nice. no rain. beautiful san francisco. >> it's a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. for more opportunities we have volunteering every single day of the week. get in touch with the parks and recreation center so come [gavel] >> good afternoon to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, february

the 11th, 2014. madam clerk, could you please call the roll? >> yes, mr. president. supervisor avalos? avalos not present. supervisor breed? breed present. supervisor campos? >> present. >> campos present. president chiu? >> present. >> chiu present. supervisor cohen? >> present. >> cohen present. supervisor farrell? >> present. >> farrell present. supervisor kim? kim not present. supervisor mar? >> here. >> mar present. supervisor tang? >> present. >> tang present. supervisor wiener? wiener present. supervisor yee? yee not present. mr. president, you have a quorum. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> madam clerk, do we have any

communications? >> there are none today, mr. president. >> and if you could read our 2:00 p.m. special order. >> the first item of business is a policy discussion between honorable mayor lee and board of supervisors, this week representing the even districtsv, specifically district 10, the mayor may initially address the board for up to five minutes. the president will recognize the supervisor who will present her own question and follow-up questions are in order as long as the entire discussion does not exceed five minutes. >> thank you. mr. mayor, welcome to february question time. do you have any opening comments? >> thank you, supervisors, and good afternoon supervisor, and also members of the public. welcome to the chambers of san francisco city hall. before i begin, i'd simply like to give my personal welcome to two special guests who have arrived here from japan. they sit on the city council in japan, the different

prefectories in japan [speaker not understood]. (applause) >> i'd like to pause ask mention something that happened in our city 10 years ago tomorrow. mayor gavin newsom here in this very building issued the same sex marriage licenses. this is a great time to take stock of the progress of our country that has made in this particular subject, and now the federal government and the president of the united states embracing marriage equality and the supreme court has ruled on the right side of history. i often reflect back to those first chaotic days. we didn't know what was going to happen and we didn't know whether the country would follow our lead. but all we knew is that we were going to do the right thing. and with that, we started the national movement and i'm very proud of the city for that. as we commemorate this important milestone, i think

all of you can join me tomorrow afternoon at 5:00 p.m. for the ten-year celebration of the winner of love, developing couples and families right here at the city hall rotunda. with that let's get started with the questions. >> thank you, mr. mayor. we have only one question today from our district 10 colleague, supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. mayor. welcome to our guests. it's a long question, mr. mayor. when the city adopted eastern neighborhoods plan we were aware a significant funding gap existed for the promised neighborhood infrastructure improvements. as development is moving forward at a fast pace, the infrastructure needed to support this growth has significantly lagged. current and future residents need additional parks, transportation streetscape and pedestrian safety improvements to accommodate this growth. i recently held a hearing on how the city is going to address both this funding gap and the slow project delivery from city departments in the eastern neighborhoods. i believe that an infrastructure financing district is one of the strongest tools we have to address this problem. i have been told by your staff for the last year that you are not interested in pursuing an ifd and most recently that it's your intention to fund the infrastructure improvements for the eastern neighborhoods in your proposed upcoming november ballot initiative for municipal transportation agency. would you support an ifd for eastern neighborhoods separate from your proposed november ballot initiative and should this initiative fail, what is your

plan to support the infrastructure needs of the eastern neighborhoods? additionally, would you support efforts to slow t ~ thank you. >> thank you for that long question, supervisor cohen. i also want to thank you for the hearing that you recently

held on the eastern neighborhoods ensuring the city's prepared for current and future growth. it is extremely important to me. the eastern neighborhoods section of the city as you represent, supervisor, has been and will continue to be one of the concentrated areas of growth for us. as we all fight to build more housing towards our goal of 30,000 housing units by 2020, these high density areas are critically important. i think slowing down the pace of development may not be the right course. but along with housing, we have to make sure we keep our promise to build the transit, build the streets, and build the public amenities that have to be -- that have to accompany residential density. strategically planning for growth means making long-term investments in infrastructure. and the most important thing that we can do right now is to work together to place and pass two new revenue generating bonds measures on the november

