encourage any interested people to apply so that we may continue to further diversify our task force. thank you very much. >> thank you. supervisor tang. >> thank you. and i appreciate supervisor yee's comments. some of them were actually similar ones i was going to make. unfortunately we only had actually two members of our committee at the rules committee meeting and, so, i think to be fair as well as given the number of candidates, we really hoped to, to appoint more individuals to the task force at our next scheduled rules committee meeting. i also had the opportunity to speak with two of the organizations that do have designated seats on the task force. i believe that we had great conversations about how it is that we can mentor future applicants to serve on the task force and become interested in it as well as increasing the amount and level of diversity of the candidates as supervisor yee mentioned. so, just to reiterate, none of the candidates who applied are out of the running.

they are still being considered and we still only hope to move along the confirmations at a future meeting. thank you. >> supervisor avalos. >> i appreciate the work that the rules committee members had done on selection for these candidates who are before us today. but i really feel that the process was kind of incomplete and i'd like to be able to think that we can actually approve the members all together. i mean, the seats, there's enough applicants to fill all the seats. it seems like that could be before the rules committee. i know the june 5th rules committee meeting, member who wasn't there, david campos will be there and i'm hoping that we can make a motion to send back these names back to the committee to be able to hear all together with the other

applicants and together [speaker not understood] that one more time. i do realize there was a lot of work involved, but to me it would make a lot of sense to do that, especially because i don't feel comfortable with all the candidates who are here before us right now. >> supervisor campos. >> that was a motion. i made a motion to send back. >> oh, i'm sorry. supervisor avalos has made a motion to send these back to committee. is there a second to that? seconded by supervisor campos. supervisor campos. >> thank you. i do want to begin by noting that i do serve on the rules committee and i was not present at the meeting. i had a long-time previously scheduled appointment where i was flying to chicago on behalf of hotel workers from two local hotels and we were -- i was leading a delegation of worker to meet with shareholders that own these two hotels that have taken pretty harsh anti-worker

stances. and, so, i couldn't be at the meeting because of that. we did try to get a replacement. we couldn't do that. ~ in the end. i do want to thank the committee and my fellow committee members for the work that they did and i know that the chair of the committee and his staff, they run a pretty tight ship and they want to move quickly on all of these things and i really appreciate that. i do believe, though, that there are larger issues, which is why i'm supporting the motion to send this back. and i am concerned about a number of things. i am concerned that the rules committee along the lines that have been done before did not move forward the nominations by sbj, mark [speaker not

understood] and ali winston as well as the league of women voters nominee, alison washburn. i do believe that it's important to have diversity, but i also believe that when you have qualified applicants and the law actually requires that you fill these seats, that it's important to move those -- the people that have applied forward. and i do have a concern, quite frankly, that we are in violation of what the ordinance, the sunshine ordinance requires. i also think that there were a number of other candidates that could have been moved forward, including the highly qualified lee hepner and, you know, while i actually appreciate that some of these names didn't move forward, i think that it's important for us to look at these appointments in their

totality so that we're not in any way not following what the sunshine ordinance require. i do have a question for legal counsel, though. >> mr. givner? >> so, i guess, you know, my main concern is that by not moving forward the nomination by the sbj and the league of women voters that we are essentially in violation of the sunshine ordinance. and i was wondering if you could comment, through the chair, if you could comment on that in term of the legality of the board simply saying, we're not going to fill those vacancies. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the sunshine ordinance provides that those organizations will nominate and the board will confirm. ultimately, the ordinance itself doesn't restrict the board to approving the nominees that are submitted by those organizations.

so, at this point the organization has, has -- each organization basically has two options. to come back to the board with the same nominee and ask -- urge the board to confirm that nominee, or to come back to the board with a different nominee or a different list of names that the sunshine ordinance suggested is an option. >> my understanding is the intent of the ordinance was to ensure that there were representatives of certain communities and in this case, you know, you're talking about journalist, you're talking about the league of women voters. and since the board is not moving forward on those appointments as has been the case before, could there be a finding of violation of the board for failing to meet that requirement? that's just one question that i had. >> ultimately the board has

