for dental, it is a very much the same plan except the we are making a few design changes to incentivize our employees to use in the network dental service providers. vision is the same and we have a new winner in terms of a rfp process. where we have a significant change is the blue shield program. it has been a fully insured program or the city pays for a certain premium for each member. no matter what the cost of the benefits of people going to the hospital or to see a doctor, blue shield covers that because it is fully insured. when we first started the process this year to review the raids, the rates came in high for blue shield and we tried to look for many different options to bring that cost down for the employer and for the employee.

if we were to go with the status quo and we knew our rates as is with blue shield, we would see that our increase would be about $39 million increase for the year, 13.2% increase would members can $20 million of that and the city picking up $19 million. that seemed like it was not a good situation in terms of the city having to pick up additional expenses. but also would means for migration. to the extent that we have an expensive health care options, we may see healthier individuals leave the plan and go to kaiser. the health service system took a look at other things. how is it possible that we may be able to stabilize the rates? we did take a look at many different options, including

having a fully insured plan that subsidized by $5 million or $10 million. we would consider it a flex funded program. we except part of the risk in terms of paying for spent -- expenses for hospitalization or doctor's visits. we do have an insurance policy or claims above a million dollars are not paid for. we do have a limitation. from our actuarial analysis, they recommended that we go forward with this program and apply a $5 million rate stabilization. that would bring down the increased cost to members significantly. in a previous situation, we're looking at a $20 million increase. we're now looking at a $2 million increase for members. for the employer, we're looking

at a $7 million increase. the difficulty with this, everything looks fine, but the issue is that we are at risk if our utilization on hospital bills or doctors' visits are higher than we expected to be. there are maximum risks in terms of payment, $31 million. the likelihood that we would get there is 0.2 percentage possibility. our maximum level -- light ability is $31 million with a 0.2 percent chance that we would get there. the risk is there, we do have a reserved data set aside, about $70 million. $7 million in reserve dollars in additional $70 million in funding that comes then that we think -- $17 million in funding

that comes in. i want to highlight the fact. we do not anticipate -- it is a calculated risk of 0.2%. our liability is capped out at $31 million. once we hit that level, blue shield picks up the rest. i am recommending going forward with this, though it is not without trepidation. i think it buys the city some time in order to allow us to figure out what we need to do to ensure competitiveness and to make sure we are providing as much options as possible. this is a temporary solution. it is not something that will fix the problem in the long term. i wanted to make sure that each one of us are fully aware of the risks we are taking and the direction we're moving.

kathryn dodd is here to answer any questions. supervisor kim: i think the supervisor did an amazing job of capturing both with the plan entails on the risks associated. we did have a discussion about this at budget committee. we won all of our colleagues to wait and and evaluate -- we wanted all of our colleagues to wait in and evaluate this. given the work about the health service's board has done and the research that the actuary has done, i feel confident supporting this for now. if it does work and we are

successful, there could be some great benefits to moving towards a system like this. the insecurity is the unknowns in terms of how our employees will behave and what may come up over the next couple of months. i did want to -- i did want to thank the supervisors for her work around this issue. i have become much more educated about our health care program. palin permittees as the board to understand the impacts of this -- how important it is as a board to understand the impacts of this. supervisor chu: supervisor kim made the motion so we could flatten this issue. i want to recognize her for that. the mayor's office has convened a task force to come together to talk about a willingness among employees. we know the solution going

forward really has a lot to do with how healthy are employees are. i hope that our labor union partners, among others, really do get involved with this conversation. supervisor elsbernd: i would be remiss if i did not say a couple of things. the risk taking and the talents we are facing -- -- challenge we are facing -- this is this year's budget. the most -- this really does not touch that. if i have one regret is the side -- i have not done anywhere near enough on that issue. if you thought the pension challenges of last year were difficult, it pales in comparison to the difficulty of the policy choices and the cost

associated. we have very little funding for that bill. this has been a challenge, just wait. the challenge that is very much immediate in the next few years is tackling not. i wish you luck. president chiu: any additional discussion? [roll-call vote] there are 10 ayes.

