tremendous for the future of the park. and your dedication also guarantees [speaker not understood]. $10 million is coming to work in the park ha been part of really how -- part of revitalizing the community, advocacy around the park. so, the first day, i believe, there is a special saturday in the park children's concert on may 31st with a special remembrance of frank owe mancini who was instrumental in getting so many people involved in mclaren park. so, that will be -- is that the first? the first day. so, we're going to have a first day back we're honoring frank owe mancini and his legacy that includes your work. just want to say thank you for your volunteerism and for revitalizing the park and welcome. >> thank you, supervisor. (applause) >> [speaker not understood].

>> thank you so much. this was truly a collaborative effort. i appreciate being called up here, but i want you to just take a look at all the volunteers. and this is only a handful of the ones that could get off work or could be here today. there were over 45 people who spent their saturdays working as docents. we're going to get more training today in the area of safety, public safety through the castro community on patrol, one of the finest s.f. safe organizations that we have in the city. and we're going to continue to build on this so this can be a city-wide program of docents working in our parks to help facilitate events, keeping costs down, and also providing an extra service area for park and rec in our city's parks and putting on more events. so, its was a twofold thing. one was to bring muse and i can concerts and entertainment to the park, but the other was to add to the public safety a expect of the parks and be able to prevent problems from coming

up and also to give the public a lot more access to their parks. ~ aspect so, thank you so much. we appreciate this honor and onward to 2014 season. >> great, thank you. (applause) >> thank you, supervisor avalos. why don't we now go to the next item on our agenda. madam clerk, can you call item 5? >> item 6, mr. president. >> item 6. >> item 6 is a resolution

authorizing adoption of the fiscal year 2013-2014 annual update to mental health services act program and expenditure plans. >> colleague, can we do this same house same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 7. >> item 7 is a resolution retroactively approving performance contract no. 13-90332, between community behavioral health services and the department of health care services, incorporating the mental health services act, projects for assistance in transition from homelessness, and community mental health services grant programs, for the period of july 1, 2013, through june 30, 2014; and authorizing the community behavioral health services director, department of public health, to sign said agreement and any and all amendments in the future. >> colleague, same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> if we could call items 8 and 9. >> item 8 is an ordinance amending the administrative code, to provide that the residents of the public utilities commission service area are considered "local" for purposes of mandatory participation for the city's local hiring policy, on certain projects located within 70 miles of the jurisdictional boundary of the city and county of san francisco. item 9 is a resolution amending the administrative code, to extend the periodic review of

the city's local hiring policy and to determine the mandatory participation level for the policy. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you, president chiu. colleagues, i urge your support on these two items. the local hire ordinance was built in to have a period to review how the ordinance is working, how it's working programmatically. we want to make sure we're building the work force pipeline for projects. we want to make sure that we're effectively working with contractors and with the building trades for the proper implementation. and, so, there's a review period is the time to do that work. the data is coming in right now. so, what this resolution does is actually pauseses the requirement at 30%, doesn't go up to 35% as it would have done this year. so, we'll keep it at 30%. we'll check the data and we'll make adjustments to the program later in the year. the other measure about the jurisdictional boundary of the program for local hiring under

the puc is actually a much more of a way than i had envisioned local hire program to work. instead of having a 70 mile radius from san francisco where puc projects exist, that would be a radius within which people would access jobs within the puc construction territory. we're actually saying that anyone who is a rate payer who actually pays for the construction, that our bond are paying for in the [speaker not understood] program would have access to the jobs within the puc boundary. it's much more a way we had envisioned the local hiring ordinance to work, where you're actually putting forward public dollars for construction as a rate payer, you're putting forth public dollars, that you would actually have the benefit of the local hire program. that would extend the local hire principle beyond san francisco, but to people who are receiving water and other services from the puc. so, colleagues, i urge your support on these two measures. thank you. >> colleagues, can we take

