distributor the sensitive neighborhood people have made significant environmentalists and honor the balance with a great vendor but also the restoration it is so important. those are historic lieshgdz in the city they mean something to generations of people we have the privilege of reintroducing them to kids and generations of our own when you look at the murals you'll understand what it is that history is delicate and important a remembered of the great depression but the diversity of the west coast and san francisco we need to deliver those stories again and again so it's my privilege to hip of help kickoff the restoration and, of course, celebrating this with a

free ride through i love going up the stairs it's a free elevator ride today, it's a rare opportunity eyes e otherwise it's going to cost you 7 bucks you think today is a wonderful celebration there's so many to celebrate for this landmark and continue to be a landmark and when you're coming from the east side of bay north side or on the water or from our roads along the city you'll be looking at this great coit tower we need to remind people ate a vast community effort that comes into play that's lead by the honoring of coit and the families history but you taller than and honor everyone else a that's made this city a great city now that

norman has blessed this places let's cut the ribbon and welcome everyone to this wonderful restoration thank you for being here today (clapping.) we'll be cutting the ribbon gown down in front and lunch on the other side >> 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. >> yeah. (clapping) ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

[gavel] >> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, may the 20th, 2014. madam clerk, could you call the roll? >> yes, mr. president. supervisor avalos? avalos present. supervisor breed? breed present. supervisor campos? campos present. president chiu? chiu present. supervisor cohen? cohen present. supervisor farrell? farrell present. supervisor kim? kim present. supervisor mar? mar present. supervisor tang? tang present. supervisor wiener? wiener present. and supervisor yee? yee present. mr. president, all members are present. >> 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. >> colleagues, we have our april 15th board meeting minutes as well as april 16th special meeting minutes of the budget committee. can i have a motion to approve those minutes? motion by supervisor farrell, seconded by supervisor breed. without objection, those meeting minutes are approved. [gavel] >> madam clerk, any communications? >> there are none today, mr. president. >> and if you could call our consent agenda agenda. >> items 1 through 4 of the consent calendar 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 items 1 through 4. >> 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. >> those ordinances are finally passed. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 5 is a resolution approving the award of a contract for procurement of a type ii fireboat to vigor fab, inc., in an amount not-to-exceed $11,637,660 pursuant to san francisco charter, section 9.118(b), for the term ending december 31, 2015, to commence upon board approval. ~ 11.6 million. >> colleagues, same house same call? without objection this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 6 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the port of san francisco to accept and expend $2,970,000 in grant funds from the federal railroad administration for the rebuilding of the quint street lead track for the term of april 1, 2012, through july 31, 2015. >> same house same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted.

next item. [gavel] >> item 7 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the fire department to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $7,608,000 from the federal emergency management agency to purchase a fire boat for the period of september 1, 2013, to august 15, 2015. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 8, resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $47,500,000 for 1301-4th street, san francisco, california 94107; authorizing and directing the director to direct the controller's office to hold in trust an amount not to exceed $100,000 in accordance with cdlac procedures; authorizing the director to certify cdlac that the city has on deposit the required amount; authorizing the director to pay an amount equal to such deposit to the state of california if the city fails to issue the residential mortgage revenue bonds; approving, for purposes of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended, the issuance and sale of residential mortgage revenue bonds by the city in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed the $47,500,000; authorizing and directing the execution of any documents necessary to implement this resolution; and ratifying and approving any action heretofore taken in connection with the project as defined herein, and the application adi find herein. ~ 47.5 million. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> next item, please. >> item 9 was referred without recommendation from the budget

and finance committee. it's a resolution authorizing the san francisco municipal transportation agency to execute a transit advertising contract with titan outdoor, llc, for a term commencing july 1, 2014, and ending june 30, 2019, which offers a minimum guarantee to the sfmta of $28,500,000 over the term of the contract. >> supervisor breed. >> oh, hi. thank you, guys. i just wanted to make a statement about this particular contract especially because it's been quite controversial. it came out of budget committee without recommendation because i do realize there are some concerns that some of you might have about this contract. i don't particularly like that we have to advertise on our public spaces. as a former director of an arts center, i would much rather have art than ads. so, i'm very sympathetic to those who criticize this particular contract from san francisco beautiful and others. san francisco beautiful has

suggested that the mta require titan to install art in bill board spaces whenever there is not a current paying customer. i think that's a great idea and i've worked is mta staff to start the process. and my office has also worked closely with mta to remove all language regarding electronic advertisements. we also developed the language to ensure that mta trackses and listens to complaints about the vehicle wrap. i supported making those changes, but i don't at this current time support reducing the contract in term of the number of wraps. the mta estimates it will need approximately $20 million more per year in its operating budget as a result of recent policy decisions. the expansion of free muni, something advocated by many members of the board, will cost muni's operating budget about 9 million. free sunday parking meters is another 111 million and this is not even taking into account

