we have a good plan for how this is going to be used. i think it's a worthy plan, worthy services for youth that desperately need greater opportunity in life. i will be supporting this when it comes forward but there are so many intangibles that the school district provides us as a city that cannot be counted in any way. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: i'll try to keep my comments brief. i want to say i find this conversation incredibly exciting and i'm glad we as a board are talking about what it needs to have a true city-school partnership. i think it's important for us as a city to have a discussion about what it costs to run schools. i had the opportunity to sit on the first citizens advisory committee when prop h was created in march of 2004. you know, we fully funded prop h as the voters had asked us in its first three years that we've released funds to the school district.

unfortunately in the last five years we have pulled the trigger which allows us to cut what we give to the district by 25%. over the last five years that means the city has reduced what the voters have asked us to give to the schools by 74 million. you know, when the city economy is weak, that is what the trigger was put in for. there's clearly a reason as to why the city had to reduce this -- for the school district. but i think the emphasis behind where the supplemental came from as we ask the school district how are you going to fund these programs going into the future i hope we have a real conversation next year, as our city economy looks better and our city economy grows as to whether we're going to pull the trigger again on prop h. i think that in last year, when we pulled the prop h trigger to me it had made sense because we didn't have a good budgetary forecast of what revenues were coming in. as the month of june was closing it looked more and more optimistic.

as we look at the budget picture now i think many of us asked why did we pull the trigger last year and that was the reason why i introduced what i thought was a modest fundamental in the school district. overall regardless of your position i'm excited that we're engaging in a robust discussion of what it means to partner and support with our school district going forward. >> president chiu: supervisor chu. >> supervisor chu: one other last point that did come up during the committee that i think is relevant and important. during the conversation, we also heard from the school district. they expect to end this current year with a 25, 26 million dollar fund balance. they are required to have $15 million in the bank for a fund balance. this tells me that they actually have some funding that they can utilize to deal with this issue. and so the question for me then if this is the school district's priority, what is their intention in terms of the use of their own reserves to deal with

a priority that they had set forward. so that's also a question i hope will be answered in the next week or so, so we can also understand and have further clarity from the school district on it. again they have a $25 million, 26 million reserve that is currently sitting that they expect to end the year with. so this is something i think that is a relevant and important point in this discussion. they do have anticipated shortfalls in the future as we do so i know there will be many conversations around that. >> president chiu: colleagues, unless there's additional conversation, supervisor kim has made a motion to continue this item to the 4th of december. i think that was seconded by supervisor mar. if we can do that without objection this item is continued to that date. item 19. >> clerk calvillo: an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to provide for a district term of up to 40 years when assessments are pledged or applied to pay any bonds, financing leases or other similar obligations of the city and authorize the board of supervisors to require a waited

two-thirds vote of business owners to be assessed based on ballots cast as an alternative or additional procedure for establishing a business improvement district and levying assessments and clarifying existing positions and update references to state law. >> president chiu: colleagues, roll call vote. >> clerk calvillo: on item 19, 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 are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: the ordinance is passed on the first reading. item 20. >> clerk calvillo: a resolution declaring the intention of the board of supervisors to establish a business based improvement district to be known as the moscone expansion district and to levy a multi-year assessment on defined hotel businesses in

the district. >> president chiu: colleagues, can we take this same house, same call? this resolution is adopted. next item. >> clerk calvillo: item 21, resolution approving the fourth amendment to the treasure island firefighting training center master lease between the treasure island development authority and the united states navy and extending the term. >> president chiu: same house, same call. this resolution is adopted. >> clerk calvillo: item 22 is a resolution approving the agreement with sfo shuttle bus company to provide shuttle bus services at san francisco international airport in an amount not to exceed $105 million for a term december 1, 2012 through june 30, 2016 and approving three two year options. >> president chiu: same house same call this resolution is adopted. >> clerk calvillo: item 23 is a resolution authorizing the municipal transportation agency and department of human resources to retroactively an agreement with intercare holding ensures for workers compensation third party services for an amount not to exceed 23.6

million and for a term of three years with option to extend the term for up to an additional two years. >> president chiu: same house same call, this resolution is adopted. >> clerk calvillo: item 24 resolution authorizing the department of public health to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of 10,000 from california wellness foundation for adolescent health education collaborative for the period of october 1, 2012 through september 30, 2014. >> president chiu: same house same call, this resolution is adopted. project proposed by gsw arena an affiliate of the golden gate state warriors to rehabilitate port property at piers 30 through 32 diesel on the piers multi-purpose venue usable for public assembly uses and other events and develop a seawall lot 330 residential hotel and/or restate uses and accessory parking is fiscally feasible and