these two item same house same call? this ordinance is passed on first reading on item 8 and the resolution on item 9 is adopted. [gavel] >> item 10. >> item 10 is a resolution retroactively approving a contract between the department of public health and health advocates, llc, to provide uncompensated care reimbursement recovery services for the period of january 1, 2014, through december 31, 31, 2017, for an amount not to exceed $6,300,390. >> colleague, same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 11. >> item 11 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the police department to accept and expend a grant augmentation in the amount of $230,529 from the governor's office of emergency services, for the anti-human trafficking task force program, for the period of october 1, 2013 through june 30, 2014. ~ program. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 12. >> item 12 is a resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a lease agreement for cargo building 606, and related areas on plot 9b, no. l13-0257, between southwest airlines, co., and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, with a minimum rent amount of $1,313,761 for a term of five years, to commence upon board approval.

~ next five years. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 13 is a resolution supporting city, state, and federal efforts to reduce pharmaceutical prices and increase transparency of the pharmaceutical rate-setting process. >> president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair. colleagues, you remember that last november the voters of san francisco passed proposition d which has now made it official city policy for our city to employ all available resource he he to reducing the cost of pharmaceutical medications. this is a measure that was passed by an overwhelming majority of voters and placed on the ballot with 18,000 san francisco signatures. the resolution we have in front of us, and i want to thank both supervisors wiener and campos for their co-sponsorship, is the next step in moving forward with this commitment. and specifically the resolution asks the city to commit to four things. first, to ask the department of public health to explore the feasibility of using consumer websites to provide cost and

price comparisons for specific medications by san franciscans. secondly, to ask our city to pursue the extension of the federal 340 b drug pricing program to inpatient settings in our city's federal legislative agenda for this year. thirdly, it states that our board would support legislation to increase transparency and pricing for health care and prescription drugs. and then finally, the firms our city support for innovative state and federal efforts to reduce pharmaceutical prices and to increase the transparency of our rate setting process. as you know, colleagues, there is a lot of work that still needs to be done in this area. this has been a challenge at the federal, state, and local level and i do hope that you will be able to support this measure so we can move forward and really addressing the mandate that the voters adopted with proposition b. >> colleague, any questions? i believe the house has changed. >> that is correct, mr. chair. >> roll call. >> on item 13, supervisor avalos? >> aye. >> avalos aye. supervisor breed?

breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. there are 9 ayes. >> this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 14. >> item 14 is an ordinance accepting the shaw alley public improvements and maintenance of same as a gift to the city; approving a major street encroachment permit for the construction and maintenance of the public improvements; deferring a portion of the additional street space occupancy permit fees associated with the permit and adjacent development; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; adopting findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policy of planning code, section 101.1; and directing official acts in furtherance of this ordinance. ~ and adopting the requisite findings. >> actually the house has changed again. roll call vote. >> on item 14, supervisor avalos? >> aye. >> avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar?

mar aye. supervisor tang in tang aye. there are nine ayes. >> the ordinance is passed on first reading. [gavel] >> and item 15. >> item 15 was considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on thursday, march 6 and forwarded to the board as a committee report. it is an ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by bre/glen fl me 4 against the city for approximately 5 13,000. the lawsuit was filed on march 26, 2013 in san francisco superior court. >> colleagues, can we do this same house same call? without objection, this ordinance passes on first read. [gavel] >> why don't we go to roll call. >> first introduction of new business, [speaker not understood]. >> re-refer, please. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. excuse me. colleague, today i have one item with three parts. after we spent the better part

of 2013 working on the condo conversion legislation, i'm sure no one is really excited about revisiting the issue now. but one of the reasons that the legislative process took so long is because it's a very complex issue. there are numerous conversion situations to account for depending on the building size, the history, owner occupancy, unit transfer, et cetera. and i think we all recognize that with the benefit of a few months of implementation, we may need to come back with some clean-up amendments and that's what i'm introducing today. specifically, i have three small changes to the condo conversion legislation. the first, i actually introduced in november. it clarifies the process where appealing the conversion [speaker not understood]. the existing law says that any appeal must be based on the nexus between an impact of the development and the amount of the fee charge. we have had several appeals come to the board that had nothing to do with that.