the 12% service increase envisioned under the tep which could cost another 40 million dollars a year. ~ 11 million the budget analyst has confirmed the titan contract will give 30 million to mta over five years. that's a guarantee of at least $6 million per year, $6 million could pay for free muni for seniors, 1-1/2 times over or buy almost two new trains every year. with respect to the vehicle wrapseses, i'm not a big fan. i don't much like them either, but they provide a specific minimum of about 325,000 per year. that's equivalent to hiring 3 to 4 mechanics help our vehicles be maintained. and 325,000 is just the minimum. window wraps typically generate between 500 and 800,000 per year depending on demand. it's also important to remember

that setting a maximum of 30 does not mean there would be 30 vehicles wraps at any given time. the current maximum is 15, but this calendar year there has been 2 to 7 wraps at any one time except during the holiday season when demand was higher and there were 15 wraps. so, this is about giving flexibility to the mta to respond to demand and raise the revenue needed to offset the policy decisions we in this room have made. budgets are about choice. they are about trade-offses. and policy decisions are consequences. there is a give and take in this particular instance. so, if we want free muni for youth, we want free muni for 18 year olds, we want free muni for seniors and disabled, if the mayor and board want free parking on sunday and if we want the 12% service increases in the tep, then we have to accept that there are trade-offs. we have to be willing to support things that will make those policy decisions possible.

for us to advocate programs that cut muni's operating revenue while simultaneously rejecting contracts that increase it strike me a inconsistent and unfair to the over 700,000 people who depend on muni every single day. those riders are the ones who suffer when muni's budget is left in the red, when vehicles deteriorate and service is cut because there is no money to do anything about it. no, i'm not particularly happy about some of the decisions that mta has made in terms of changes to its budget, but at this time i think this is a contract that would generate sufficient revenue and i'm asking for your support to move this forward. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you, president chiu. i'd like to actually call up the mta staff who negotiated this contract. i had originally voted against

this contract in i believe it was 2011 because i was concerned about the wraps and the digital ads. and then when this contract came before us this year, i didn't approve of it right away. i didn't have an up or down vote on it and i asked it to go back for negotiations to see if the wraps could be taken out or reduced and digital ads be taken out. the mta staff came back to us in committee and appeared they had not done anything to negotiate those or not. so, i'd like to actually have the staff who came forward to talk to us about what effort that was made to negotiate. was it just that you wanted to come whack with the exact same contract or that you would do negotiationses with titan on the wraps [speaker not understood] ~? we have mr. reiskin here. welcome. >> through the president,

supervisor avalos, good morning, supervisors. ed reiskin, director of transportation. so, we heard concerns from one or two supervisors at the committee level with regard to specifically the digital advertising which has i believe always in the current contract as well as an increase in the number of wraps that would be allowed under this new contract. the current contract allows 15. the new contract would allow 15. but would also give me the discretion to add up to 30 in total. but the reason we included this, i think supervisor breed said it very well, and i thank her for her leadership and sponsorship on this, was to provide flexibility -- >> i'm sorry, mr. reiskin. my question was really around what was the effort around negotiationses around the titan contract because it was really clear what my position was on the wraps and on the digital arts. i didn't want to be any wraps at all, but certainly wanted to see it come down from 30 to 15.

that didn't happen. i understand we're trying to build flexibility in your budget and i've been very supportive of that. i've actually helped to get revenue into the city in large amounts through first the real estate transfer tax increase that was done in 2010 and then making sure that we had a revenue generating gross receipts tax. those monies that have come in have actually enabled muni to increase its baseline support from the general fund. and, so, i've been really making sure that we can actually have the support for muni through raising revenue. in this case we're talking about $325,000 that is or potentially $800,000 that could be what we could bring in from having the wraps. but i'm not hearing that there was any real effort to forego those funds or forego the wraps to negotiate them out nor the digital ads. could you talk about what had happened in those negotiationses? >> okay, sure. through the president, and i do

appreciate those efforts since i know there is a lot of larger context around this contract, i thought i would provide some as well. but to answer your specific question after the committee hearing when we had that feedback, we went back to the contractor to see what they would be amenable to doing. without having to renegotiate the contract. they were amenable to eliminating the video, which we have included, as supervisor breed said. they were also amenable to bringing it down to removing the additional 15 wraps. because we feel that that flexibility will be helpful for us, we left that in currently and if it's the will of the board of supervisors to bring down that 30 number to something as low as 15, that's something we can do here today. something beyond that would require renegotiation of the contract. >> so, you're willing to go down to 15 total wraps and have the digital ads removed?