2014 ballot. a 500 million dollars general obligation bond and an increase to the vehicle license fee which would generate almost $1 billion over the next 15 years. these new revenues will directly improve many of the categories you mention above, like bicycle and pedestrian improvements, streetscape projects and upgrades to our transit fleet. it also includes full funding for the city's street repavement program which is a long-standing goal with a ten-year capital plan and a big [speaker not understood] since my days at public works and city administrator. and while we can't and don't name specific projects in the bond, we are all certain that the eastern neighborhoods will benefit greatly with these investments. so, please, let's work together to ensure that the bond and the vehicle license fee both gain voters' approval in november. now turning, supervisor, to the heart of your question, infrastructure financing

districts are an important resource for local government, for investing in infrastructure that supports development, particularly in the wake of the ending of redevelopment agencies in california. as they are currently structured, however, ifds are constrained by a number of restrictions under creation and their use. and that's why i'm actively supporting governor brown's proposal to strengthen the ifds and give cities like ours greater flexibility in how we allocate the money. and we hope that the state legislature supports this proposal. even if we get the changes that we seek, it's important to point out that ifds don't create more money for our city, they fund specific capital improvements by earmarking money in the general fund for a particular purpose. sometimes this is appropriate and necessary. for eastern neighborhoods, i am open to the conversation that you are proposing about an infrastructure financing district for certain parts of the area, but it has to be done

in the context of city-wide needs and what improvements exactly are proposed. so, earmarking general funds isn't something that we do lightly, but let's work together to investigate what priorities need to be funded and in which specific parts of the eastern neighborhoods. once we've agreed on the needs, then we can focus on how to fund these important investments. thank you, supervisor, i look forward to working with you. >> thank you, mr. mayor. i think that concludes question time for today. thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks. madam clerk, why don't we go to our consent agenda. >> items 2 through 5 comprise the consent calendar. these items are considered routine. if a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. >> colleagues, would anyone like to sever any of these items? roll call vote. >> on item 2 through 5, supervisor tang? >> aye. >> tang aye. supervisor wiener? >> aye. >> wiener aye. supervisor yee? >> aye. >> yee aye. supervisor avalos? >> aye. >> avalos aye.

supervisor breed? aye. >> aye. >> breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. there are 11 ayes. >> these ordinances are finally passed and resolution adopted. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 6 is an ordinance calling and providing for a special election to be held in the city and county of san francisco on tuesday, june 3, 2014, for the purpose of submitting to san francisco voters a proposition to incur the following bond debt of the city and county: $400 million to finance the construction, acquisition, improvement, and seismic retrofitting of neighborhood fire and police stations, the emergency fire fighting water system, seismically secure facilities for the medical examiner, the police department's traffic company, the police department's forensic services division, and other critical infrastructure and facilities for earthquake safety and related costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes; authorizing landlords to pass-through 50% of the resulting property tax increase to residential tenants in accordance with administrative code, chapter 37; finding that the estimated cost of such proposed project is and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the city and county, and will require expenditures greater than the amount allowed therefor by the annual tax levy; reciting the estimated cost of such proposed project; fixing the date of election and the manner of holding such election and the proceand other infrastructure and facilities for earthquake safety and related costs and authorizing [speaker not understood] ~ to residential tenants.

>> colleagues, can we do this same house same call? without objection this ordinance is finally passed. [gavel] >> item 7. >> item 7 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the san francisco department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $173,515 from center for disease control and prevention to participate in a program entitled building resilience against climate effects: empowering san francisco communities to address climate change, for the period september 1, 2013, through august 31, 2014. ~ effectses a. seam house same call? this item is adopted. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 8 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the general manager of the recreation and park department to execute a five-year lease from february 1, 2014, through january 31, 2019, with one three-year option to extend, for an initial annual base rent of $662,400 with coit tower, llc, for the operation and management of coit tower; and reaffirming the commitment of the board of supervisors to protect and preserve coit tower and its murals in accordance with proposition b, passed by voters on june 5, 2012. ~ 662,000. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 9, ordinance amending the planning code to revie deadlines for certain transit impact development fee exemptions; eliminate project-specific references in exemptions applicable to redevelopment areas, and make such exemptions dependent on the term of the controlling development agreement, redevelopment plan, interagency agreement or other contract entered into by the city; require that the tidf be calculated based on the rate in effect and the time of issuance of the first construction document; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1? >> same house same call? this ordinance is passed on first read. let's go to committee report. i understand items 10 and 11 did not yet come out of committee.

