lgbt community that counters discriminatory federal tax policy and to provide a higher level of equalitytj( xrñ for sax spouses an partners who work for the city and county of san francisco. i'd like to thank cosponsors, campos and wiener. current city employees who would likemzjpkn to add their spouse r is taken out of their paycheck. federal government views health coverage by same sex spouses and domestidomestic -- to be taxable income. therefore they're taxed more than other city employees simply because their spouse or partners of the same gender. this discrimination in our federal tax code has cost same-sex partners thousands of dollars each year. as of july 28 of this year the latest data we have, the number of city and county of san francisco active members with same-sex domestic partners

total over 350. san francisco has always been a leader in supporting our lgbt community and i'm proud to stand with that group. following the example of other municipalities such as cambridge, massachusetts and private employers such as google in the bay area who have shown leadership on this issue and stood with our lgbt community ensure that same sex domestic partners will not be burdened with these taxes anymore this is an issue ofuqjxp equal. additional tax is one of the many results of the -- marriage act in congress. domestic partners are denied federal protection offered to other couples such as immigrant rights, social security survival benefits and ability to file joint tax returns. this additional tax on same sex domestic partners adds another sting to doma. these next few weeks will be significant forjíñ the lgbt community and those who stand

with them as the supreme court will decide whether to -- proposition 8 perry case and various doma cases however i don't believe we should stand still while this discrimination continues. i look forward to working with everyone on the board to the rest i submit. >> clerk calvillo: thank you. supervisor chu. >> supervisor chu: thank you very much. i have an empirrative item later on and i want to speak to it. it is a purely commendatory item. i am joined by supervisor elsbernd in sponsoring this. i simply want to recognize the grand reopening of the sunset rec center in my district located in the the heart of the sunset district and is actually our own full scale rec center that is available. we have many playgrounds, play fields, but we don't necessarily have a rec center so this one has been under construction foru the last two years. it was part of the 2008 clean that the voters approved and is

a 14 million dollar project that has come in on budget. with that improvement we see 18,000 square foot of gym space reopening with seismic improvements, ada improvements, something that is sorely missed in our district having a recreation space for all families. today i simple where want to recognize the grand reopening and thank all the people who really helped to5ljd make this possible, not only recreation staff, but also dpw, the arts commission and of course the your parks. thank you. >> clerk calvillo: thank you, supervisor chu. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i actually just want to take a moment to share some words about howard wallace as well. and i want to really appreciate supervisor campos for just the beautiful story and talking about his life and his experience. he's someone i know that many of us will really sorely miss.

howard was someone that i'm really grateful that i got an opportunity to get to know. and i met him actually in 2005, when several of us here in this room were involved in the san francisco people's organization. i just have an incredible level of respect for howard. he was always incredibly reasonable, but undeniably and staunchly progressive. he was vocal on many different issues but always open-minded. most permanen importantly he ben building coalition that was genuine and he was dedicated to that and he also loved to share stories. stories. i think many of us, with him at6 had to share, which are so important near us to continue to remember as we continue to build upon that work, and upon the city. and i know he loved being the moral compass at labor. he really believed that he was the left voice in labor. he always talked about the

importancezp.÷ of labor and creg coalitions of communities of color. sometimes, when i would walk into some rooms, when running for elections, he was sometimes the only friendly face. and i still remember -- and i really, really, really miss howard. i'm really sad. it's truly a loss for our city. but i'm so grateful that i had an opportunity to work with him and to get to know him. >> the clerk: thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: i wanted to add on to the restroomance remes well. he always was reaching out to build solidarity, not just with the labor movement but with the antiwar movement and the lgbt communities as well. he was an incredible person. i wanted to thank his former seiu local 250 ac activist

colleagues kathy lip scom for watching out for him so long but other activists like tab, eileen, his susan, carl, and the whole pride at work community for really making sure he was cared for in his last days as well. i wanted to say that i had tremendous respect for him as an organizer but especially as a person with a long view of movement building. and i wanted÷apx? to ask if i cd also be added on the in memoriamium for howard but also for farley. he had a wonderful memorial last night in the green money. listens of 91.7 fm and the staff and all the volunteers from that great radio station as well. thank you. >> clerk calvillo: thank you, supervisor mar. mr. president, seeing no other names on the roster that concludes roll call for introductions. >> president chiu: colleagues,