>> items 20 and 21 are the emotions ordering it submitted to the voters and election being held -- and ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to enact a new article and to phase out a business payroll tax. supervisor avalos: we do not have the copies yet. there is still being worked on. we did lead to a delayed this item to later in the meeting. -- we would like to delay this item to later in the meeting. >> item 22 is an ordinance amending the planning code by amending adding sections consistent with the transit

center district plan, including the establishment of the open space and transportation fees. item 23 is an ordinance amending the zoning map sheets. item 24 is the ordinance amending the administrative code to address planning monitoring. item 25 is the ordinance amending the general plan by adding be centered district sub area plan to the downtown plan and making various amendments to the downtown plan, urban design elements, commerce and industry elements, recreation and park open space elements. supervisor kim: thank you. i know many of the members of the board are familiar with this

plan right now. i want to summarize the highlights. san francisco's downtown is one of the premier retail districts. with the building of our transit center, and it is the best place to accommodate growth in the city and the region. many of us talk about the importance of this growth. in our commitment to procuring and insuring more funds for affordable housing in our city. the plan is considered one of the most significant plans in the country. it maintains san francisco's quality of life while merging the downtown commercial court with an emerging residential neighborhood to the south. many of the aspects of this plan include increasing heights,

insures one of the highest affordable housing mandates of any plan that we have seen, 35% of affordable housing. a key part of this plan is the funding of this transit center. this district plan will allow that to happen. by generating $2.7 million in additional public funding, both for the center and dtx. it includes pedestrian safety and public parks. i want to thank the planning department, and the former redevelopment agency for all of their work, for the many years of their work. if there are any questions, i believe there are staff here. the planning department is here to address them. i ask for your support today and

i also want to thank my co- sponsor. supervisor olague: i do not have much to add to that, i think it is an excellent plan and long overdue. i hope we get the support today. it has been something in the works for several years. i do believe there are some parts of the city and they cannot afford additional height and density. with transit first always at the forefront of these plans. eventually, we may want to revisit some of the issues are around parking requirements to make them more consistent, but that is a conversation we can have in the future. supervisor mar: i want to add

that the land use committee heard this item. i want to thank the great staff from planning that explained it so clearly. they did address the shadow issues. it really did seem that the shadows were not compared to the huge amount to the open space created throughout the area. a 5.4 acre aboveground part that should be a treasure. tremendous public benefits. a tremendous project, i wanted to congratulate everyone that has worked on it. president chiu: additional discussion?

supervisor kim: one quick comment. i know there are many concerns and surrounding communities that would be impacted by the shadows. the tower would rise to 1,000 feet and would be the tallest building in san francisco. much of the impact was in the chinatown neighborhood. it is a very small impact, the largest impact was seen in the neighborhood. i was happy to hear the city and planning has committed 9 million of the $12 million dedicated to master plan and a new park in chinatown on top of the new central subway station. it would run when year to the elementary school park -- linear to the elementary school park. president chiu: i appreciate all

the work that has been done by stakeholders to address. further discussion? aye. [roll-call vote] president chiu: this ordinance is passed on the first reading. item 26? >> item 26 is a motion ordering submitted to the voters, a policy declaration that supports limits on political campaign contributions and spending and opposes artificial corporate rights. supervisor avalos: i ask for

your support to send this measure to the ballot. it is a measure that would the voters of san francisco the ability to ask of our elected officials at the national level of a quest to look at amending our constitution that is not aligned with the current ruling of the supreme court around citizens united. we are living in a time of trickle-down economics, tax breaks for the wealthy, a great divide between the rich and the poror. we are seeing some of the richest corporations playing havoc with some of our democratic institutions. on january 21, 2010, the supreme court in the case of citizens united versus the federal elections commission ruled that

corporations have the same rights as people and they allowed corporations to have the rights of free speech and declared that unlimited financing is a free-speech and ushered in what we are seeing now in terms of the deepest pockets and corporations in the united states are able to find the vast amounts of money for a super pacs that can put on the airwaves about candidates and issues and really determining that money can be the greatest influence over the outcome of elections. this is something that is putting our democratic institutions in great crisis. there have been statements from elected officials. we have done a resolution ourselves.

it has been done in sacramento as well. we have not given the people a chance to respond and have their voices heard directly. this is what this policy measure would be on the ballot, giving the residents of san francisco a chance to say that we need to look at our constitution and have it amended to ensure that we're not counting corporations as living people, but a separate entity. we're looking at how we can make sure -- that we can find -- colleagues, i would like to ask for your support. president chiu: further discussion? i was happy to sponsor the resolution that we passed earlier dish you're on the same subject. i did like to be added as a co- sponsor.