so, my amendment says that the clerk of the board can reject an appeal if it does not on its face address the nexus between the conversion and the fee. any member of the board can overrule the clerk and ask for the appeal to be scheduled. this is in keeping with the intent of the law and i think it would be fair for everyone. the other two changes were designed to help those who are struggling with the affordability crisis. first, for those who are at or below 120% of area median income, the law currently provides an opportunity to defer that payment of the conversion fee. that deferral period is quite short and does not give the owner per the ami restrictions has very limited means. enough time to come up with $20,000 in cash ~. my amendment extends the deferral period to six months after the parcel map is issued. this way medium to low-income owners can realize the increased property value

associated with the conversion and refinance based on the new value before they have a chance to pay the city. before the deferral, the city will record the fee debt against the title of the property, meaning all owners, not just the one who deferred the payment, will be responsible to pay the debt. i am confident that the city will not lose out on this fee revenue, which is important to affordable housing. and i think this will be fair to cash strapped middle income san franciscans who will be able to enjoy the same conversion benefits currently afforded everyone else under the bypass. lastly, in response to a group of family who contacted my office in recognition of a foreclosure crises, we have all [speaker not understood], i am proposing to modify the restrictionses object those who have faced a foreclosure in their building. an example is a three-unit building, one of the owner occupiers went through a divorce and lost their job, and

then faced the distressed housing market of 2009. she tried to modify the mortgage of her unit for almost nine months to no avail. she lived in the unit to the day that the bank foreclosed on the property. the bank then held the unit for six months until a new owner bought it and moved in. under the current conversion law, the families in this building must wait several years to convert via the bypass because the foreclosed unit exceeded the three months allowable gap in owner occupancy. even though the unit was owner occupied before both and after the foreclosure, even though the bank held the building off the unit with no renter or occupant, even though the foreclosure is a misfortune, we seek to remedy, not penalize folks for. this building is being excluded from the conversion, but all other buildings can enjoy. and my amendment simply says that a foreclosure will not

count as a gap in owner occupancy. during the months we all spent developing the conversion legislation, i think there was broad consensus that we should afford every existing and eligible tic the opportunity to convert. i know the tic conversion law was a vigorous fight that no one is interested in resurrecting, myself included, but these are very straightforward clean-up amendments and i hope we can treat them as such. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor breed. supervisor campos. >> thank you, madam clerk. and colleagues, i would ask you to bear with me. this is what i get for making fun of john avalos turning 50, i can't read without my glass es as it is now. i'll trap to do my best. i have a number of items, but the first item is legislation that creates an lgbt right to know with respect to housing in other parts of the country. this legislation -- and i want

to thank the following supervisors for their co-sponsorship. supervisors wiener, kim, farrell and avalos, address he the issue of housing discrimination against members of the lgbt community. lgbt people continue to face prejudice and sometimes outright hostility from landlords, real estate agents, and lenders when looking for housing in many parts of this country. disturbingly, one in five transgender people have been refused housing in the united states and more than one in 10 have been evicted because of their gender identity. a recent study by the -- by hud shows that same-second couples are treated less favorably than opposite sex couples in the online rental market. and yet at the federal level, the national fair housing act still does not include protections for the lgbt community and the majority of states in this country do not have laws that protect our community from discrimination

in housing. i am proud that we have strong housing discrimination laws here in san francisco and that we have that in the state of california. but i know that many people in san francisco are being forced to leave san francisco due to the displacement and affordability crisis that we face. and as members of our community, i displace to other parts of the country, some i'm sorry to say will be experiencing an erosion of equal rights, including access to basic protections like fair treatment and housing. my legislation will require companies without with out of state properties who are applying to build 10 units or more here in san francisco to simply indicate whether they had a national policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. if they do have that policy, they will be asked to provide a copy of the policy to the city and the human rights commission will then compile the information and present it to