discretion in its, in its appointment. and as with many different types of advisory bodies in the city, there are various qualifications for different seats. the board sometimes has trouble finding people who meet those qualifications or have [speaker not understood] for a while, and other times the board simply does not choose to confirm or appoint the people who have applied at the rules committee or who have been nominated by the organization. that alone is not a violation of the sunshine ordinance because the ordinance doesn't restrain the board of supervisors discretion in making appointment. >> just finally, in terms of the appointment of a representative from the disabled community, if we fail to include that, would that be a violation? >> the sunshine ordinance provides that one of the 11 voting members must be a person

with a disability. my understanding is that currently there is a hold over member of the task force who meets that qualification. so, the board could act on the nominees that are before you and, and maintain -- continue to have the task force comply with that requirement. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang. >> sure, i actually just wanted -- this came up as well during committee so i wanted to pose the question since this has been a motion to send this back to rules committee. many of the applicants actually suggested that the board of supervisors because we've been holding up appointments that they had core issues. a question was posed about if we were to move forward three names or not, how would that impact the ability of the task force to continue operation. deputy city attorney jon givner

again. my understanding is there are a number of hold overs whose terms expired and continue to serve on the task force. and, so, not reappointing -- not appointing people to replace those hold overs immediately would not cause legal problems in terms of the task force not having a quorum. of course, if members resign or are unable to attend meetings, they could have quorum problems, but it's not a, it's not a legal restriction on the board considering these appointments today. >> thank you. and i also just wanted to respond to some of the comments made as well. i think that there's been a lot of suggestion that we are not planning to move forward certain recommendationses from certain seats. none of us have indicated that. and again, like i said, i've had conversations with sjp, the league of women voters had really positive conversations with them. so looking forward to

continuing that dialogue. we seek a very difficult verse pool of candidates, so thank you. >> thank you. supervisor yee. >> thank you. so, we did spend a lot of time on this issue and asked many of the questions that are being raised at this point. i want to be real clear that the three that we have put forward, the [speaker not understood] in the committee we're supporting. so, the outcome to bring them back wouldn't make any difference to me and i would not be supporting this amendment because i don't want to put people through something that they don't need to go through. the other thing would be that in regards to several of the nominees, it what just no agreement to put them forward at the time, but the decision to do was not to say that we

don't want them. we just needed to have two votes to move some of the others forward. so, that's why we wanted to duplicate the file, is that what it was? so that none of the candidates would be eliminated. so, i will not be supporting the amendment. >> supervisor breed. >> i just want a point of clarification. so, my understanding some of -- all three of the names you put forward are people who actually served on the sunshine task force? yes, okay. and the other, i guess, i wanted to ask the city attorney about, the requirements in terms of meeting because i did follow-up with one of the candidates in regards to their [speaker not understood]. so my understanding they don't have a regular meeting day and the regular meeting changes consistently.

so, it's not like, for example, we meet every tuesday. they're meeting maybe on tuesday, they may be on the 17ing. they're very random which make it difficult for some members to attend. so, i just wanted some clarification about whether or not that's the case. >> deputy city attorney jon givner again. i can't speak to that. i don't know what the task force's schedule is. i'm not familiar enough with the bylaws to know [speaker not understood]. >> but they decide when they meet? >> committees and task forceses can always hold special meetings on dates that they're choosing. most advise iery and policy bodies have regular meetings at set times. ~ advisory i just don't know about the sunshine ordinance task force. ment i don't know what their schedule is. >> okay, thank you. >> can i -- >> any further questions? supervisor yee? >> no, just to answer your

question, from the committee meetings we asked the same questions about -- because one of the candidates that we are actually putting forward indicated there were several absences. and, so, we asked the question why. and it's been confirmed from different members that they have moved the committee meetings and that made it hard for certain people to schedule because of their personal situation with kids and so forth. so, yes, they did -- for whatever reason they didn't have the regular meetings on a certain calendar date. >> thank you. >> supervisor breed, do you have any follow-up? >> i just had a comment. as a former member of the rules committee and i know how long some of those meetings could be

and the process and, you know, how tedious and how hard of a decision it is oftentimes to make when you have so many incredible candidates. i think that you have chosen some really great candidates. i think from my understanding they have served and they have done a good job on the sunshine ordinance task force. i happen to know personally two of those members and will be happy to put my name behind those two individuals in addition to one of the other individuals who i reviewed credentials forward and followed up and discovered we have three very good candidates and i think you did a very good job of choosing them. it appears that there are going to be other options in the future and, so, i'm happy to move this item forward and support the recommendations made by the rules committee. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just had a point of clarification. so, there were five open seats

