critical moment for us and i would like to support sarah from americans for a safe access end of that they do have representation of a vote. martin oliver has always been appreciated by the patient advocacy community and his balancing efforts. and of like to support the doctor for not only having the necessary medical input, but noting that he is the only physician willing to work with me when i went to bat for low- income patients and veterans that could not afford a doctor's visit. no other doctor would work with me.

>> a good afternoon, supervisors. i currently holds the no. 1 on the task force. i am the elected spokesperson. i am here to say that i appreciate every single applicant that has come before you today. they have all contributed and done a great job. i have sent e-mail to all of you listing who i strongly support. 42, i strongly support hunter. for seat 4, i strongly support carol who is not here before us today. and leonard and canada. i think they would all be great editions. i strongly support martin's reappointment at sarah's reappointment. i am very grateful that the doctor has decided to apply and i strongly support his application, too. i can send of things about the brand to has been a tireless advocate for the low-income

patients and has made significant contribution to the medical taskforce in the form of a proposal for a low-income cultivation garden that is included in the annual report. i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> my name is paul and i support in-house marquis. he is a good friend of mine. he is a hard worker. and i also support kenand bre-- ken and brent. >> the evening, board of supervisors. i want to state that i stand in support of sera, martin, dr., and can.

i also wanted to support marquis ausby. for the past year-and-a-half, i have not seen him as a meeting. he has been diligent in supporting the task force. he has been taking on extended roles and volunteering. >> i have been a patient since 2000. i have been a caregiver for others since 1976. i have known lots of germany -- a terminally ill people that needed medical cannabis. been around the task force meetings and stuff, the different committees, i have

noticed that the consistency of marquis ausby nd ken -- and ken lima, i also see their work and compassion with the other patients, and i recommend that both of them be appointed to seek to end for accordingly. >> i am here to support the candidates sarah schrader, marqquis ausby and more. they are candidates i have known and trusted for years. kenneth lima is my cousin and the way he took people -- and

took care of people in hospice care, i was extremely humbled. one of the people he took care of that the veterans hospital had $1,000 stolen from him by the nurses and he stepped up and helped him with issues that he faced by not even having some basic needs met by the nurses. it was really appalling the way he was treated. i think of all these other people in these hospitals and i shudder to think that they need someone like my cousin to be there for them. that is all i wanted to say. >> i am just actually appear because i know that everybody who is applying for to be a part of this is passionate in one way or the other about that a self

canada's rights and protections. so i would say, i don't know, created position for everyone. i have worked side-by-side with marquis. i know what he has done and the commitment he has had to the movement and protecting our rights. i have been a protest lithium and some of the other candidates. i support them all, but i wanted to let you know my thoughts. >> my name is louis, i am a patient for about six years now. and i highly recommend marquis ausby. i have personal experience as a recipient of the work that he

does with the access of love, he is at all the meetings, it is very supportive of people, medical canada's patients, and i have had a problem with that like all of us have. i have gotten to see that, i can't think of anybody more qualified. as far as all the other person's, i can very much recommend each and everyone of them for the other seats. supervisor kim: are there any other speakers for public comment? public comment is now closed. i do want to thank all the members of the public that came out for this item has yet to the applicants. how want to concur with one of the public speakers, fred.

i think every advocate is very passionate and you can see that in the application and through the letters that we received on your behalf. it is a very passionate community, and we have a lot of great individuals for these seats. we do have the number of seats where there is only one applicant. including two of which that would be real appointments. i like to see if we can move forward martin olive and sara schrader, brent, and tehe doctor. i think that -- we appreciate them for applying again. i know that the task force is a huge time commitment. i know that there are multiple committees even within this task force. for applicants that we are not able to put on today, i think

several of you are already involved on committees. there are other ways to be involved with this task force. i think there will be a lot of work next year in terms of what the future of the taskforce is going to mean. diversity is a big issue for me, it is something i like to see. i know that we don't have tremendous diversity, it is something that i have been weighing in terms of looking at the applicants. i am highly impressed by mr. hollyman and mr. ausby. your very clearly qualified in your experience and background. very strong community support. we have gotten a ton of letters on your behalf and you have come to my office several times. i appreciate your persistence in your interest in the sea.

