go unaddressed for many years. how the you propose to improve the response to complaints to inspection citations and the enforcement of code violations, and additionally, what strategies can be used to increase the efficiency in addressing these issues and the capacity to take legal action against the egregious property mayor lee: thank you. what we are addressing code enforcement issues, we need to divide the conversation into two conversations -- vacant buildings and occupied buildings. for obvious reasons, we -- within the occupied building category, we prioritize by buildings that pose the greatest risk to health and safety of the

occupants or neighbors. for a vacant buildings, the city provides to pathways -- we give building owners and opportunity to register with our vacant building program. to register, building owners must pay $795 in annual fees and bring their buildings up to code. once registered, we do not enforce any more violations. because of this program, 85% of the buildings on the vacant and the banding building list are registered and in good conditions. for buildings whose owners refuse to register or do not qualify for registration, they can face a fine of almost $7,000. if the building is not up to code, we initiate code enforcement process, which begins with a notice of violation. after issuance of the nov, we work with the owners to quickly and voluntarily solve the problem. this resolves the vast majority of cases.

it also leads to quick, cost- efficient resolutions. but there are always those owners who refuse to and cannot take responsibility. for those owners, we refer them to a director's hearing where we issue an order of abatement if the building is non-compliant. if the owner refuses to cooperate, dbi can refer cases for -- to the city attorney's office. as of the last report to my office, the city attorney has over 100 cases that he has not yet resolved. yet the city attorney continues to build dbi for these cases, discouraging departments from sending additional cases for consideration. my staff has already been talking about code enforcement issues. the leadership understands the need and are willing to work together on better identifying buildings that are structurally

compromise and wrapping up code enforcement. as we move forward with this, let me point out a few things. in this atmosphere of dwindling resources, we will have to prioritize the list of what we can do. given this, i fully support the focus on buildings that impose a fee -- that impose health and safety risk to existing occupancy neighbors. any solutions will have to continue to support this priority, but i'm happy to explore. i want to point out there is a category of homeowners who, due to social or economic reasons, are not able to pay for the repairs necessary to bring the buildings back to full compliance. to address this, the mayor's office administers a program which assists low-income homeowners in bringing their buildings backed into compliance with loans up to $50,000. not enough low-income residents know about this program, so i would their june -- i would urge

you to revise your constituency. thank you. president chiu: that concludes today's formal policy discussions with the mayor. mr. mayor, thank you for being here. at this time, why don't we move to our consent agenda, items to the six. let me again but members of the public know we will have a time for public comment period that will come after item 26. items 2 through 6. >> items 2 through 6 comprise the consent agenda. they will be acted upon by single roll call vote. i must member should object, it will be removed and considered separately. president chiu: roll-call vote on items 2 through 6? >> [roll-call]

there are 11 ayes. these items are adopted in the motions approved. item seven. >> item 7 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to prohibit a limited service pregnancy centers for making false or misleading statements about the services of center offers or performance. supervisor cohen: first, i want is a thank you very much for those of you who have come on board to serve as a co-sponsor for this legislation. i worked very hard on it and would like to acknowledge their many -- the many community members who worked on this of with me and offer the many -- also, the many women, it's a

difficult topic to get women to give voice to, so i wanted to acknowledge and thank them for giving voice to an issue that is sometimes often taboo. i want to remind you the purpose and intent of this ordinance is to protect consumers of pregnancy-related services by prohibiting limited service pregnancy centers from knowingly disseminating false or misleading advertising information about the services they provide. in addition to stipulating a prohibition on false or misleading advertising of pregnancy-related services, this ordinance provides a remedy to the city attorney to enforce the ordinance. by -- prior to filing a lawsuit, the city attorney would be required to give the pregnancy center a 10-day notice and an opportunity to correct the violation by changing its advertising. i would like to take a moment to

address what this ordinance is not and what it does not do. i think there is a lot of misinformation out there. this ordinance does not regulate the licensing of limited service pregnancy centers nor the types of services that can or cannot be provided. it does not require limited pregnancy service centers to post notices in their waiting room detail -- detailing the services they will provide. this legislation has been carefully crafted by our very own professional and competent city attorneys to withhold a legal challenge and it does not trample on anyone groups -- any one organization's first amendment rights. thank you for time. president chiu: any additional discussion? supervisor elsbernd: i rise to explain why i will be opposing this ordinance.

in committee, we sent afford without recommendation. i think we did that unanimously because we felt the committee hearing, there had not been a presentation of the evidence to a problem in san francisco. there was a great deal of evidence for a problem nationally, but we only have two of these centers in san francisco. there were only five or six documentations of people commenting on the web. correct me if i'm wrong, in committee, i believe that was all we had for san francisco. subsequent to that, we received any mail from the sponsor of the legislation that added two additional pieces of information on this item. first was an e-mail from a doctor at san francisco general hospital who reported a situation that she heard from a colleague that she remembered from three years ago.