responsible under administrative code chapter 29 urging city and port officials to make evaluating the proposed project among its highest priorities and taking appropriate steps for further environmental review of the proposed project. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: colleagues, thank you. this is a resolution before us that is just beginning a process of approvals for the golden state warriors in their proposed project to rehabilitate pier 30-32 and develop a multi-purpose venue on pier 30-32 and seawall lot. this declaration is both fiscally feasible and responsible owrpd your administrative code chapter 29. i just want to make a couple of comments, and also wanted to introduce a clarification amendment which i've distributed to members of the board of supervisors, based actually on advice from our city attorney. just a couple of things. there has been a lot of concerns in consternations of residents

from our neighborhoods in south beach, rincon hill and mission bay around the speed this process is going. given the timeline that golden state warriors with their lease expiring in oakland in 2017. i understand the reason for the pace of the project but we have of course asked for a balance to be struck, given many of the concerns that residents have around traffic and noise and density, and also how we as a city is going to respond to the increased infrastructure demands with this arena in place. i do want to thank the city and the warriors for agreeing to some kind of slow down to certain level of -- for example, moving oir eir scoping meeting from mid-december not midst of the holidays when residents are with their families and employees and pushing that to mid-january and also requiring that our citizens advisory committee, which was set up to advise both the board of supervisors and the mayor's office on this project, have at

least two meetings in their cap meetings to discuss the term sheet before it comes to the full board and to allow the citizens advisory committee to actually give the board and city feedback on the term sheet before we get a chance to actually discuss it and vote for it. so i did make a series of amendment at budget committee that would mandate that but did want to submit a clarifying amendment as proposed by our city attorney, and this is just an amendment to page 11, line 17, that further resolve that the board of supervisors will not take action on the term sheet, that pier 30-32 ground lease and seawall lot 30 or amendments to the water plan until after pier 30-32 cac holds meeting to discuss those items. so i do want to again appreciate those. i think the most important thing at this point is a substantive and robust discussion and process that is meaningful.

i think at the end of the day it will land on a better project both for this neighborhood and for the city and i look forward to that engagement. i really want to thank our neighborhood and community leaders for being respectful of the process and agreeing to participate in this. it could be something that people could set out and just say we oppose it, no way, we're not going to participate. but i really want to give it up for our residents for really approaching this in a respectful way and being open-minded and trying to work with the warriors on putting forward the best process. >> president chiu: thank you. supervisor kim has made a motion to amend. seconded by supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i just want to briefly note that i welcome the amendment by supervisor kim. i think it's really important, as this matter moves forward, that we involved the community as much as possible. and i think that making sure that there is a full vetting of

this item through the cac is important. i think ultimately that will benefit the project, and i appreciate the fact that the folks who have been working on this project have been trying to do that outreach. and, you know, we want to see that effort continue. and i do think that the more outreach and the more involvement by the community, i think the better we all will be. so i welcome the amendment and will be supporting the item with that. thank you. >> president chiu: supervisor chu. >> supervisor chu: thank you very much. i did have some questions about the amendment but i think in budget committee we did take action to amend the legislation to include information about making sure that future discretionary approvals are actually run by the cac and urging cac to hold meetings prior to us having the term sheet ahead of us. so this language is actually stronger in terms of actually saying explicitly that the board of supervisors will not take

action on the term sheet or any other items that are listed here, until the cac holds meeting. so i just wanted to clarify from the city attorney's point of view, i know this is a resolution and so in many ways it's not necessarily a binding piece of legislation so technically the board could still act. however it does signal an intent so i wanted to ask office of economic and workforce development, in terms of the cac actually being able to schedule a meeting who actually controls making sure that we actually have timely meetings that are set up to review these items? i think it's important that the cac look at these items but if we were to have individuals who maybe didn't want to see it move forward if they chose not to have meetings would that then put the board in a bad situation where we would have passed a piece of legislation and said we will not take action until they hear it but no meetings have been scheduled. can you explain that for me. >> president chiu: ms. matz. >> thank you through the chair, jennifer matz from the office of economic and workforce development. just in the last week we've been better trying to organize our

outreach to the cac including the intention to set up twice monthly meetings that would be standing meetings on the first and third mondays that's not set yet. part of the idea is to establish regular meetings that we hold quite frequently including setting up subcommittee structures that allows smaller groups to delve into discreet issues involving the arena project in a more substantive way and of course reporting back to a full cac. so i'm confident that we will have ongoing and regular meetings between now and, you know, really throughout 2013. i wouldn't want to bind -- or prohibit the board of supervisors from being able to act if a particular meeting did not occur but it is certainly our intention to be having robust meetings over the next year. >> supervisor kim: and then to -- >> supervisor chu: in terms of holding these cac pleeghts if you don't have a quorum of cac members -- >> so we not only have a number