the board of supervisors annually. we have a right to know whether developers hoping to build in san francisco are protecting lgbt housing rights when they own or manage housing in other states where legal protections do not protect members of this community. by collecting this information, we can highlight best practices and urge those who do not have these policies to do the right thing. i believe that many developer, owners and property managers will want to do the right thing and just need to be asked to do so. i want to thank the following organizations who offer their support and insight in developing this legislation, including the national fair housing alliance, the national housing law project, the aids legal referral panel, the san francisco human rights commission, the national center for lesbian rights, and the aids housing alliance. i want to provide a special thank you to brian massinger for had i work on this

legislation and his support of lgbt housing rights for our most marginalized communities. second item that i have is an ordinance that makes a very narrow amendment to the mission alcohol special use district. and this ordinance would amend the mission sud to create a narrow exception allowing mini golf courses to serve alcohol beverages, alcoholic beverages if they are functionally and/or physically integrated within a restaurant use. ~ muni we have already made those changes to bowling alleys and i think it's consistent with that that we make the change today. this legislation will specifically benefit urban putt who has demonstrated its mission to supporting its mission in the residents, including [speaker not understood] prices for

miniature golf for $8 for kids and $12 for adults, making it affordable for many people who live in these neighborhoods. this entity will employ nearly 50 people and i know that they're working with local organizations, including the mission economic development agency, ariba juntos including those to coordination local hiring. i want to thank them for the internship programs they have created for members of our community. the last two pieces of legislation, one is a resolution, one an ordinance deal with the issue of health care. and the first one is a resolution in support of senate bill 1005, hearing the state senate in california. right now, an estimated 3 to 4 million people in california will remain uninsured, notwithstanding the affordable care act.

because the aca specifically excludes undocumented people from insurance -- insurance coverage that's provided through medi-cal and the health care exchange, more than 1 million of these undocumented residents will be ineligible for health coverage in california. sb 1005 which is authored by senator ricardo lard a will create the california health exchange program for all californiaians that would allow everyone in california to have access to care regardless of their immigration status. immigration status should not be -- should not bar an individual from accessing health care. exclusion of undocumented immigrants does not reflect our values and, in fact, goes against the interest of our communities. access to preventive care keeps people healthier by providing regular checkups and screenings and an early diagnosis of health problems ensures that

these problems can be treated at an early stage. the treatment is successful and it's not overly expensive. currently the state of california spends $1.4 billion a year on emergency services for undocumented californians. by insuring everyone -- by insuring that everyone has access to health care, we can improve the health care of our entire community, reduce emergency costs, and limit the overcrowding of emergency rooms. ~ ensuring this is an important step in making sure that we have health care for all californians and, so, i ask you to join me in supporting ricardo lard a's sb 1005. this leads me to my last introduction, and this is something that has been in the works for quite sometime. colleagues, i want to tell you that today i rise to inform you that we have asked the city

attorney to draft legislation modifying our city's landmark health and security ordinance for the purpose of maximizing health insurance coverage for san francisco's residents and employees pursuant to the affordable care act. ~ we once again have an extraordinary opportunity here in san francisco to provide near universal health coverage to our residents. if we make the right changes to the health and security ordinance so that it is an ordinance that is designed to complement the aca and maximize the effectiveness of the aca. it is my intent as we go forward with this legislation to introduce the legislation one week from today at the next meeting of the full board of supervisors. as you know, i was eight months

ago mayor lee reconvened the health care council to review the interaction of the health and security ordinance with the affordable care act, and to advise city officials on how to ensure that san francisco gets the greatest possible benefit under the new federal law. i'm happy to report, as you know, that there was broad agreement among the council's members that the two laws were complementary and that the healthy san francisco and the city's employee health care spending requirement should continue to coexist with the aca under the new federal framework. the council, however, did not attempt to reach a collective conclusion norrish you collective finding regarding specific data nor recommendationses that were raised by different participants. in fact, instead of doing that, the council completed its efforts by compiling and