considered at rules committee? >> [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. >> we have another 13. i think there were 11. were there 11? there what much more than 5. >> through the president to supervisor kim, i understand there were 11 open before the task force. >> so 11 were open and of those 11 we forwarded 3. i just wanted to get a sense. and to our city attorney, when we have not filled a vacancy, then the proceeding [speaker not understood] a member so they cannot aloe sign. ~ resign. that is how the sunshine ordinance has been meeting its quorum? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. that's correct. i believe there are several members whose, whose terms

have, have ended who are holding over, which is allowed under the sunshine ordinance task force, but not under certain charter created committees -- commissions. >> okay, thank you. and seats 1 through 5 are the ones that must be appointed or nominated by an organization. i don't believe that we've confirmed any of those and my assumption is the proceeding, not members, can change who serve in though seats. great. i just wanted to say i do know, too, out of the members as a member of the rules committee, i am happy to support all three of those members, but i also do support having them go back to rules for a full -- so we have a full universe of candidates that come before us. if that motion doesn't come through, i'm happy to support these three moving forward. i know we have to move on the sunshine ordinance task force.

[speaker not understood] i do think it's important to fill those seats. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you. i'll be voting against the motion. i want to thank the rules committee for its work to supervisor yee and supervisor tang for going through what i know is a very lengthy hearing and being very thoughtful and considering each of the people who appeared at that hearing and then making a decision about which you were prepared to go forward at that time. so, i want to respect the work of the rules committee and we he don't have to fill all the seats in one fell swoop. the seats that are not being reappointed at this time are hold overs and they can continue to serve with the rules committee, the members that were there did go through a lengthy hearing and forwarded three very solid incumbents who have i think done -- all of them -- a very good job in helping to turn around this task force which has had a really problematic history in terms of violating the charter

and some other challenges. [speaker not understood]. i do support them. [speaker not understood]. i know he the rules committee will forward us additional names. i also just want to note that with respect to the organization that nominate members, and as far as i know, the sunshine ordinance is unique and actually calling out when it was passed in the '0s, the specific organizationses who do the nominationseses as opposed to subject matter areas. ~ '90s it is what it is, and those organizations under the ordinance have a right to make those nominations. this board has no obligation to approve someone simply because they were nominated by that organization. it is a two-way street. they nominate, but we ultimately as the city attorney has indicated, it is our policy

judgment about whether the person should or shouldn't serve on the task force just by ~ because they nominate someone, [speaker not understood], i will be opposing this motion. >> supervisor campos. >> again, for me the motion to continue is not about the individual candidates because i think that there are specific, you know, things that each one of them brings to the table. it's about looking at the totality of the appointments. and with respect to supervisor wiener's comment, respectfully, i agree with that, but i also think that part of the challenge here is that it's not just about complying with the letter of the law, but it's also the spirit of the law. and i think that the, you know, whether you like what the voters passed or not, the voters had the intent that these organization were going to bring someone forward and

that someone from these organizations would be serving on the task force. and i think by not letting that happen that we would be, even if we're in technical compliance with the ordinance, we would not be following the spirit of the ordinance. that's what i'm talking about. it is a very important task force. i speak as someone who has actually had to appear before the sunshine ordinance task force to fight what i believed and won was a frivolous complaint. but nevertheless, the process of someone like me coming before the task force and having to explain your decision to these group of citizens i think is a good process and i think it's a very important process that really makes sure there is as much accountability as possible. >> any further discussion, colleagues, on supervisor avalos's motion to re-refer

these recommendations back to the rules committee? roll call vote. >> supervisor yee. yee no. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed no. supervisor campos. campos aye. supervisor chiu. chiu no. supervisor cohen? cohen no. supervisor farrell? farrell no. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang no. supervisor wiener? wiener no. there are four ayeses and 7 no's. >> motion to refer back to committee fails. [gavel] >> and unless there are any other motions, why don't we have a roll call vote on the motion in front of us on the three candidates that have been recommended out of the rules committee. madam clerk, roll call. >> on item 32, supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos no. 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. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. there are 10 ayes and one no. >> motion is approved. [gavel] >> and item 33, madam clerk. >> item 33 was considered by the land use and economic development committee at a regular meeting on monday, may 1, and forwarded to the board as a committee report amended with the same title. the resolution establishing the calle 24, [speaker not understood] district in san francisco. >> roll call vote. ~ 19 >> on item 33? >> i'm sorry, i didn't see your name on the roster. supervisor campos. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. president. and i want to begin by thanking mayor lee for co-sponsoring this very important item. and we actually had a meeting, a budget meeting today in the