respectfully, probably not the best piece of evidence. probably the kind of here say that would not be allowed in court. but this is not a court, let's use what we have. what we heard was the situation involves a center that wasn't even like this. i met with the proponents of this legislation has made clear their target is a first resort. first resort is licensed. this is evidence of a situation that had nothing to do with first resort. the second piece of evidence offered into the record yesterday in that e-mail in our public record is the testimony from one woman who came across first resort on a website. she called the number, did not like what she heard and within five minutes had hung up the phone and moved on. there has been no testimony, documentation, no affidavits of any woman, any service, someone

seeking service who has been misled. there is nothing in the record documenting that. what i fear we are doing today is passing a solution in search of a problem. i fully recognize, especially with the report we received that documented the issues in other cpc's are on the country that there may be false advertising around the country. we only have to of the centers in san francisco. i continue to believe after the hearing to weeks ago up to today that the legislative record remains empty. the documentation i believe is necessary to stand up to a cautionary memo sitting on every one of our desks that tells us we have a high burden to cross to get this passed. four cities have passed ordinances like this. three of those cities have seen

those tossed out. the fourth is in the middle of litigation right now. i do not believe the record is sufficient to beat that threshold. i think we are striving again -- the best way to describe my feeling is we're putting forward a solution to a problem that in san francisco has not been documented. [applause] president chiu: i would just like to gently remind folks that we have a role in this chamber that we asked folks not to express support or opposition so we can move at the meeting ford. any further comments? supervisor wiener: i am proud to be cosponsoring this legislation and i will be voting for today. i did meet with the folks from first resort and i appreciate and taking the time to come in

and meet with me. this is not about who is a good person or who is a bad person. this is about san francisco working to protect a woman's right to access reproductive choices. we have seen throughout the country a lot of efforts to overrule roe vs. wade. they cannot do it to the court system or the constitutional amendment system, so instead, we have seen a whole range of ways of denying women access to reproductive services. when you look at what we do have in our record, including marketing material, website information, it is apparent to me this is misleading. and can mislead a woman to

thinking day -- she is going to be receiving a certain services that she is not going to be receding. to me, i think it is appropriate for us to be protecting a woman's right to choose. we are obviously balancing to constitutional rights here. i know we're all very conscious of the first amendment. this has been a narrowly drafted ordinance. i will be supporting it today. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. our into a bank supervisor cohen for bringing this forward. i'm proud -- i -- the necessary evidence when passing something like this, i understand the point, but i believe the author of this ordinance has worked very closely with our legal counsel to make sure this is a piece of legislation that passes legal muster and i will defer to

the judgment of the city attorney's office who was really involved in the crafting of this legislation. with respect to how much evidence of an injury or harm is needed, i think we do have a responsibility to consumers as a whole that when we see language that is misleading, that we take a position and make sure that information is correct. in fact, accurate information is provided to consumers. i don't know that we have to wait until there is an actual injury to make that happen. in terms of the injuries that could come because of this information, i think it is something we have to be mindful of. i can tell you even in progress of san francisco, we still see efforts to intimidate women who are trying to exercise their legal right to choose whether or

not to terminate a pregnancy. i know that in my district, in district 9, one of the most progressive districts in the city, there have been a number of examples in the planned parenthood clinic that open their where individuals have taken upon themselves to intimidate women. the reality is even in san francisco, these problems are rise. we have a responsibility to make sure accurate information is provided and i'm proud to sponsor this legislation. supervisor avalos: thank you. i will be voting in favor of this legislation. i did have a move out of committee without recommendation hoping to get more information that would back the legal record for it. i am not totally satisfied with that but i do want to believe, i do want to support legislation that is fully in favor of a

woman's right to choose and as the overriding concern for me today why i will be supporting this legislation and i want to thank the sponsor for bringing it forward and thank all of you colleagues who are supporting it as well. supervisor kim: i also want to thank supervisor cohen and i am a co-sponsor as well. even if we do not have documentation of women who are misled by potential false advertising, it's an important measure of prevention. i certainly appreciate concern from colleagues about unnecessary legislation. i, myself, do not want to spend our legislative process these on problems that do not exist. i think this is an important enough issue for many of our women in san francisco, and if we are able to prevent women from being misled into coming into pregnancy centers that do not offer all of the choices available to women in their

first trimester, we should set some regulations around that. i appreciate this legislation is different from other ordinances passed in other cities and counties which regulated the clinic itself. this regulates the advertising of the clinic. that difference is important. also, as we know, san francisco can be a model for other cities and counties for legislation that works and is effective in protecting the rights of our citizens. i am hopeful that other cities and counties will look toward supervisor cohen's legislation. supervisor farrell: this has been a tough one for me and i will be supporting the legislation. first, this is not about first resort. i know lot of people have insinuated that. i have a lot of friends involved with the organization and i have great things to say about it.

