supervisor chiu: i am happy to hear that your department is willing to commit to a reusable bag program. this is something that i absolutely support and i am glad the you will be able to find the resources to get that done. one question the continued to rise from merchants on what folks would do, once the effective date of this legislation kicked in in october, there were confusions around what this legislation would permit. what would they do these of the merchants who do not have a lot of plastic bags that they can use up? >> if and when this is passed, the first thing that we will do is raise awareness amongst merchants about the implementation date. we will be encouraging merchants to use up their existing inventory.

the ones with excess inventory, we can work with merchants on a one-on-one basis to provide exemption. this is something that we have done with the food service where band, as well as other pieces of legislation. we have worked to make sure that money that's has been invested delicate wasted. supervisor chiu: this legislation has been in the works for months. i think that at this point, after several rounds of amendments, we are ready to move forward. i hope that the board acts today. supervisor olague: i have a few talking points that i have prepared. i will read them verbatim. i am pleased to sponsor the ban

on check out plastic bags. it would extend the ban on non- composed of all plastic bags to retail stores and encourage customers to reuse their bag. this will dramatically reduce the impact of hundreds of millions of disposable bags currently used in the city. the wind up as litter on the streets, trash in the day, and the harm marine life. it is a costly nuisance in our waste processing system. as stewards, it is our responsibility to care for and impose safeguards, as we did in the adoption of the bird save building standards. i appreciate the response of the department of the environment to the concerns for my colleagues regarding outreach in the under- represented communities. the department reached out to many communities in all

districts and contacted many merchant groups as well. still, this reminds us of the work that we must continue to do regarding outreach to the community's most impacted by the decisions we deliberate on here. i believe that we should consider adopting guidelines for to our most under- represented communities. our office will continue to work toward this goal. one of the questions we have heard is -- why charge 10 cents? experience around the world and here in california shows that the only effective way to change the behavior of consumers is by instituting a charge. in los angeles, stores have seen an 85% reduction in bag used from charging 10 cents. this is common practice in many european and scandinavian countries.

bringing it back to the market is part of the culture. our city economists said that retailers must be the prime beneficiary of the legislation. in addition, the reduction in plastic and paper bag use will reduce overhead costs, directly increasing the process. although a lot of hype has been given to the issue of green jobs, i hope that this legislation holds promise for spurring new opportunities for green businesses, creating new green jobs and stimulating the green economy in san francisco. the new market opportunities will exist for reusable bags. recycled content paper and plastic bags. hopefully this conversation will continue through the appropriate bodies, like the mayor's office of workforce development and other city departments.

the uses san francisco-based company that has operated within the city for generations to manufacture its reusable canvas bags. the department has also identified a local business market that sells a wide variety of bags that need to ordnance definitions of a reasonable bag. i am pleased to share that a number of other california cities and counties have more than doubled to 38 that have similar legislation. this includes all of alameda county, who voted two weeks ago, while others just had their ordnance go into effect. the passage of this legislation is a crucial next step in ensuring our responsibility, as well as our commitment to zero waste goals by 2020, and in expanding the local economy.

time for san francisco to catch up and continue to show environmental leadership. i urge a yes vote today. thank you. supervisor chiu: supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: with this legislation first came up last year, i had some serious concerns about it. others of my colleagues did as well, regarding the impact on small business, lower income people, etc. at that point, it was very tempting to go into up to -- opposition. the other option, which i and others on the board chose to do, was to say -- how can we make this a better piece of legislation? we all share the goal of reducing a particular plastic in

our waste stream and encouraging the reuse of bags. i tried to improve the legislation and what to thanked my colleagues and the department for excepting a series of amendments that i made. most importantly, reducing the price from 25 cents to 10 cents, expanding some of the exemptions. i think that it made a much better piece of legislation. i know that there is some resistance to this. particularly around the bag charge. i will say that i have gotten almost no push back on the elimination of single use plastic bags. there is a very broad support for that. i believe that the city will adjust to this legislation and it will be a better and more sustainable place for it. although i've had concerns, i

have had -- i find this to be a much better ordinance that it was at the outset. supervisor kim: i know that i was one of the voices that ask for a continuance back in december. i wanted to reiterate that i have always supported this ordinance. we just need to think in the long term. we need to get rid of our single use plastic bags and decrease our consumption of bags in general. personally, i carry around canvas bags wherever i go. i know that i am a broken record on process, and i will talk about that again on item number 16, but i think it is important that outreach happens prior to legislation, not after. it is a backwards way of thinking to let people know once

the decision has been made. i am appreciative of the work that has gone into the outreach. i really appreciate the department of the environment and their staff, to have worked with appear -- who have worked with our in mint -- our office in particular. at least they know about it and have the opportunity to give us feedback on how to make it work. not everyone is going to agree with this ordinance, but at least we have heard from them on how to make it stronger. i am super impressed by the groundwork. not just calling and e-mail in, i think it is great to see and i hope that that is really more the standard for other city- wide legislation in the future. i think that in the long term but will be a lot more buying in

the process. a really want to thank all of the work that happened around this. the supervisors that work with a committee of individuals for a while, i was happy to support this. supervisor mar: thank you. i think that with the supervisor and presidents amendments, with the additional outreach from the department of the environment, and what others have mentioned, and thank you to melanie, this is a great piece of legislation. i wanted to thank robert from supervisor mercury me's office. this is better legislation than was just mentioned.