why don't we recall supervisor olague's item which is item 16. madam clerk, did you call that item? >> clerk calvillo: yes, mr. president. it is now on the floor. >> president chiu: supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: there were a few -- this is introduced a couple of times, and then we continued it because there were some issues that were outstanding, and so i'll just go ahead and mention how some of those were resolved. the first thing, the issue of defining when planning staff reports are required to include the dashboard has basically been settled. so the changes are on page 4, line 24. and it mentions they will outline staff reports to the planning commission historic preservation commission and the board of supervisors so that's kind of stated there, on all proposed projects, it mentions it in detail. also, there was this -- the big dispute was really about the

naming -- or defining of housing above 120% or from 120 to dj), . some -- i believe that it's the planning department, i might be wrong, that defines it as middle income housing, but it's the -- what do you call it -- the mayor's office on housing that defines it as upper middle income housing. phrasing so i just removed it altogether, and just wanted to make sure that it was included in the reporting. and mentioned instead that including data on household 150%. descriptions based on sponsor's disloars of unit pricing for

market rate housing proposals and we were going to add additional language, and other available data to that. so rather than define it,xpihélt remove that. >> president chiu: supervisor olague, just so i'm clear, the version that you sent out did not include -- so you're going to add that to your amendment. >> supervisor olague: yeah. >> president chiu: thank you. >> supervisor olague: and then of mentions that. pricing disclosure by pricing sponsors as basis of the data to 150% ami. planning department -- below 120% but has formula to create a to 150%. the planning department is here in case you need to correct me

or clarify something. feel free. the -- reporting is to identify actual numbers based on a percentage of last year's total. i believe the the methodology to determine the 120 to 150% area median income warrants its own policy discussion which i don't of i won't be around to participate in but the board might look at this discussion in the feature. it might be worthy more at land use or something. however until that longer discussion occurs i propose we should keep the legislation as is, reporting actual numbers. so that kind of sums up some of the amendments that were added tîñ÷ this. >> president chiu: supervisor olague has made the possession to amend as described. is there a second? seconded by supervisor kim. any discussion? supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: not on the motion to amend. >> president chiu: on the motion to amend, supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: i just

i -- everything supervisor olague just said. us? >> supervisor olague: yes, with the exception of just a few words. >> supervisor wiener: so then is that on line 6 and line 17 of page 5, the addition of, and other available data? >> supervisor olague: yeah, we wanted1!jpéuz discuss that with- >> supervisor wiener: so it will say based on sponsor's market rate housing proposal and other available data in both locations. >> supervisor olague: yeah. >> supervisor wiener: i appreciate that. >> supervisor olague: it was the upper moderate income housing was the way that -- >> supervisor wiener: thank you. amendment because of the -- most of the amendment is fine. i will not be supporting this because of the deletion of, quote, middle income households, in other words stating that 120 to 150% of ami is middle income

households. actually i have to say i find that aspect of the amendment to be pretty extraordinary. and i'm shocked that the amendment's even being offered today. just about a month ago, this board voted unanimously to accept an amendment that's -- among other things, that 120 to 150% of area median income is middle class. there's no reason to remove it and i don't know why it's being proposed for removal. on the merits, 120% to 150% of area median income is middle class. and i don't know why that would be questioned. we are struggling to keep our middle class in san francisco. we're losing ground in terms of our middle class leaving because of the cost of housing and other issues and we need to turn that around. one of the reasons a month ago why i offered the amendments i did was to make sure we were

tracking housing production, not just of low income but in addition, middle income as well. the last thing we as a board should be doing is to start signaling that people who are in the middle class are actually in the upper middle class or wealthy, whatever it is that a signal by accepting this amendment. what is 120 to 150%, in terms of dollar amounts. a two person household making 98,900 a year is at 120% of ami. a two person household making 123,000 is 150% of ami. category? two san francisco unified school district teachers with five years of service and bachelor's degrees are at 120% of ami.