>> the contractor is willing to do that. we're willing to do that if that's the direction of the majority of the board. >> okay, i appreciate that. >> supervisor mar. >> yeah, i wanted to thank mr. reiskin for explaining that. i definitely would like to see the contract revised to keep it at the status quo up to 15. i know that you as the executive director with discretion to go up to 30 or even 20, i know that you would always communicate with this board, knowing the concerns. but i would like to see it kept at 15. i'm really appreciative of the amendments already made with eliminating the digital -- the language on the digital advertising and also just even taking a good faith effort to track complaints that might come in about the wraps within the city. i appreciate that, but i'm not willing to support the existing

contract unless it's kept at the status quo or there is some adjusting given the concerns raised by -- i don't think it was just one or two, there were several people from the budget committee that raised concerns besides myself. but i'm appreciative that there is some sensitivity to our concerns. i wanted to thank maiello hanke from sf beautiful and harvey milk club for coming to speak and others to raise similar concerns i share with supervisor avalos as well. so, i would like to propose that the contract be amended to keep it at the status quo, at 15. so, i would like to make that motion to eliminate that 30 -- the language on 30 and keep it at 15. >> i'd like to ask our deputy city attorney given this is a contract, technically how should we go about expressing the perspective of the board with regards to this number? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the board doesn't have the authority to amend the contract. >> that's what i thought. >> by motion.

if the mta submits a new version of the contract, the board can vote to accept that contract into the file and then ultimately vote on the resolution. so, the board can't be amending the contract. i understand from mr. reiskin that he is interested in hearing the will of the board and would come in with potentially some contract amendments that the board could consider and go up or down. >> is that something will reiskin could articulate today and a commitment to the board so we can make a decision on this? is that the process or are you suggesting it needs to be written contract amendments? >> mr. reiskin could come to the board today and say, here is the contract that we have essentially negotiated with the other party that we are proposing to the board to approve, and the board could approve that today. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. mr. reiskin, what would this mean in terms of the difference

in what we can potentially walk away with financially from this particular contract if we were to amend it? >> i want to ask gail stein, our contract manager, to give you that detail. >> gail stein from the mta. as long as there are 15 wraps in the contract, the contract will pay us $325,000 for each year of the contract guaranteed. to the degree that there are more than that, we would pick up any additional revenue through the 65% revenue share. so, there is not an additional guarantee that we would see that money. and in fiscal year 2012-13, the contractor paid us more than $1.1 million over the minimum annual guarantee and about two third of that was due to wraps with windows. >> and based on what we have in term of a guarantee, it's about $30 million. will that guarantee change as a result of reducing the number of vehicles?

>> the guarantee without that would not change. it would be -- the numbers that you have before you, if it was lower than 15, it would be less -- you would subtract 325,000 for each year. so, the guarantee does not change above 15. >> i'm not certain if i'm clear on that, but i -- excuse me? >> if i may through the chair, it's the up side potential that changes. so, the guarantee is for the contract plus up to 15 wraps. if we authorize more wraps, we share in that revenue. as you heard, the up side in a previous year was pretty significant and a lot of that due to the wrap. so, there's up side potential that we would be foregoing should the number be lowered between 30 and 15. below 15, that would change the guarantee and that's something that we would want to renegotiate. >> above 15 could mean

substantially more revenue? >> right. so, anything above 15 we share in the up side potential of and, really, the market would drive how much that revenue would be. >> how many buses he do we have in our city completely? >> so, we have a little more than 800 buses and 151 light rail vehicles so close to a thousand vehicles. >> so, we have close to a thousand vehicles and we're talking about potentially 15 to 30 vehicles? >> that's correct. >> okay. so, i just think we should leave the contract as-is. at this time i'm not prepared to support reducing the number. i'm prepared to move it forward. my desire mostly with the contract has to do with trade-offs, as i said, and generating sufficient revenue to cover what we expect to be dealing with as it relates to transportation in our city. no, i'm not really a fan of many of the decisions that have been made with mta without necessarily their outreach and

consulting members of the board and having a discussion about some of those. but in this particular case i'm willing to stand behind mta, support the contract as-is, and move it forward. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you very much, mr. president. thank you, mr. reiskin and your staff. i do support the motion by supervisor mar. and i do have, and i understand and respect where supervisor breed is coming from. i do think, though, that keeping the contract where it has been makes sense. i do have a question for the city attorney, though, through the chair. maybe i misunderstood what he said. i understand that the board cannot amend the contract, but the board should be able to amend the resolution authorizing the contract, shouldn't we? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the resolution effectively is the document that approves the contract. so, the board could amend the resolution to reflect what is