madam clerk, can you call item 12. >> items 12 and 13 were considered by the neighborhood services and safety committee at a regular meeting on thursday, february 6. item 12 is a resolution determining that the premises-to premises transfer of a type 21 off-sale general license and a type 42 on-sale beer and wine public premises license from 1301 van ness avenue to the same address (district 2), to liz zaninovich for beverages & more, inc., dba bevmo!, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco in accordance with california business and professions code, section 23958.4, and recommending that the california department of alcoholic beverage control impose conditions on the issuance of the license. ~ convenience. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 13. >> item 13 is a resolution determining that the transfer of a type 20 off-sale beer and wine license from 129 carolina street to 829 26th street (district 10), to david netzer for wine house limited, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco in accordance with california business and professions code, section 23958.4. ~ convenience. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> why don't we now go to roll call. >> supervisor tang, you're first to introduce new items. >> thank you, madam clerk. today i'm introducing a future legislation to hopefully take effect in may. it is something that i worked on ~ i wish to debate, the third time i bring this program around for our city. may is small business month and it's where we celebrate here in san francisco our vibrant

merchant corridors in each of our districts. and what we're trying to do is create a fee waiver program so that many of our small businesses, those under 100 employees, can do certain facade improvements as well as pedestrian mobile lighting free of permit fees. so, we really do hope to encourage our small businesses he in contributing to a vibrancy of our merchant corridors. with that i submit. thank you. >> thank you, stanchion. ~ supervisor tang. supervisor yee. supervisor avalos. supervisor breed. >> thank you. in my capacity as the chair of the government audit and oversight committee, i'm introducing a motion directing the budget and legislative analyst to conduct an additional performance audit of the san francisco fire department. as you know, a couple months back, supervisor cohen introduced something similar and last month the bla completed an audit for the city's practices to recruit and

-- to retain and promote uniform fire staff and the fire department's use of overtime. we reviewed this audit in detail with the fire department and the department of human resources at the gao hearing on january 23rd. and frankly as i sat in the meeting, there was something very -- there were some very alarming revelations about our city's emergency medical services and i'm seriously concerned. people are calling 911 because of pedestrian [speaker not understood] or a loved one is having a heart attack or something of an emergency capacity is happening and the fire department has no ambulance to send. this is happening every single day. in fact, it's happening on an average of 8 times each day, and these medics that follow situations, medic to follow, is what they're called, they have increased over 500% since 2008. and if this is happening 8 times a day on an average day, then if we're in an emergency

situation, whether there is an event, whether there is an earthquake or terrorist attack, we are not in a situation where we have the capacity to address this issue appropriately. and that's not all. under its agreement, under the fire department agreement with the state emergency services authority, the fire department is supposed to respond to 80% of emergency medical calls in the city. it's currently 8% below this mark. remaining out of compliance could seriously jeopardize jobs within the fire department and revenue to the fire department in overall public safety. so, the fire department consistently asserts that their ems problems are the result of staffing and equipment shortages. so, i'm asking the budget and legislative analyst to tell us exactly what the department needs in terms of new personnel, ambulances, et cetera, in order to reach the required 80% call response rate. i'm requesting this report to

be completed in time for those needs to be considered in the next -- in the upcoming budget cycle. i'm also asking the bla to investigate if there are administrative staffing practices that may help the fire department free up existing resources. the fire department's ems sufficiency is literally endangering public safety. as we craft another $8 million budget, i hope the mayor and the board of supervisors include the funding needed to provide san francisco with reliable emergency services in the long run. the other item i have today, i'm introducing a hearing request with the support of supervisor avalos, supervisor campos, and supervisor cohen. thank you, supervisor avalos, for helping us with this particular issue. but this is a hearing request in regards to the housing authority and the mayor's office of housing and the

