[gavel] >> good afternoon, welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, june the 17th, 2014. madam clerk, could you please call the roll? >> supervisor avalos? avalos present. supervisor breed? breed present. supervisor campos? campos present. president chiu? >> present. >> chiu present. supervisor cohen? cohen not present. supervisor farrell?

farrell present. supervisor kim. kim not present. supervisor mar? mar present. supervisor tang? tang present. supervisor wiener? wiener present. supervisor yee. yee present. mr. president, you have a quorum. >> 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 may 13, 2014 board meeting minutes. could i have a motion to approve those minutes? motion by supervisor campos, seconded by supervisor mar. without objection, those meeting minutes are approved. [gavel] >> madam clerk are there any communications are >> there are no communications today, mr. president. >> if you could read our consent agenda. >> items 1 through 4 comprise the consent calendar. these items are considered

routine. if a member objects an item will be removed and considered separately. >> colleagues, would anyone like to sever any of these item? if not, roll call vote on the consent agenda. >> supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim absent. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed. breed aye. there are 10 ayes. >> those ordinances are identifiablely pass and had motions approved. [gavel] >> item 5. >> item 5 is an ordinance amending the campaign and governmental conduct code to expand the definition of a lobbyist; expand the definition of an officer of the city and county; expand the list of reportable lobbying contacts; hold employers and clients of lobbyists jointly and severally liable for violations of this ordinance committed by the lobbyist on behalf of that employer or client; enhance lobbyist training, auditing, and record-keeping requirements; require public reports about city officials who fail to file statements of economic interest; require a public guide to local campaign finance laws; require permit

consultants to register with the ethics commission and file quarterly disclosure reports; and require major developers to disclose donations to nonprofits active in the city. ~ requirements. >> colleagues, can we take this same house same call? without objection this ordinance is finally passed. [gavel] >> item 6. >> item 6 is referred without recommendation from the land use and economic development committee. it is a resolution granting revocable permission to kieran j. woods to occupy a portion of the public right-of-way to construct and maintain various improvements, including a driveway, associated retaining wall, a vehicular carrousel to provide access to a proposed new single family dwelling at 1410 stanyan street (assessor's block no. 2706, lot no. 035), landscaping, stairs leading to a publicitying area, and other related improvements within an existing unimproved portion of stanyan street between clarendon and mountain spring avenues; conditioning the permit; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ 1410 stanyan street. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you, president chiu. colleagues, i have reviewed the documents in relationships to this issue and have met with both the neighbors and the project sponsor to get both viewpoints. this issue has been going on for many, many years, way before i stepped onto the board of supervisors. and after considering all the information, i intend to not support this measure encroachment. >> thank you. colleagues, any additional discussion? a roll call vote on this item.

>> on item 6, supervisor campos? campos no. supervisor chiu? chiu no. supervisor cohen? cohen no. supervisor farrell? farrell no. supervisor kim? kim no. supervisor mar? mar no. supervisor tang? tang no. supervisor wiener? wiener no. supervisor yee? yee no. supervisor avalos? avalos no. supervisor breed? breed no. there are 11 no's. >> this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 7. i'm sorry, this item is not adopted. [gavel] [laughter] >> apologies. item 7. >> item 7 is an approve consent calendar and changes to the board of supervisors' agenda ~ to permit a waiver of unused portionses of expenditures and to clarify that the health care -- that the health access

program has two component programs, a healthy san francisco and a medical reimbursement account. ~ >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president. colleagues, i don't want to belabor the points that have been made. certainly they were made at the last meeting. this is definitely a very long time coming. and, again, i want to thank all of my colleagues who have co-sponsored this legislation and i also want to thank supervisors mark farrell and london breed for the work that has gone into reaching a compromise that closes the loophole after all these years and address he some of the concerns of the small business community. thank you to the very broad coalition that has made this fight ultimately a successful one, and to my staff, hillary ronan and everyone who had made this getting to this point