>> [roll-call vote] there are 10 ayes. president chiu: why do we skip over our special orders? >> reported to the board as committee reports. item 36 was not afforded as a committee report. item 35 is an ordinance authorizing the settlement of the lawsuit for $275,000. the lawsuit was filed on december 27, 2010, in san

francisco superior court. president chiu: could you please call items of 37-40? >> the lawsuit was filed on august 20, 2010. item 38, ordinance authorizing the settlement of a lawsuit filed by maura moylan against the city filed on october 14 and the united states district court. item 39 is an ordinance authorizing the settlement of a lawsuit filed against the city and the recreation and parks department for $100,000 filed 1914. i am 40 is the resolution approving a settlement of the on the litigated claim filed against the city.

president chiu: item 41? >> item 41 is the motion approving the mayor's deployment of -- appointment of ann lazarus. president chiu: i understand item 42 was not sent to the board. if we could move to item 43. >> item 43 was considered at -- was awarded to the board -- supervisor this item was heard yesterday

and enjoyed unanimous support for it to come to the full board of supervisors. this is a long time coming for district four. there are many neighborhood commercial districts across the city, whether we're talking about the inner and outer clement, fillmore, the haight, castro, broadway. the sun set does not have any of them. we wanted to start help that -- to about that committee dictate and provide additional controls. it creates for the first time neighborhood or named neighborhood commercial districts on noriega streets and it does a couple of other things that allows for additional ground floor height. this has been done in other places that help to make the ground floor retail more attractive. there is also a requirement --

we have required that all uses the active -- that are active. if it is something that is not, we would allow for a process for conditional use, planning process to go forward. we have thought a lot about the efforts around sf [inaudible] and small business is trying to create additional business opportunities and figure out the best way to move forward in business models. looking at the empty storefronts we have, how is it that we can encourage more of these businesses to locate in our neighborhood commercial areas? when we thought about doing that was to amend the definition of trade shop. trade shops exists already in all named areas or mc districts.

what we did remove and what we tried to do was create more flexibility about how trade shops could operate. right now there is a limitation on any trade shops that have mechanical equipment. to relax that to allow for two- thirds of the space to be open and available for mechanical equipment. we wanted to remove a hp limitation just so right now there is a 5 horsepower limitations. a blender is one horsepower. there is a limitation on that. we were very cognizant of wanting to make sure as we relax these measures that we had control to mitigate content -- potential issues with noise arsenals. one thing we did do as a result of public comment is we added language in their that does regulate for noise, water, and garbage. we had some comments about whether we could do more to

regulate for vibration and that is something we want to look at 3 storelli legislation. that is something we did discuss during the land use committee and we're committed to do -- vibration control exists for entertainment situations. we wanted to think about it before we applied it to trade shops. this would create a significant wholesale or manufacturing use in a place that is not appropriate and that is not what we're trying to get out. for a trade schaub, you can exist within a facility that is 4000 square feet or smaller. storelli for large manufacturing entity, they would not be moving into a business of that size or location of that size. we did go through a number of different channels to make sure we are vetting the process. planning also recommended it with modifications. we have adopted many of the substantive components of their

recommendations, the areas where we did not is where they wanted us to consolidate to three named areas as opposed to four but we thought it was important to keep the names together. we have the support of the outer sunset rewachand's association and also the -- merchant's association. kate is support of this legislation. we have reached out to the office of small business to many of our local neighborhoods, small businesses to make sure we were not missing something. i do hope that you can support this legislation in addition to the benefits it would have for the neighborhood commercial districts in my neighborhood. i think that it creates an exciting opportunity for trade shops to locate across the city. with that, i ask for your support. president chiu: any discussion and?

roll-call vote. >> supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mark, aye, supervisor at delonte, aye, supervisor wiener, belotaye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. president chiu: this passes on first reading. >> item 45 is an ordinance amending the planning code to make various clerical autumn -- modifications and item 46 as an ordinance amending the planning code regarding limited commercial uses in residential

districts. president chiu: the three pieces of legislation you have in front of you are technical changes to adapt the needs in the northeast neighborhoods and impacting the northeast zoning laws we have on the books. item 46 which is supported by supervisors avalos -- baldy and campos and i want to thank them for other cosponsor ship, it would allow the activation of limited use with -- even if commercial uses have been inactive for three years and allows limited commercial uses on slightly larger corner lots. item 44 would allow for the conversion of auto service stations on transit corridors without conditional use authorizations and exempt bike parking from ratio calculations and expand bike parking requirements. 45 are a number of clerical modifications to help fix 120