i would like to support mr. ausby for seat number two. in seat number four, mr. watkins was not here today but i was impressed by him a couple weeks ago. i know he commutes from sacramento but has been incredibly active serving patients. and kenneth lima, your tireless dedication to patients is great. it is nice to know that you are related. i would be leaning toward supporting mr. watkins today. any thoughts? supervisor elsbernd: sure. obviously, no problems with 6, 8, and 10. i fall on the other side from seat 2 and 4. i was impressed with leonard

watkins, but i think it is a mistake to choose someone from sacramento. sacramento is a big commute in this is a very active task force. to ask someone -- not to ask him, but to reject a qualified sentences than for someone that far away and think is a bit of a mistake. as cq, i agree with you on diversity. it is diversity of opinion. what i see a lot, if you're not part of the click, you are not allowed. we have seen the click speak for one candidate and not for another candidate who, if you look at the rest of may, is a super qualified and has a great background and would probably agree with every position put forward. we don't know.

having someone with a divergent point of view or coming from a different background than everybody else that is part of the process is probably a good thing. obviously i am speaking about mr. holliman. i will leave it to you to figure out where you want to go. supervisor wiener: i think there was a mistake here. supervisor kim: i think we can do this without opposition in terms of moving forward martin olive, sarah, brent, and the doctor. thank you for being here. we have to applicants for c two and two applicants for a seat for. we have hunter holliman and

marquis ausby for seat two. ansupervisor wiener: you expresd your preference for mr. ausby and mr. watkins? supervisor kim: i do like everybody who applied, so i understand where supervisor elsbernd is coming from as well. i know from talking to folks that they have been an almost every meeting. members of the public at commented on that. >> i think i willg go for mr. watkins. seat two is a hard one, but

based on what i have read, i will go with mr. holliman. supervisor kim: ok, so what we have moving forward here as a recommendation than from the committee will be mr. holliman for seat two and for -- >> [inaudible] supervisor kim: i'm ok with doing it as one package. mr. watkins for seat four. >> [inaudible] supervisor kim: ok. we can move that forward with recommendations. i really wanted to thank mr. ausby and mr. lima.

i know you have spent a tremendous amount of time and are very active on the task force. we had a very difficult decision in front of us and i would love to see everyone moved forward as well. thank you for your time. we can do that without opposition. >> would you like to waive the residency requirement? >> in motion to waive the residency for mr. watkins. >> so moved. supervisor kim: without opposition. we will be moving forward visa applicants. unholy can do that without opposition. thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> now it is going to go to the rec and park commission to do final design approvals. >> is it a ceqa thing? >> there will be a ceqa process. >> is there going to be a food truck? >> i introduce legislation so that they can move it on to the streets. it is a cut out at nineteenth and dolores.

that is a separate thing. on the web site, there is information about it. but the final design, you can call my office if you can't find it. supervisor kim: at this time, we will be moving into closed session. do we have a motion for this? without objection.

supervisor kim: the meeting is now adjourned.

president chiu: good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting. could you call the roll? supervisor avalos: present. supervisor campos: present. president chiu: present. supervisor elsbernd: present. supervisor farrell: present. supervisor mar: present

supervisor mirkarimi: present. supervisor wiener: present. mr. president, you have a quorum? >> thank you. ladies and gentleman, could you join me in the pledge of allegiance? >> into the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. president chiu: 2 we have any communications? >> i have no communications. president chiu: could you read our 2:00 special order? >> the first item will be the formal policy discussion between mayor ed lee and the board. at the mayor may i address the board for up to 5 minutes. then he will hear from the supervisors from district 1, 3, 5, and nine who will present

their own questions. president chiu: mr. mayor, welcome back to question time. i want to congratulate you on your election last week. if you would like to address the board, i will give you the opportunity to do that. mayor lee: good afternoon, supervisors. good afternoon to our public. we emerge from this election season, and i'm very excited to work with you again, supervisors, and i commit to you i will do everything to continue our solid working relationship and i would like to, as soon as we can, schedule individual meetings, and your welcome -- not only for question and answer time -- but to call on my office anytime. with that, i am eager to get right to the questions. thank you. president chiu: our first question will be from our colleague from district 1. supervisor mar: thank you. recently we held a meeting