mission community and a number of members of the community including individuals who have been working on this item came out. as far as the establishment of [speaker not understood] latino cultural corridor is something that is a long-time coming. it is an effort that recognizes the cultural historical contributions of the latino community to this part of the mission and to san francisco, and it really is a proactive step by the city in protecting the character of this very special neighborhood. calle "veinticuatro" is a part of the mission. it is that richness of culture and history that brings not only members of the latino community, but non-latinos to the mission, including many residents who are there because of that richness of the culture.

and this ensureses that we take proactive steps to protect that culture, that history before we lose it. and the objective is that once we establish the latino cultural corridor on calle "veinticuatro", we will proceed to have a formal process through the planning department that will be inclusive through the entire community so that whatever choices are made in term of codifying changes to the planning code truly reflect the will and the views of the community. i also know that there's a number of other parts of the city, other neighborhoods that are interested in pursuing something similar. and i know that the members of the calle "veinticuatro" community like my office are also very open and look forward to working with anyone else, any other neighborhood that would like to take a similar approach.

so, it's a very exciting time for us and i encourage the support of all of my colleagues. thank you very much. and again, thank you to laura lane and to all the members of the community who have worked to make this possible. >> thank you. any other comments? roll call vote on the resolution. >> on item 33, supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? 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. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> colleagues, roll call. madam clerk. >> supervisor yee, you are first up to introduce new business. >> thank you, madam clerk.

colleague, today i am introducing a resolution to support the passage of an important bill i'm moving through to state assembly. both supervisor avalos and myself were at a luncheon hosted by the san francisco child care providers association last week on friday, i think. and as many of you know, early care in education is critical to the development of children especially before the age of 5. however, our early care and education programs have been devastated by several years of massive state budget cuts. state reimbursement rates for providers were established to provide equal access to quality urban care and education services for low-income children. the rising cost of operation and the declining amount of state support make it less and less feasible for providers to accept families eligible for subsidies. the rate is currently at $34.38

per child per food day. this is less than half of the current market rate in san francisco. as you see, it's an organization, could easily just accept market rate children rather than serving the low-income because of the amount of money they get reimbursed. our current state law is outdated. while the cost of living adjustments are offered yearlyedth reimbursement rates have not kept up with the rising costs of child care. in fact, they haven't changed since 2007. assembly bill 21 25 proposes that the standard reimbursement rate reflects the actual cost of child care facility. in san francisco we consistently hear that the affordability crisis is driving our families out. now we have an opportunity to support our families by

ensuring more access. i urge the california state assembly to pass assembly bill 21 25 to avoid the consequences of having more children being turned away from early care in education programs ~. currently ab 21 25 is being held at the assembly budget committee suspense file which is really unfortunate. they have until friday to remove the bill. i hope that our state representative will move this bill off suspense so it can be considered this budget year. we have so many families that are counting on our subdiesed early care and education programs. colleagues, i hope you will join me and supervisor avalos who are co-ah thoring this, in supporting this important piece of legislation. the other thing i wanted to just mention is that as you

know, supervisors kim and avalos and myself are deeply involved with implementing vision zero he and one of the pieces of the three is education piece. so, on monday and today, actually i have been able to bring together so you can actually see it themselves, two programs that can, can really enhance our ability to educate our children about pedestrian safety ~. and one of them actually was a video game developed by dr. newsome who is a trauma doctor for ucsf that practices at general hospital for the last 25 years, and she developed this game so that kids could actually learn about pedestrian safety issues. and in conjunction with that,

she worked with the china hospital in los angeles and they developed this assimilated street scene called l.a., l.a. safe streets, named richy's neighborhood and the kid get to learn a lot of traditional safety issues in this simulated street scene. i brought it up from l.a.. we don't have one in san francisco, unfortunately, to show the school district, show parents, show other public what a great program this could be if we had it in san francisco. and it's really hard to explain unless you see it firsthand. and even though i saw it on the video which was exciting, it was even more exciting to see it firsthand wi