community to develop and discuss the u.s. department of housing and urban development recent approval of assistance demonstration program which as many of us heard the name rad, this is the program, what it's being called and it's for public housing. so, there are going to be a lot of changes to public housing. the city's rad application is approved and now it is time to have a clear understanding of what this means for san francisco, what this means for the residents of public housing, and what this means for the job opportunities that currently exist and future job opportunities. overall, there are a lot of residents i know in my district that are really concerned about the changes in public housing and they want to understand exactly what it means. there were a few meetings in the neighborhood and there was a lot of confusion. so, i think it's important that we bring this issue to the board of supervisors to have an open discussion to be given the facts about what the change could mean to our residents and make sure that we're all on

board with this change. so, ultimately my goal is to make sure that we're doing everything we can to not only make sure that the residents, the public housing are protected, but their properties are brought up to code. so, there's about 4,500 residents of public housing city-wide. many of those folks are in district 5 and district 10 and, so, we want to know exactly what the san francisco housing authority and the mayor's office of housing, how do they plan to work together, how is this plan going to take fold, and what does this mean for job opportunities. so, this hearing request is being introduced today and i'm looking forward to hearing the results, and the goal is to make sure that we provide input into this process for not just the residents but the jobs that surround public housing, which include many union jobs as well as jobs that potentially could be made available to residents of public housing.

thank you. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor breed. supervisor campos. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, today i am introducing a resolution that deals with the very important issue of city college of san francisco. i want to thank the following co-sponsors of this resolution. supervisors mar, avalos, wiener, yee. as you know, at the beginning of this week, yesterday mayor lee and state senator mark leno introduced legislation to protect the funding for city college. and i think that as we move forward to take the very important step of making sure that funding is available for the next four years that we need to make sure that we also as quickly as possible see the restoration of democratic decision making to this very important institution. the resolution that i'm

introducing urges the state community college's chancellor brad harris, to restore the voice of san francisco voters and to bring back transparency and public accountability to city college of san francisco by promptly restoring the duly elected board of trustees. at a time when san francisco's leaders are coming together to support preserving funding and preserving city college, it is important that we ensure that there is access to quality education in san francisco and it is important that we do that, we do not lose sight of the importance of transparency and openness as decisions that impact students, faculty, staff, community members, and voters are being made. we know that back in july of 2013 the california community college's board of governors changed state law to take away the board of trustees' power and to put in place -- in their

place a special trustee who has extraordinary powers. even though the school was not in a state of financial insolvency. ~ since this special trustee was given those extraordinary powers, the special trustee has been the sole decision maker for city college. he has been making major decisions without any open public process, decisions that have been made unfortunately behind closed doors, decisions that normally would have gone before the elected, the duly elected body so that those decisions ensure transparency and the involvement of the voters of san francisco. i believe that we cannot allow this to continue to be the case and that the lack of transparency that we have seen needs to change. and some of the decisions that

have been made we believe are decisions that would not have been made had there been an open democratic process and a forum for the public to actually know about the decisions and the perfect example involves an article that was published by the chronicle this past friday that talked about how the city college of san francisco, even though faculty had received a 4% wage decrease, that there are at least three administrators that are actually making, you know, 13% or higher more than the highest value that is officially approved by city college. in other words, a significant increase in the pay raise of top administrators without any open forum, without any process of the public providing opinion about whether or not those races are appropriate.

i also note the changes in the student payment policy, that changes that the prior process that allowed low-income students in particular to have more time to pay tuition. and because of the abrupt change in how that payment is made, we have heard from a number of students, many of them undocumented students, who are required to pay out of state tuition, that they'd have to drop out of school because they don't have the thousands of dollars that they're being asked to pay right away. and these are not students that are trying to skirt the obligation, not trying to avoid the payment. simply low-income students that want a chance to get an education and want time to pay, which is what the college provided previously. that situation that we have right now is simply not tenable and it is not consistent with the kind of college that we

want to see. we want to make sure that the voice of the voters of san francisco is brought back to city college. and i have heard, as i'm sure many of my colleagues have heard, from many of my constituents, many of them students at city college who feel that decisions are being made about their future without them having a forum, a way of expressing their opinions. as an elected member of this body, i believe that i have a responsibility to make sure that the constituents that i represent in district 9, that their concerns are heard. and the best way to do that is to bring democracy back and by allowing the duly elected body to play the role that it's supposed to be played by them under state law. lastly, i want to thank the numerous people who have worked with me and my staff on this resolution, the entire city