importantly, it helps to change the culture in san francisco, to reduce reliance on plastic bags and increase everyone's reliance on reusable bags. it really helped to change the culture and put a consequence on it as well. the 10 cents charged production from 25 cents is wise as well. i wanted to say that -- as many from the public testimony from months ago, in terms of ecology agencies, to the sierra club and many other groups, i kept emphasizing that the cost of

litter, sewer, cleaning the bay, added up to $500 per person, per year. this is a wise measure that helps us to achieve the zero waste and i am proud to support this as amended. thank you. supervisor chu: i just want to thank the departments and various individuals for all of the amendments that have come forward. particularly i am glad that we have reduced the cost of the component and and glad that we have increased the number of exemptions to make them much more realistic in terms of people interacting with the things that they buy. i just wanted to say that i do not think that this legislation was as easy for me. often, we want to legislate social goods. part of it is -- how do you

balance that with the experience of your residence there. we have the feeling that the city uses nickels and dimes on every single thing. so, this is not as easy of a vote, in my mind. looking at what it means for small businesses, the one reason why i have decided to support this item is that i believe that a small, modest amount will create behavior change and remind people that they can do something that is simple to help the environment, and in addition there is a positive job impact that i am also appreciative of. i do not believe that our outreach is complete. i think that implementation will be the trickiest and it is about -- incumbent upon us in the

department of the environment to reach out and explain it the inventions in a way that is easy to understand. i think that that is the responsibility and the department of the environment will take that message to heart. if not, there will be a lot of confusion and bad will created with that. supervisor chiu: thank you. colleagues, can we take this as amended with the same house, same call? that will be the order. item number 11, please. >> item number 11. ordinance: 1) approving regulations for jane warner plaza at the intersection of castro and 17th streets and harvey milk plaza adjacent to the intersection of castro and market streets; and 2) authorizing official acts in connection with the regulations. supervisor chiu: roll-call, please. >> [roll-call vote]

there are 6 ayes and 4 nos. supervisor chiu:: the ordinance is finally passed. item number 12. >> item number 12. ordinance amending ordinance no. 218-10 to revise the findings supporting the waiver of chapter 6 of the administrative code for a conditional land disposition and acquisition agreement between the city and the san francisco museum of modern art for the design and construction of the new fire station to be located at 935 folsom street, san francisco, california. supervisor kim: thank you. this is an ordinance to amend the previously approved agreement to construct a firehouse. as many of you know, this will replace fire station number one, currently on howard street and

the south of market. as has been in the item, there were additional expenses in the final design. the san francisco fire department identified additional improvements that would cost $400,000. the original agreement stated the city and county would not pay for any of the cost on the bill out of this station. it does not happen often that we get to work with a private partner on building a new fire station and unfortunately there were a number of important things left out of the first design. they were able to identify funds for the capital funds and i ask for your support on this site -- ordinance. supervisor chiu: colleagues, roll call vote. >> item number 12, [roll-call vote]

there are 10 ayes. supervisor chiu: the ordinance is passed on the first reading. item number 13. >> item number 13. ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code, chapter 16, article xv, of part 1, section 16.703 regarding board approval of health service system plans and contribution rates. supervisor chu: i think this is an important item. i wanted to give a big amount of appreciation to our board and catherine, who is the department had, in addition to her hard- working staff. we saw rates for the health care expenses, anywhere from as high as 20% + increase for blue

shield. the department really worked to bring down the rates. at kaiser, we saw the rates go from 6.9% to 4.5%, and blue shield down to a 3.2%. at the city plan from 23% to 11.9%. many different things had to be done to bring the rates down. i know that the department will continue to work hard. the budget is over $700 million in the budget for health care provision. it is a very important piece whenever you see a small percentage increase. i wanted to thank katherine in her hard-working staff in the hopes that the colleagues would support this decision today. supervisor campos: having served on that board for four years,

this may be illicit increase we have seen in a long time. one other point, i want to let this opportunity go. we had a very good discussion. the only thing that changes behavior is a fee. the city needs to consider that when they consider their health plan behavior. if they are truly going to change and leave in a healthier lifestyle, saving us money in yen, we need to begin discussing charging fees for some behavior and emergency room visits. things like that, we need to encourage wellness. it is one of the key things, if we are ever want to bring down the health-care liability. maybe two separate issues, but frankly the philosophy is the same.