so two pretty junior teachers living together are in this 120 to 150 range of ami. now, we can talk about the building trades, and the carpenters, et cetera, who fall -- two of them are living together, would fall into 120% now let's look at the upper end of a four-person household, 120 to 150% of ami for a four-person hoastled, let's say two parents, two kids is 123 to 154,000 of ami. as i mentioned the last time this came up speaker john pérez has proposed and i think he's proposing again and he should propose it that for anyone in california with a family where the household is making up to 150,000 a year, that family would get a middle class reduction in to -- from our

state universities. john pérez, one of the leading democrats in the state, has indicated that 150% of ami throughout california, even though it's cheaper to live elsewhere qualifies as a middle class. why would we ever say that these people, two teachers living together, two carpenters living together aren't in the middle class and that we're somehow unwilling to acknowledge that's the middle class. i don't understand that rationale and it sends a terrible message. now let's also look at how san francisco defines middle class. supervisor olague stated that the planning department says the middle class is 120 to 150% ami. it's not the planning department it's the housing element and the planning code. housing at 180% of af mi and above and defines middle class income housing as housing affordable to households making between 120 and 150% of median

income. then we look at planning code section 4001 which defines middle income household as a household whose combined annual gross income for all members is between 120% and 150% of the local median income. so as a matter of policy, and as a matter of law, in san francisco, 120 toñjp 150% of area median income is middle class. so why on earth would anyone would try to strip out the reference to that income range6 as being middle class is something that i don't really understand. i also do not think that the mayor's office of housing has indicated that 120 to 150% of ami is upper middle income housing. when i did a hearing earlier this year about middle class housing there was a particular

mayor's office office of housing, as upper income housing. they did not do that and its presentation never indicated that, and to do that would have been i think inaccurate. colleagues it is clear that 120 to 150% of ami is middle income housing we should not be string this out and send that terrible message to the people of san francisco. >> president chiu: supervisor olague -- and before you respond, supervisor olague, our clerk wanted to clarify that the additional language of or other available data you will make that amendment to all references where it refers to data on households earning approximately 120 to 150%. >> supervisor olague: yes. >> president chiu: okay. so hopefully that's clear to our city attorney. supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: basically, i think what's important is that the reporting and the analysis capture 120 to

150. originally, the reporting was only going to go up to 120 because that is kind of the standard -- the bar that's set i then, you know, there was an amendment proposed to increase it to 150, which i don't think there was any disputing that any debate. i think yeah, we agreed, it should be included in there. but there still seemed to be some -- i don't know if disagreement is the right word. there seems to be some semantics going on here around, you know, is it upper moderate income housing, which is what my understanding was, that mayor's office on housing tends to refer and then you have planning that sort of has a different way of -- a different language that they use. rather than getting caught up in that semantics debate i just ja4ted to make sure that the

intent of the amendment was captured which is to include 120 to 150, which wasn't originally this reporting. and then hopefully there will be a time when advocates and this board, land use committee, or planning and moh can come to some kind of consensus to define that housing between 120 and 150. so i think the fact that we're including it is some kind of acknowledgement that in fact this does include middle income because of, you know, some of the way it's been viewedm 4t regionally and there seems to be, in my mind, some -- still i'd just rather than-d you know,

remove it, just kind of not include the name for now, and then maybe come back to that at a later time when there's more time for discussion. that's all. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. amendment. i'm familiar but i just want to -- >> supervisor olague: i thought it was going to be distributed. >> supervisor kim: if someone can give me a copy that will be great. i'll say a couple of things. you know, i was hesitant a couple of weeks ago about including 120 to 150, not because i don't think we should calculate it but i was curious as to how we would calculate it. when we build housing for 120 and below there are mechanisms where developers are required to build at this rate and their actual set kind of guidelines on how that's done. so i think the second amendment, asking developers to kind of prenotice -- i'm sorry, i don't have the language in fronts of me. i think that's important. as to how it's defined, as someone who resides in the 120

to 150ami as we do in this chambers, i don't know how important it is how we define iz as much that we collect that data when we can. my understanding is that the reason why we're doing this is that 80 to 120 is defined as moderate income -- i'm sorry 80 to 120 is defined as moderate income. it just doesn't follow on the scale. so that's why the suggestion came before us. instead of going from moderate income to middle class that it go from moderate income to above moderate, however we want to define it, it is a need that we need to build more housing for 120 to 150. i'm curious as to how we as a city are meeting those goals. we, the city don't build 120 to 150 but it's dependent upon our developers to showcase when that need is being met through developments that come before us. >> clerk calvillo: mr. president, to supervisor kim, we handed out a document to