college community that is committed to making sure that we have a college that is accountable, that that belief that that accountability cannot take place without transparency. i especially want to thank the members of the save city college coalition, the move city college forward coalition, as well as the incredible members of aft 2121, and so many who are faculty at city college and so many others, and especially the students who have shared with us their experiences. all of these individuals share a commitment to city college and believe that the only way to move city college forward and to preserve this institution is to make sure that we have an open democratic and inclusive process so that decisions like giving top administrators a pay raise are not made in a vacuum and without public input. i look forward to this item being heard at the neighborhood

services and safety committee. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor campos. supervisor farrell. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, last week at our budget and finance committee we held a hearing that lasted over three hours. i want to thank my colleagues for staying there with me to start the discussion about our efforts as a city to combat homelessness. despite all our good work over the last ten years including housing over 3,000 individuals in permanent supportive housing and reunited over 7,000 individuals with loved ones in other cities, we do have the same number of people on our streets here in the city of san francisco as we did ten years ago and i do believe it's time we do more. one of the things revealed in last week's hearing we all know this is a complicated issue where there is no single solution. there are many ideas that sprung up during our conversationses and many more i've been speaking with over the last few months with city department heads, advocates and professionals who deal with our homeless population on a daily basis here in san francisco.

what also came out of last week's hearing were a few areas where there seem to be overarching consent on a number of issues. one of those areas was a homeless outreach team. not only the great work that they do, but also an acknowledgment there is an area under significant investment. despite having thousands of people on our streets here in san francisco at any given time, there are only 2 to 4 people from our homeless outreach team that are available to address our homeless population. so, today i'm introducing legislation to double the capacity of our department of public health homeless outreach team and to add 100 new stabilization beds to dph's portfolio. this investment will put morev homeless outreach members into our neighborhoods with the highest need to assist those living on the street and provide additional shelter locations for them to stabilize their health. i pledge at a recent hearing to follow-up with tangible solutions which i would hope move the needle forward on homelessness and i do believe this target investment will make a difference in the lives of those living in our streets and for our city residents.

as a background on the homeless outreach team also known as the hot team, it is the department of public health's main outreach program consisting of city civil service employees, nonprofit contractors. people from outreach bring homeless persons with health, mental health, and substance abuse issues into dph's emergency stabilization rooms and other temporary settings and case management to link them with the appropriate treatment and housing opportunities. an expanded homeless outreach team will be better poised to address the most difficult and chronically homeless individuals who are in a need of complex care management and will be able to better respond to neighborhood needs for short-term localized interventions. the hot team focuses their efforts on areas of the city which have the highest need and the largest concentration of individuals living on the streets. many of the hot team members have clinical and case management experience. some are formerly homeless and all have shown a great com pence it to compel individuals living on the streets to accept

treatment, services and housing opportunities to better their lives. at its core, this legislation will allow the department of public health to do three simple things. first, it will increase the number of people who are doing direct outreach on the street. more people providing more outreach will get more individuals into services and housing opportunities. second, this legislation will allow the department of public health to increase the skill level of their teams meaning they can hire more individuals with clinical and case management backgrounds. as we heard last week, better skilled outreach workers will deliver better results for those living on our streets. as a result, each new team add will now have the capacity to handle additional 160 new case management clients, meaning they will have more direct people to work with to better their situation. and third, it will allow for the addition of 100 new stabilization vets where homeless individuals will be able to bert stabilize their path [speaker not understood]. in the end i do believe we need

new targeted programs for homeless individual and families living on our streets. this is just the beginning of a longer dialogue, but i firmly believe this targeted investment in our homeless team will drive a positive impact [speaker not understood] and pull more people off the streets into more services and shelter. again, we all know there is no silver bullet to end homelessness in our city or reducing the population, but that does not mean we can turn our backs on the issue. reducing homelessness on our streets will take a comprehensive, diligent, and dedicated focus to continue to move the needle forward and this legislation is a first step to doing just that. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor farrell. (applause) >> supervisor kim. supervisor mar. >> thank you, madam clerk. i have a couple of item. first, colleagues, a consistent critical issue that is coming