i hope that it is one that the mayor's office and department of human resources takes to heart as every contract comes up in the next few months as an issue that is brought to the negotiating table over the next few months. supervisor chiu: colleagues, can we take this item, same house, call? without objection. next item. >> item number 14. resolution establishing the monthly contribution amount to the health service trust fund. supervisor chiu: same house, same call? without objection, the resolution is adopted. item number 15. >> item number 15. resolution accepting bequest by the late leila boroughs, authorizing its expenditure by the mayor's fund for the homeless for the purpose of assisting san francisco's homeless and extending appreciation to ms. boroughs for her gift. supervisor chiu: same house, same call. this resolution is adopted. >> item number 16.

resolution approving site access and use agreement with motorola for the san francisco sites to be used for the bay area 700 mhz public safety broadband spectrum to be managed and operated by the bay area regional interoperable communications systems for a term of 12 years; and making findings, including environmental findings. supervisor chiu: colleagues, any discussion on this item? >> [inaudible] supervisor chiu: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: colleagues, this has been a difficult item to get through the budget and finance committee. i wanted to dollars the work that has been put in on the site access and use agreements. it has been a lot of work and uncertainty about how the rest of the bay area will be voting in on the web system. there is still a lot of questions i have had here that

have been someone answered and not answered. i have been on the fence about what i want to do about this. i wanted to ask a question about the department of emergency management. there was a question asked in the other day, i received it this afternoon and brought it to life, these questions and concerns. there is a letter that we have, someone connected to san jose who discussed the city of san jose, oakland, and santa clara, as part of the system, without yet approving the deal. i want to be clear on what our potential apart -- potential partners are looking to be doing. what they are involved in will be so open. i would rather much of the city,

my impression was that they had not operated and maintained the agreement, but that they were part of the system and would be approving uses of antennas in the city. can you clarify? >> that is correct. there has been a lot of confusion. the santa clara and oakland did not vote on january 19 for the agreement that you were referring to, the bill to own, operate, and maintain. oakland did not vote against it. they did not have the authority to vote for it. they abstained during the vote. all three of those members are members of the bay area joint powers agreement. there are still putting forward

their site as part of the process to have their sights included. i cannot say exactly what they did not vote for it at this time, but there are very involved with the jpa. i know that there sites will be a part of the entire network in the have the option at any time in the future to opt in to the system. supervisor avalos: thank you. one of my remaining questions is -- do we have this act -- 700 mhz system that these antennas would provide? the use for the next several years would be for data. images, video. but not for voice. we will not expected to have the use of a voice for five years. >> non-critical voice, correct. supervisor chiu: -- supervisor

avalos: we are going to see some redundancy in the system. >> we do have an 800 mhz system right now. that is what the first responders use on the scene of an incident to talk to each other. they also use that to communicate with 911. this new system is digital. you are correct, supervisor, in the future we anticipate it becoming a voice system as well. supervisor chiu: -- supervisor avalos: so, be will have some redundancy where we are paying for a voice system that is pushed to talk, as well as a -- as well as another system, where

we will be -- >> i do not consider it a redundant system. can i finish, a supervisor? this new system will be providing different technology and different capabilities and on the 800 mhz system she could communicate to her colleagues about employees. she could not send a missing picture over radio. supervisor chiu: i understand the value of the data system. i do not mean to use the redundancy in a negative way. eventually, we will have options day that there as well. we will be pushing out the

current system to have this other system. while we have them both in place, that will mean increased costs for the city. whether or not i want to support that or not is the main issue. i understand that there is a big investment. $45 million from motorola. another $50 million from congress to help to cover the cost and bedewed of notes that when we will have them or when they will be in praise -- in place. >> to be responsive, with annual

costs to meet -- for the leases and staff time, to keep the system up and running. the bulk of the cost is the infrastructure, this $400 million the vietnam -- that we get to mci and motorola. -- mtia and motorola -- motorola. yes, those will be additional costs. supervisor avalos: i feel like their costs for leases are not so high, but the cost of future devices, seems a tad much. but i do appreciate your coming forward. thank you. supervisor kim: i was not going to speak on this item, if other folks did not, a lot of them

were simply challenging obstacles for a city. in terms of their contract in with a single source contract and demanding thereby putting local where we make a decision in investment in a decision at large -- system at large. i have said my concerns at the budget committee meeting. and i am not convinced that this is the best system for us to go into.