of cac members, we also have alternatives and as a result we're able to draw upon those alternates to fill a quorum for the cac. i think the total number is -- we have 16 members and 16 alternates as well. >> supervisor chu: i could be wrong about the number of alternates. >> so i think it's our intention that we would be able to reach quorum for those meetings. i think our intention would be to schedule them early enough to ensure that we can meet the deadlines that we have here at the board of supervisors, as they will come up this spring. i certainly think urging language rather than requiring language we would heed the urge and it is fully our intention to have these meetings on a twice monthly basis. >> supervisor chu: thank you. so given that, i appreciate the comments of oewd and their intention to hold meetings, to be able to make sure that we

meet these, and i'm positive that you will continue to do that and we will have meetings that are actually held before the cac and they will be able to review all of these documents. i do feel uncomfortable with binding the board's action even though this is a resolution. and so i will be supporting underlying item but not the amendment. thank you. >> president chiu: is there any further discussion? let's take a roll call vote on the motion to amend. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, no. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, no. supervisor farrell, no. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. there are eight ayes and three nos. >> president chiu: motion to amend passes.

unless there is further discussion, let's take a roll call vote on the underlying resolution as amended. >> clerk calvillo: on item 25 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 are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: the resolution is adopted. item 26. >> clerk calvillo: item 26 is a resolution authorizing the department of environment to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount 400,000 from the u.s. department of environment, environmental protection to support brown fields assessment projects. >> president chiu: same house same call? this resolution is adopted. item 27. >> clerk calvillo: item 27 resolution authorizing the department of emergency

management to retroactively accept and expend a fiscal year 2012 program grant in the amount of 29 million from the us department of homeland security through the california emergency management agency for the periods of october 12, 2012 through may 31, 2014. >> president chiu: same house same call, the resolution is adopted. >> clerk calvillo: item 28 a mast lease extension for the department of ha public health n mission street for approximately 32.36 million per month with annual increases. >> president chiu: same house same call, this resolution is adopted. next item. >> clerk calvillo: item 29 is a resolution authorizing the department of public health to retroactively accept and dispend a grant in the amount of approximately $197.1 to participate in a program monitoring project for the period july 1, 2012 through may 31, 2013. >> president chiu: same house

same call, this resolution is adopted. next item. >> clerk calvillo: item 30, resolution authorizing the department of public health to rets actively accept and expend a grant in the amount of 300,000 to participate in a program entitled enhancing engagement in retention in quality hiv care for transgenders women of color for the period september 1, 2012 through -- 30, 2013. >> president chiu: same house same call, this resolution is adopted. >> clerk calvillo: item 31, resolution authorizing the department of public health to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of 300,000 to participate in a program entitled special projects of national significance program building a medical home for multiply diagnosed hiv positive homeless populations for the(ñ'h period september 1, 2013 through august 30, 2013. >> president chiu: same house same call this resolution is adopted. >> clerk calvillo: amending the police code to prohibit nudity on public streets,

sidewalks, streed medians, plazas and on public transit vehicles, stations, platforms and stops, except as permitted in parades, fairs and festivals. >> supervisor chiu: supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president. and welcome, everyone. colleagues, today, we have before us legislation restricting public nudity in parts of san francisco. this legislation, which is much more narrow than the broad nudity ban that has been in place in our parks and port for decades acknowledges that public nudity in part of san francisco, and that it's appropriate in some circumstances. the legislation also acknowledges that public nudity is not always appropriate and particularly in our neighborhoods and commercial districts, where we all have to

together, public nudity can go too far. for many years, public nudity has been part of san francisco. we have it at our street fairs, parades, beaches, some of our bars, and the occasional and sporadic naked person wandering our streets. for many years it wasn't a big deal and few people cared. over the past two years, the situation on our streets and particularly in the castro has changed. it's no longer random and sporadic. it's no longer an occasional quirky part of san francisco. rather than in the castro it's seven days a week, pretty much every single day in this neighborhood where people live, work, play, and conduct their lives. this legislation is not about cock rings but not the hart of what this legislation is about, which is that seven days a week, men, and it's almost always men but not always, stand at castro

market and often elsewhere, displaying genitals to anyone walking, driving, or just passing by. it's very much a hey, look what i have mentality. we're seeing it in some other neighborhoods as well. the situation in the castro, which has become extreme, developed around the time i took office. there were immediate calls on me resisted those calls for almost two years, because it's not what i wanted to do. i did not want to restrict public nudity, because although i have disagreements with the opponents of this legislation, i viewpoint. believed that the situation in theajpho castro would run its c. but the situation has not run its course. upoinstead, it's only gotten moe consistent and more over the