looking into the creation of a municipal bank. san francisco currently divide its 200 bank accounts between three massive firms -- wells fargo, union bank of carolina -- union bank of california, and bank of america. the city needs to look to its own assets and strengths and reinvest locally. as you know, it is not a new idea. it was a demand of the 1975 san francisco community congress, and the board of supervisors commissioned a legislative analyst report at the request of supervisor matt gonzales in 2001. i municipal bank eventually invest millions in low-interest loans for alternative forms of development in san francisco, prioritizing nontraditional business models. at a time when millions of individuals are taking their

money out of large banks and putting them into local institutions, it seems necessary for the city to consider this option as well. in addition, throughout most of the city, including all of the neighborhood commercial districts, formula retail stores and restaurants are considered conditional uses. this means the must be approved by the planning commission on the case by case basis. this gives residents more control of the development of their communities. however, the planning department is interpreting the formula of retail lot to nearly exclude banks and other entities not specifically listed in the formula of retail law, despite the fact that formula retail is defined with reference to a catchall category -- sales and service, retail. all of these, including banks should be covered. do you support the creation of a municipal bank for our city? mayor lee: thank you.

you covered a lot of ground on your question. i will try to answer in the allotted time. first, let me address the neighborhood commercial corridors. i share the conviction of the voters and the board. that formula retail control helped create the environment for small businesses to thrive. our neighborhoods are defined by the unique commercial corridors that are built around them, and i think we need to protect the distinct culture and feel of each part of our city. i also share respect for the law that the planning department and the board of appeals have applied to the issue of conditional uses for retail establishments. if we want to change that law with straws on citywide rezoning, and proposition g in 2007, we have that opportunity.

we are restricting all banks. not just formula retail banks. well we can do more, we must keep in mind that -- while we can do more, we must keep in mind that while we may be restricting any bank to formula retail standards, including credit unions. banks can be in commercial orders providing access to communities with traditionally low rates a banking. but the city's formula retail controls are undeniably a work in progress. within the last four years, there have been a tense to expand them on nine separate occasions. -- there have been at chance to expand on nine separate occasions. turning to your second question regarding municipal banks, and of this is something the board has been considering it recently, and i understand the motivation for this.

i would also consider the fact that the state law explicitly prohibits us from doing something like this. we need to investigate why the state fund did not in the public interest to set up banking institutions. i would also want a thorough analysis of the unintended consequences of a policy like this. i know the city of los angeles the about the same issue. they would face $20 million in termination fees. they would also have to refinance much of their debt with a much higher debt costs, putting a lot of their capital plants in jeopardy. i understand logical reasons you're talking about this, but we have to make sure the realities of our financial picture are taken into account as well. president chiu: i will ask our next question. earlier this year, i requested that the budget and legislative analyst perform a review of the

frequency and cost to the city of contract order changes for large construction and professional service contracts. the report found that half of the contracts had modifications, which totaled almost $300 million, which was close to the size of the city's budget shortfall last year. the report also found that there is less public scrutiny of contracts in our city than other jurisdictions, and contract information is not kept in a uniform manner by various departments. i would like to know what your reaction as to the findings in the report and whether you agree that we need to reform the way we approved, monitor, and report these contracts? mayor lee: thank you for that question. i am unsure whether the report tells the entire story. additionally, i have not seen the report. when i know from my time as the director of public works, not all change orders are bad.

if you move forward with this legislation, i would urge a word of caution, something i learned from me dpw days. is important to separate construction, nonprofit, and i.t contracts. . for construction contracts, there are categories changes go into. these categories include unforeseen site conditions. this can be a construction site that turns out to include unknown utilities or pipes and unexpected locations. and by the way with all the focus on utilities, you know as well as i do that people and companies do not know what is lying underneath even though they put their. second, owner-initiated changes. imagine a contractor discovers the adjacent pipeline is leaking. we ask them to repair that leak. category 3 -- areas in

domitian's. construction drawings and specifications for some projects over 1000 pages long -- as much as the city strives for perfection, there are some conflicts, and i agree our goal should be zero mistakes. it is for these reasons that most construction products have a 10% contingency fund. the decision to change the field has to be timely. if not, it could cost the city more money. the longer we delay a project and approvals, the more we will pay and increased overhead costs. our construction contract in task force agreed with this principle. study after study -- from this task force, the grand jury, the comptroller, legislative