: actually, i would like to keep it -- i do not want to support that language. i would like to go to roll call vote. i think it has been before us over and over again in this body whether to televise the ethics commission. a lot of us have said it should be. i think we should make that statement clear. it always comes down to a

question of whether we have money. i think we should make that determination. but i like the language without the amendment. president chiu: with that, i think supervisor avalos would like to rescind that last boat. seconded by supervisor elsbernd. on the motion to amend, is there further discussion? if i could speak for a moment, i absolutely support our colleagues that want to make sure these meetings are televised, and i understand we are going to find the budget to do that. i think it is appropriate, what supervisor elsbernd has stated, but i am also supporting supervisor campos's legislation. supervisor campos: i understand

what supervisor avalos is saying, but i do not think it prevents us from moving forward to ensure these are televised. i think the ordinance i am introducing will get us to that. but i certainly appreciate the perspective. supervisor avalos: i just think it makes a more definitive statement without the extra language. i have been asked over and over again about whether the ethics commission meetings should be televised. i just want to make it clear. president chiu: on the motion to amend? 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: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye.

>> there are 10 ayes, one no. president chiu: the motion to amend passes. on the underlying emotion, a roll-call vote. -- motion, a roll-call vote. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: adopted as amended. >> item 26, acknowledging and accepting the union square

business improvement district gift of a, not -- of a promenade. president chiu: why don't we skip over our special orders at 4:00? and moved to -- move to the non-controversial item 43. >> this was referred to the board without recommendation as a committee report. it amends the administrative code to clarify that only amounts actually paid to provide employee health care services shall satisfy the employer expenditure requirements of the health care security ordinance. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i guess yet another unanimous court -- vote at the board of supervisors. this item has been before us

many times, debated over and over again. i am going to spare the discussion -- i am happy to engage in the discussion, but i believe the facts are clear. we introduced the original legislation in may of this year. this has had a number of hearings, not only at the government audit committee, but at the health commission, the small business commission, and the board. people have tried to complicate this issue, but it is simple. it is about protecting the right of workers to have health care. it is about protecting consumers. i would simply ask for a vote. before i do that, i want to make a clarifying amendment. it is an amendment that clarifies that when we talk about the termination of these accounts -- the closing of these

accounts happening 18 months after termination of employment -- clarifying that it is a definitive amount of time, at 18 months past employment, whether or not there is activity in the account. that is in response to a number of concerns that have been raised by the business community. i want to make sure there is certainty and clarity on that. on the spirit of compromise that has guided our approach, i make a motion to amend the legislation along the lines of this document that i am circulating to all of you, which makes it clear that the accounts will be closed 18 months passed termination of employment. i make that motion. president chiu: is there a second? seconded by supervisor farrell.

any objection to the motion to amend? without objection. supervisor farrell: i will keep my comments short, because the writing is on the wall with the amount of co-sponsors. for those of us who will be voting against this today, it is not because we do not recognize the need to cure what ails us, or that there are problems with the current ordinance. i will speak for everyone in saying it is about protecting jobs. for me, our report we received in city hall about potentially losing up to 400 jobs in san francisco is unacceptable. a job killer is not something i want to support. i wish it had gone through more of a process. but we are where we are. it will be interesting to see where we go with this, legislatively. i appreciate what supervisor chu has introduced, and mayor

lee. i look forward to the dialogue, going forward. supervisor weiner: one of the great things about having passed a health care security ordinance to the board several years ago, instead of passing it on the ballot, which has happened with some other pieces of complicated economic regulation, it is it gives us enormous flexibility as the time for change -- as the times change or loopholes become apparent -- to fix those, and to do it in a way where we are bringing everyone to the table, working with labor, the business community, large businesses, small businesses, unions, and to find something that works economically and protect the values we cherish.

that is this opportunity. there is a way to fix this loophole, and to do it in a way that does not unnecessarily harm businesses, particularly small and midsize businesses. it has been disappointing to me that the middle ground that president pi -- chiu has been advocating, that i have been advocating -- that it has not happened. we have lines drawn in the sand. i appreciate supervisor campos's dialog and changes, but it is not enough. i continue to support the position that we fix this loophole in a way that works for all involved, including workers and businesses, where not

everybody gets everything they want, but we are able to address the issue. i will not be supporting the ordinance today, and i will be supporting a future effort we have all been talking about to address this in what i believe is a more reasonable way. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. i just want to follow up a little bit on supervisor weiner's points as one of two members of this board that served during the passage of the health care security organs. that process was extraordinary. we work with everybody. i was one of the last people who agreed to support it. labor and community representatives came to talk to me. how many visits do you think i got on this? not one. the process on this is not comparable.

