jeopardize in public safety in any way. this is for the safety of protesters and the general public. cities across the country are responding in different ways, and the very real question of strange city resources is a good one. we spent $100,000 of, that -- accommodating protest. we give protesters the ability to continue their protests as we know what is it good -- what is needed and not needed. a march was facilitated -- facilitated by the police department without incident. after receiving requests from participants, the police have clear rules about how to protest with them block. we also made littering

receptacles available, is it -- it is unfortunate that all a small number -- a small number cannot comply with a reasonable request like removing their tents from the public right of way. longstanding loss on the books do not interfere with the right to peaceably protest and occupy space. let me reiterate to the supervisors and the public, i support the spirit of this movement and not believe that the intention is to negatively impact the city in any way. we can support this movement as we have done in the past month safely and with them along. we look forward to continue the support of members to do this. >> the rest is from superb --

supervisor scott weiner. supervisor weiner: we will never truly get people out of their cars without reliable taxi service but this has been over a decade since we significantly improved service. the current levels are inadequate and unacceptable. there will be approximately new -- 85,000 new permits. understanding the california environmental quality act -- analysis may be required to have a larger increase in the number of taxis. how will you make certain that the look into the amount of taxi service. will the support a significant increase in the number of taxi permits.

>> thank you for your sustained attention to the issues of the taxi industry. the taxi system is a critical part of the transit network and a key component to the transportation policy. having a robust taxi system allows people to travel around without having to hold a car. our taxi fleet is a key partner in reducing city-wide carbon emissions. in the past three years, this has resulted in 35,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions savings, the equivalent of taking 400 passenger cars off the road. it is clear that the tax system

has room for improvement. and i have spoken to people who have a hard time getting a taxi when they need one. including senior citizens and those requiring accessible vehicles. how do we fix this? we have to improve service in a way that works for writers and taxi drivers -- rider sas and taxi drivers. this public convenience and necessity study -- it will determine the number of taxis required for an adequate level of service to the growing population of san francisco. we will have stakeholder interviews and the industry best practices, recommending changes in how we calculate the meter

rates, and the contract is expected to be approved and awarded by january 1, 2012, completed by the end of next year. once this is completed, the level of environmental clearance can then be determined. and the mass transit authority will make certain of the adequate funding -- and i know you continue to watch this issue and i am happy to let you know i will be held at any time on this issue. >> the final question will be from supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: good afternoon. the approach to code enforcement includes the department of building inspection and the police department and the city attorney's office.

throughout the city we continually see the vacant and occupied properties with significant housing and other code violations that go unaddressed for months, and quite frankly, in my case they 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 if it ends up on the mayor's desk, either way, i'm here to