each supervisor and we will make you another copy. now. thank you. >> the clerk: very good. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener5ejrxí. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. obviously, we have to make -- we're going to have to make some estimates and do an analysis and the planning department is capable of doing that to come up with the 120 to 150% of ami. but it's very important that we do it. and you know, i don't think that this is just semantics. as i just read quotes, that this in san francisco, the middle income housing orcpye middle i. and the housing element and the planning( b%ú codes.1 k8 so no one is making up a random phrase or arbitrarily putting this label on. this is how we define it. again i think it is sending a

that we're not going to -- we're say that -- say two teachers living together in a household are not really middle income. we just don't feel comfortable referring to them as middle income. i think it sends a very bad message. colleagues i suggest that we reject this amendment or at least that portion of the vote. >> president chiu: any further discussion? okay. amendment. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu,> elsbernd, no. supervisor farrell, no. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye.

supervisor wiener, no. there are seven ayes and four nos. >> president chiu: the motion passes. unless there's further discussion why don'thtp we takea roll call vote on the underlying ordinance as amended. supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president. i did vote against this legislation in committee originally because it only focused on low and very low income housing and moderate income housing as part of the dashboard. and in terms -- we then adopted amendments that i had proposed a month ago to expand dashboard to encompass more of our housing needs and i was happy to -- in the past despite the -- i think mistake that this board just made in removing the words middle class. i think in my view the dashboard is now going to serve a good purpose, in terms of looking at our broad housing needs, as we approve projects. so i will be supporting the

overall legislation. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: i'll just be brief. as a cosponsor of the dashboard legislation i'm incredibly excited that we are finally bringing this to pass. as we get developments we often evaluate them in a vacuum and don't have a good sense of what's being built in the city and debate what are we building for and we come up with our own projection debate by debate but this dashboard will be helpful in really giving us pinpoints as to where the city isaqj)e at in complying with our 2009 housing element. so i just want to thank supervisor olague for her work. this is something she has taken on since she was commissioner. i also want to recognize supervisor campos. we had called for a hearing on this very issue earlier this year and one of the recommendations that came out of this hearing was of course a dashboard to better understanding housing production

needs at various income levels and to understand the source of funds available for affordable housing at the federal state and local level so we can begin to have a discussion about solutions on how to close this production gap. c, this dashboard will assist in helping us to prioritize funds that we just passed at the ballot and i want to appreciate our voters for passing both prop c andms( e. they will be incredibly important in serving as a source of funding for affordable housing in san francisco. >> president chiu: supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i'll trying not to repeat what has been said. this is definitely a long time coming, and i want to thank supervisor olague for -- and her office for all the work that has gone into this piece of legislation. i think it's appropriate that ultimately this is somethingo[j that she was the main author of, and i think it's going to be a tool that's going to be useful for many, many years to come. i want to thank supervisor kim

and her staff for their work as well in pushing this item sheila, who in many respects this kind of started with the study review that we had passed the budget and legislative analyst to conduct of our affordable housing strategies. so i want to because this is one of their recommendations that came out of that study. and i think that the discussion by all the colleagues made this better, and you know this is the kind of tool that we probably may need to tweak as we move especially after the passage of prop c, makes this really important. so thank youí$( [ all. >> president chiu: any further discussion? roll call vote on the underlying ordinance as amended. >> clerk calvillo: on item 16 as amended, supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye.

president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. there arexjsm 11zpihpç ayes. >> president chiu: the ordinance is passed on the first reading as amended. colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, why don't we go to general public comment. >> clerk calvillo: now is the opportunity for the public to comment generally for up to two minutesfd z6 on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board including the policy discussion between mayor8ípp ed( lee and mrs of the board and members on the adoption without reference to committee calendar. please note public comment is not allowed on items which have been subject to public comment by a board committee. speakers using translation will be allowed twice the amount of time to testify. if you would like a document to

be displayed on the overhead projector state such and remove the document when the screen returns to live coverage of the meeting. >> president chiu: why don't we hear from our first speaker, two minutes please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. stop the corporate rape of our public library, don't give money to the friends of the library, don't accept money from the friends of the library. we have mentioned accountability and democracy go together. we have now reached the point where jewel goams i gomez is a noun to mean -- i have mentioned several times the president of the library commission violated rights to make public comment and sunshine task force found it a -- violation. the agents commission investigation found the conduct falls below standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officials and ethics unanimously found a finding of official misconduct. we may asy%(! wellç(j@ñ listen