second, this is a cautionary warning. at the end of the day, i don't have a problem or regulating advertising and saying false or misleading advertising is wrong. i have no problem doing that and why i will be supporting this today. i have seen a lot of evidence in e-mail change going around looking at google search results and algorithms. all lot of that stuff is not controlled by people to advertise. a clear warning -- i think you could go down a very slippery slope. google has a provision against false or misleading advertising. to say that by buying certain key words you are doing false or misleading advertising, you're going after google itself, and we need to take a hard look at the ways we're going to enforce this law going forward, but i will be supporting it today. supervisor chu: i simply want to

thank the co-sponsors as well as the sponsor for bringing this forward. i did take the time to meet with both sides of the issue and i appreciate the time they both spent with me. given some of the comments i've heard from the folks at first resort, want to say what i have heard is a conscious effort to make sure folks are educated about the options are there, but i think this legislation is not one that says whether or not is a bad organization. it's about truth in what people say they're offering. at a stage when someone is at the most vulnerable going in for services, outweighing all the different things before us, and the comments i've heard and the testimony addition to the compelling reason to protect women's choice, i have to say will continue to support this legislation. president chiu: colleagues, any additional discussion? will call vote. >> [roll-call]

there are a a 10yes and 1 no. president chiu: this item is passed on the first reading. >> and ordnance amending the legislation, to clarify only amount that paid to provide employee health care services shall satisfy the employer expenditure requirements of the health care security ordinance. supervisor campos: i was hoping this would be part of the consent agenda. [laughter] i want to first of all thank my colleagues on the government audit and oversight committee for forwarding this matter to

the full board. i don't want to belabor the points that have been made. this legislation was introduced five months ago. i want to once again thank my colleagues who are cosponsoring the legislature -- the legislation. as we are now at a critical point in terms of the history of health care in this country, the rest of the country is following the lead of san francisco in moving toward universal health care. this piece of legislature and insurers san francisco continues to lead the way on the issue of health care -- this piece of legislature insurers san francisco continues to lead the way on this issue of health care. president chiu: any discussion? roll-call vote. >> [roll call]

president chiu: why don't we proceed to the vote -- you want to rescind -- why don't we restart at the vote. i'm sorry i did not see you on the roster. why don't we finish the vote and we can rescinded if you want -- >> [roll-call ] there are six ayes and five nos. president chiu: this ordinance

is finally passed. >> i want to say why i am supporting this particular piece of legislation. i think it's most consistent with the legislation enacted five years ago and is an effective way of closing the loopholes of disproportionately impact of low-wage workers who live in district 10. thank you for bringing this to our attention. this has been an extremely difficult and often times contentious measure. i also want to publicly to the folks on both sides of the aisle on this particular issue that no matter -- i'm not sure where this process will take us. if it ends up on the mayor's desk, either way, i'm here to say i am committed to work -- this is our first, second, probably third step to go into legislation to fill a loophole. and this year to offer my will be continuing to work with the

mayor's office, with the business community, with the small business community as well as with labor leaders in the city and county. supervisor campos: i simply want to add one point out that this legislation was passed. i want to thank my colleagues for their consideration on this item. it is -- i would like to specifically ask the mayor to not veto this legislation. this legislation does about providing -- about fighting economic injustice. he talked about his background today in fighting economic injustice. to me, that means making sure the right of workers to have access to health care is provided and protected. i look forward to continuing to work with the mayor's office and make sure this becomes law.

thank you very much. president chiu: next item, please. >> item 9 is from the land use and economic development committee with our recommendation. an ordinance amending the planning code to create the lombard and scott st. affordable group housing specialist district. president chiu: roll-call. >> [roll-call] there are 10 ayes oneno.

president chiu: the ordinance is finally passed. >> item 10 -- an item amending the code for the city to provide -- for filing economic statements it to death city administrator. president chiu: roll-call. >> [roll-call] there are 11 ayes. item 11 -- an ordinance

authorizing the department of environment to accept and expand at funds in the amount of $100,000 for installing electrical vehicle charging stations. president chiu: this item is passed and the first reading. item 12. >> -- president chiu: same house, same call. item 13. >> a contract amendment for western state oil not to exceed 78 million. thousand dollars. president chiu: same house, same call. the item is adopted. item 14. >> -- >>

hot president chiu: president chiu: same house, same call. the item is adopted. >> item number 15. president chiu: same house, same call. this item is adopted. >> item number 16, authorizing general obligation refunding bonds in an amount not to exceed approximately 1.3 $6 billion. supervisor chu: this item came before the budget and finance committee. we sent that now with authorization for the city to refund the bonds should the interest-rate environment produce savings. however, there is an omission

inadvertently on page 30. you see that item before you. we have copies we have distributed already. i would like to motion we amend into it to include the branch library facilities improvement component. that should read series 2002-be in the amount of $23,135,000. the 2005 series -- that's $34 million as well as the 2008 series, $31,065,000. i would also move that once we have taken the amendments that we refer the items to the budget committee to allow for public comment. president chiu: supervised herchu has made an amendment. we have a second. without objection, the item be amended. we can take the underlying resolution to be amended and adopted. we refer to committee. motion to refer back to committee, without objection, this item