reporting the contributions of the department of public health staff and stakeholder groups and leaving it to the mayor and this body, the board of supervisors, to decide whether or not any changes to a health and security ordinance are warranted. and in the spirit of that work, i think it's imperative that we as an entity, we a a board of supervisors carefully look at the pictures that are needed. ~ as a the council's report makes it clear that the healthy san francisco program and the employer health care spending requirements put the city in a unique position to lead the nation in helping the aca achieve its fullest potential. san francisco is in the best position of any other city to make sure that a many people have access to health care as possible. to maximize that access, however, there are several thing that need to happen. i look forward between now and the time we introduce this

ordinance and in the next coming weeks as we move forward with a discussion and review of the ordinance to have and engage in a discussion with all of you about the best way to maximize access. i do want to point out a couple of points that i think you should know are fundamental to what the ordinance will try to do. first, we must now and finally close the loophole that has allowed a minority of san francisco businesses to use stand alone healthy american investment accounts to avoid the majority of the spending requirement in the law. while the aca out lawed stand alone hras, employers have created a new mechanism. it's called an accepted benefits hra that will allow these employers to continue to claw back up used money in worker accounts.

arguably, the accepted benefits hra, this new tool that has been created, is more harmful to the worker under stand alone hra because workers under the accepted benefits hra are explicitly prohibited from using money in the account to pay their share of premiumses, deductibles, co-payments and other costs associated with carrying health insurance. therefore, while individuals for the first time in our history in other parts of the country have a federal mandate to purchase insurance, these individuals in san francisco, they will not be able to use money and accept the benefits hra to meet their mandate. the fact is particularly problematic because the most authoritative study on the subject projects that without access to the resources he made available by the employer, health care spending requirement, 40% or more of san franciscans eligible for

subsidy -- for subsidized health insurance coverage under the aca will not be able to take it until 2019, 40%. almost half the city. and this is primarily due to the lack of funds, which is especially acute given the profound affordability crisis we face in san francisco. affordability is not just about housing. it's certainly about health care. without access to these funds for the purposes of paying costs related to the purchase of subsidized coverage through cover california, many low-income and middle income san franciscans will not only go without health insurance they need and deserve, but much of the cost of their care will fall back onto the city's public health system and safety providers san francisco taxpayers. as a result it is critical now more than ever that we eliminate this incentive, this

perverse incentive for employers to use accepted benefits hras in the hopes of evading their obligation by requiring that they -- that only irrevocable expenditures will count towards meeting the employer health care spending requirement here in san francisco. the second point that i want to make is that we also have a unique opportunity to [speaker not understood] public benefits program under the health and security ordinance to maximize the number of san franciscans that purchase health insurance and to create a needed wrap around program for medi-cal receipts. one of the unique strengths of the san francisco city option is that because it is a public benefit program, worker can use city medical reimbursement accounts to pay for premiums, deductibles, co-payments and other costs associated with carrying health insurance coverage through cover california without actually disqualifying them from federal subsidies under the aca.

during the process thats was followed by the universal health care council, staff and the mayor's office, the department of public health, and the city attorney's office vetted the question with federal officials, and i believe that they were all satisfied that the city mra funds could be used for these purposes. because of that, i have asked the city attorney's office to explore how we can best codify the structure of the city option as receipts of employer funds and assignment of enrollees to receipt sets of benefits with the aim of ensuring that the funds are most efficiently used to encourage enrollment and health insurance and to provide useful benefits to medi-cal beneficiaries. the third point that i want to make is that while the combination of the aca and the hcso have the potential to make health insurance truly affordable in san francisco, coverage will remain unfortunately unaffordable for