whether you have a good process or bad process -- i just want to make the comparison is nowhere close. when the sponsor of the legislation tables their own item right before we go on recess, and that motion passes 9-2 -- it was safe for me to assume it was not going to get jammed through after that. i think a lot of other people recently assumed that. i think there is a question of timing, and the elephant in the room. there are a lot of people who may disagree with this point. but i do not think it is a coincidence there is a mayor's race five weeks from today. it is what it is, but let us not say this has been a great process comparable to the original legislation. that was a great model. i give a lot of credit for that.

there is not any credit to the process here. this does poor service to the issue of process. i do think supervisor -- thank supervisor campos for making mention of the hearing at the small business commission. i will add that they unanimously rejected this item. not a single vote from the small business commission. that was not the case when we pass universal health care. we are not talking big business downtown. small businesses, the people hurt in the most, unanimously opposed this. the last piece -- working on the pension issues, we spent eight months. that is a billion dollars sacrifice for labor. we spent eight months getting there, and we are not quite there. this measure, should it be approved, is half a billion for the business community, and it

will be thrown through with very little discussion, very little discussion. $50 million a year times 10 is half a billion dollars for business over the next 10 years. look at this process. not the best way to encourage jobs. not the best way to encourage a business climate in san francisco. i really think if the intent is to fix this, we can do a lot better. supervisor campos: i heard from a number of colleagues who asked me to keep the presentation short, because there has been a lot of debate. what is interesting about the discussion of the process is that everyone has a right to their opinion. i think assembly member amiano would have a different perspective in terms of the process we have followed, and the five months we have introduced this legislation. there are two points that at the

end of the day come down to explaining why this is the right approach to fix what everyone acknowledges is a serious problem. i point out that for quite some time folks in the chamber of commerce and the business community were not saying there was a loophole. in fact, the word loophole was not being used for some time. i am glad that now people admit a loophole exists. but there are two points that go to the heart of why this is the right approach, and why, notwithstanding the efforts to modify and compromise, there are fundamental differences of opinion. one has to do with whether or not we actually cap the amount of money that a consumer pays for and an employee is entitled to when it comes to health care. the chamber has proposed that we cap that amount at four

quarters, or one year. the problem that many of us, including a coalition of labor and business, have with that approach is that if you cap the amount that is accumulated in these accounts, it means that at the most an employee who is lucky enough to accumulate the entire amount, $4,300, is only able to accumulate $4,300. that is a problem, because if you look at the cost of health care in san francisco, you are talking about a situation where very little could be provided to that employee if that is the only amount available to them. the average night at a hospital in san francisco is $20,000. the average mri in san francisco costs $7,875.

$4,000 would not cover any of that. if a woman gets pregnant and wants to have a normal delivery in san francisco, assuming there is no see section -- c-section, that woman has to pay $16,097. the amount of coverage would not cover that. god forbid you have kidney stones or a urinary tract infection in san francisco. that is $40,000. i personally believe that what consumers are paying, as consumers are being charged to pay -- the expectation is that workers will have basic coverage. i do not think you can say basic, adequate coverage is being provided, when all you are giving is $4,000. that is the first fundamental difference of opinion. there are those of us who believe it is not right and does

not make sense from a public policy standpoint to tell a full-time worker you cannot accumulate more than $4,000, given what health care costs in san francisco. that is the first thing. the second thing is that my proposal is the only proposal which requires that when a consumer pays money, as they do at restaurants, that every cent the consumer pays is spent on health care. i believe that when you go to a restaurant and the owner makes a representation to you as a customer that they are going to provide health care to the workers of that restaurant, that every cent that you pay on that bill should go to health care, as represented. mine is the only proposal that does that. this is not just about protecting workers. it is about consumer protection. the law is very clear. you should meet the

representations'. you should fulfill the representations' you make to consumers. -- you should fulfill the representations made to consumers. i hear from san franciscans who are shocked that money does not go to health care, but is pocketed by these businesses. i do not think that is right. in a sense, those of us who are taxpayers in san francisco and go to these restaurants are paying twice. not only are we paying as talks -- as customers, but as taxpayers. when a worker does not get health care, the worker goes to s.f. general, and the taxpayer must foot the bill. those are the fundamental differences of opinion. that is why this coalition is moving forward. we have tried to negotiate. we have met many times with the business community. at the end of the day, there is a fundamental difference of

opinion. i believe that at the end of the day this legislation not only complies with the letter, but the spirit of the original law, which is why i am proud to have support of the original author of the ordinance, tom amiano. supervisor avalos: i would like to thank supervisor campos for bringing this measure back. i was with a lot of community and labor organizations that worked on the original ordinance passed in 2006. if we had known this would be an issue, that there was a potential loophole, we would have made sure it was closed at that time. i look at this as fulfilling the original promise of the health care security ordinance. i will be supporting the measure. i think it is important also to say that a lot of the work, the fund is being developed, -- funds