in the contract certainly. i don't believe the issues that the board is discussing right now, the wraps, the digital media, are even mentioned in the resolution itself. >> my point is this. could the board amend this resolution to approve the contract with the understanding that the approval is contingent upon certain terms being in there, like including making sure that the number of buses remains at 15? couldn't the board do that? >> the board can only vote up or down on the contract that the mta offers to it. >> the board providing sort of the authority for the mta to enter into a type of contract, right? is there something that prevents the board from doing that? >> if the mta comes to you and says, here's the contract we have with the conditions that you gave, you can approve that

contract. the board does not have the authority to say, here are the contract terms that we want and that we're approving, even though the mta has not negotiated those terms. the board's authority under the charter is just limited in that respect. >> i don't know, i don't know what that's necessarily -- you know, the way i see it, i think it's actually the same thing. it's sort of a different way of doing it. it's doing it before the fact as opposed to after the fact, but i understand. thank you. >> supervisor avalos. >> i'm reluctantly prepared to vote in favor. if i have a guarantee from mr. reiskin that the cab -- the bus route ads will be capped at 15 and we already have digital arts ads taken out. so, if that's what mta can say they can do, my vote -- i can support.

mr. reiskin, you mentioned that was a possibility. >> through the chair, excuse me. i concur with supervisor campos. it's kind of a semantic defense. i'm willing to accept whatever the majority of the board supports. if it's 30, that's what i recommend. if it's 25 or some other number down as low as 15, willing to accept that if that's where the majority of the board is. >> supervisor cohen. >> i'd just like to finish, a question for mr. givner. i'm not clear what the best way to communicate that is. we have a resolution which we he really can't amend. there is a contract that is amenable to whatever we vote on, but we can't -- what can we actually vote on that can indicate that we are giving direction to the general manager of the mta to provide the contract to have the wraps capped at 15?

>> deputy city attorney jon givner again. it's an unusual situation, supervisor. i don't think, though, an appropriate motion to vote on other than the supervisors stating what each of you, i suppose, sick of you, what your intention is. ~ six of you another intention is to vote on the resolution with the contract as is, and if that fails then move it, then continuing the conversation with -- with the department. >> okay. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you. through the chair, my question is to the maker of the motion to supervisor mar. i wanted to just get a better understanding of the significance of 15. how did you come to that number? >> well, that's the status quo right now we've had for several years. my understanding from the mta is they've never gone that high

in the history of the contract and i don't see right now any reason to extend it to 30 because i think that would increase the number of -- i did say in the committee that i actually despised the wrapped around the windows type advertising because as some said in the budget committee, it cheapens the city when you have stuff like this driving around the city. and if we're doubling up on a mcdonald's wrapped mta bus around our city, i think it gives us a sense that we're a city for sale. i think sf beautiful and the harvey milk club and others made it very articulated it really well that it's a compromise because we know we need the funds that supervisor breed mentioned about not expanding it or doubling it is a question. and i am okay with keeping it at the status quo, not expanding the digital advertising as well, which could lead to more traffic conflicts and just distractions of drivers, especially right

now as we're expanding our vision zero efforts in the city. so, that's why i strongly urge keeping at the status quo and i think it's a reasonable contract if we keep it at that. >> thank you very much. to the director, the finance person, so, the argument is to keep the contract -- the number of buses he wrapped at a cap of 15 and supervisor breed has propose today making it to 30, that increase. is there a business argument as to the difference as to how you would spend that money or where it would be invested? >> so, the -- our budget is based on the minimum annual guarantee. to the extent that there are revenues that come in beyond the minimal annual guarantee,

[speaker not understood] the general revenues of the agency so they'd be available for a shortfall and any other revenue line. otherwise if they're above and beyond the revenues that we've had budgeted, they would drop to our fund balance in a future year. and excess revenues that drop to our fund balance mean less money that we need to put in our reserve which means more money available for service. that is in part how we were able to include in this year's budget a service increase because of excess revenues in previous year. >> so, i, too, think i share the general sentiment that i don't like -- i ride the bus and i don't like to be on the bus looking out the windows through the wrapping. i don't like that. but when i think about balancing my priorities, i am more moved by the notion of free muni for youth and even expanding that into -- for seniors. so, what i'm concerned about is do i need to bite the bullet

and increase the cap so that i can ensure that there is a trade-off to where seniors and youth are able to ride for free on muni. so, that's the discussion i'm looking to have at the board here, not for you the director, but with the colleagues to better understand if it's 15 or if it's 30 or maybe it's 28, 28 is the cap, we raise the status quo and lower what the original proposal is offering. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you, president chiu. i don't know how else to articulate [speaker not understood]. as i mentioned in committee last week my concern was over the digital ads. i appreciate the mta taking those out. i think maybe it's a matter of taste but those are the ones that bother me the most. when we talk about driver safety, those are the ones that bother me.