top. many people in this neighborhood are over it, and believe it's time to take action. and after two years, i now agree. this legislation, colleagues, is significantly more narrow&jpvz n the broad public nudity bans that have been in place for over 30 years in our parks, and more than a decade at our port. it is narrower in terms of the body parts covered. it is narrower in that it does not require that it ever be charged as a misdemeanor. it can be charged as an infraction indefinitely. and in addition, unlike in our parks, this legislation creates a broad and blanket exemption for street fairs, festivals and parades unlike our parks code for example during the pride parade it is technically illegal to be naked in city center plaza which is a park. in addition this legislation has no application at all to beaches, or of course to private

property. the castro and san francisco in general is a place of freedom, expression and acceptance. but freedom expression and acceptance doesn't mean anything goes under any circumstance, itw doesn't mean that we have no standards whatsoever of behavior. freedom, expression and acceptance don't mean that people can do whatever pops into their heads, no matter what the impacts on others or on the neighborhood. as a result, i introduce legislation to extend a narrower version of our existing nudity plazas, parklets and public transportation. to acknowledge that our public spaces are for everyone, and that, as a result, it's appropriate to have some minimal standards of behavior so that everyone can enjoy these spaces. this legislation and the issue generally has generated significant and intense debate community, and in the city as a whole. i don't pretend that there's

unanimity around this legislation. there are strong views, legitimate strong views on both sides. but i do believe that the legislation has strong support in the community. and i'm not just talking about support from newspapers like the bay area reporter and the chronicle or community leaders like cleve jones or neighborhood groups. i'm talking about everyday citizens who live work and lead their lives in this wonderful neighborhood. some have suggested this legislation resulted from straight people somehow invading the castro or people in noe valley objecting to nudity in the castro or more people raising children or local business owners. that is not the case and very few castro businesses have been vocal about this. i say this as a gay man who was drawn to the castro in the 1990's because of its status as a gay mecca and safe space. i found some of the rhetoric around this issue to be

offensive and demonization of gay people and gay and straight who have children. castro is a neighborhood for everyone, for people with kids, without kids, people running businesses, people who work there, live there, who come into our wonderful neighborhood to enjoy themselves. to be very clear this legislation did not result in any sense from straight people or people with kids or merchants or people from noe valley complaining about public nudity. the dominant demographic expressing concern over the daily seven days a week nudity in the castro has been gay men. i've heard from far more childless gay men in support of this legislation than from noe valley people. i'm not just talking about new newbies but gay many who have lived in this neighborhood for years. one final point, specifically there are some who have said that there are already laws in

the books that cover this situation. that is simply not the case. which i whies berkeley, san joée and other california cities have their own public nudity restriction beyond the if there were already laws in place to address this situation, i would not have introduced this legislation. public nudity, currently, is not -- is legal in san francisco, other than in our parks, port, and in restaurants. there's been a suggestion that we should use lewd behavior laws, particularly the indecent exposure provisions of the california penal code. i don't agree with that. i think that using lewd behavior laws is problematic and ineffective. first of all, there are going to be a lot of borderline cases about whether something is lewd or not lewd and you're putting a police officer in a terrible position of trying to determine is this person a little bit aroused or not aroused, is that adornment on the person's genitals lewd or not lewd, did

he shake his genitals a little too vigorously to draw attention. no police officer should make that determination and to be blunt no police officer will. if addition if left with the choice of only charging someone with indecent exposure for lewd behavior under state law as some in opposition to this legislation are suggesting if you're convicted of indecent exposure you become a registered sex offender when you're done. my legislation that we're considering today will not result in sex offender registry. colleagues, as i stated at the beginning -- as i stated at the beginning, i gave this issue time to work itself out. it didn't. and the time has come to act. this is a narrow and reasonable piece of legislation, and i ask for your support. colleagues, i've also distributed some amendments that are not substantive to you. they include findings at the beginning.

the phrase public rights of way, we've moved the location of the severability provision, and in addition we've provided an operative date of february 1, 2013, or 30 days after the mayor signs, whichever is later, which would be likely february 1, 2013. and so i move those amendments. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener's made a motion to amend. is there a second to the motion? seconded by supervisor farrell. any discussion to the motions colleagues? can we take the motion without objection? without objection that shall be the case. further discussion. supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you very much, mr. president. and i want to begin by thanking all the members of the public who are not only here, but also who have been corresponding to all of us on the board of supervisors in the last few weeks about this item. let me say that one of the things that i find disturbing about the discussion debate that

has transpired has been the fact that there has been vilification of people on the opposing side. i don't think that some of the characterization of for instance the proponent of this legislation have been fair, and i think that this was one of those issues where reasonable people can disagree. and my hope is that, irrespective of what happens on this vote today, that we can have respectful dialogue about this. the reality is that all of us, as district supervisors, understand that there are important issues to each one of our respective districts, that have a unique flavor and character to them. and the question that we often face is whether or not, in dealing with those issues, we have to approach