possible. i look forward to your support. >> colleagues, roll call vote. >> on item 7, 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. supervisor yee. yee aye. supervisor avalos. avalos aye. supervisor breed. breed aye. there are 11 ayes. >> this ordinance is finally passed. [gavel] >> supervisor kim? >> thank you. i'd just like to make a motion to rescind items 1 through 5. >> colleague, supervisor kim has made a motion to rescind those first five items, seconded by supervisor campos. can we rescind without objection? without objection that should be the case. [gavel] >> and on the consent agenda, madam clerk, roll call. >> on the consent agenda, 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. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. there are 11 ayes. >> those ordinances are finally passed and motions approved. and then on item 5 which we've already called, colleagues, can we do that same house same call? without objection, item 5, the ordinance is finally passed. [gavel] >> and with that why don't we jump to item 8. >> item 8 is an ordinance to authorize the settlement of the lawsuit filed by contest promotionses against the city for $375,000 filed on september 22nd, 2009, in the southern district of california. >> supervisor wiener. >> mr. president, i move to move this item to our july 15

meeting. >> colleagues, supervisor wiener has made a motion to continue this item. [speaker not understood] objection this item will be continued to july 15. [gavel] >> item 9. >> item 9 is an ordinance appropriating $363,7 58,000 of proceeds [speaker not understood] control reserves subject to the commission and the board of supervisors' approval following the completion of the project-related analysis. >> colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. [gavel] >> colleagues, unless anyone has an objection, madam clerk why don't you call items 10 through 14 which are all puc related items. >> item 10is an ordinance to amend previously adopted ordinances 110-12, 123-12, and 200-12, de appropriating and

re-appropriating certain capital for certain projects and further re-appropriating proceeds and revenues to the hetch hetchy capital improvement program in varying amounts for fiscal years 14-15 through 15-16 for the public utilities commission and placing $173.75 million on controller's reserve by project subject to the sfpuc and the board of supervisors' approval following completion of the project related analysis and placing 3 million of the 2015-2016 solar sf budget on finance committee reserve. item 11 an ordinance to appropriate proceeds from revenue bonds, wastewater [speaker not understood] approximately 55 1 million for the wastewater capital improvements and amending ordinance number 108-12 for fiscal years 2014 through 2015. item 12 is an ordinance to approve the issuance and sale of power revenue bonds by the public utilities commission in an aggregate principal amount

not to exceed approximately 112 million to finance the costs of various capital projects benefiting the puc's power enterprise, declaring the official intent of the commission to reimburse itself with one or more issuance of tax exempt bonds and ratifying all previous actions taken in connection with this ordinance. item 13 is an ordinance to approve the issuance and sale of wastewater revenue bonds by the public utilities commission in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed approximately 8 19 million to finance the cost of various projects benefiting the wastewater enterprise, declaring the commission's intent to reimburse itself with one or more issues of tax exempt bonds and ratifying previous actions taken in connection therewith. item 14 is issuance and sale of water revenue bonds by the public utilities commission in an aggregate principal amount ton exceed approximately 209 million to finance the costs of various capital projects benefiting the water

enterprise, declaring the commission's intent to reimburse itself with one or more issuance of tax exempt bonds and ratifying previous actions taken in connection therewith. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you, president chiu. colleagues, these items are related to capital projects and the puc power, water and wastewater enterprises. many of them have significant capital, capital needs, especially the water enterprise. these item are also attached to our cleanpowersf or our community choice aggregation program. we did have a little kerfuffle in the budget committee. we're trying to make sure that we could continue to move forward with cco program and maintain a plus in this program. over the past year we've seen that the puc has held off on approving not to exceed rates

that were part of our cleanpowersf community choice aggregation program and we used the time in the budget process to negotiate a pulse in the program to make sure we could have some of that continue and bring before the puc at any other time. ~ at another time. i know it's a lot of work to do to get a mix the puc could support and the political challenges facing us in getting approval there, but i think it's important that we keep this program before us and provide san franciscans -- that could provide san franciscans with a choice for renewable energy in their homes. that's what this program, the cleanpowersf program could ultimately provide. but that's a small part of what is before us today. the puc is one of our largest departments and its mission is to provide water, power, and deal with wastewater across the bay area, northern california,

and it's important that we approve these projects and move the puc forward, and also put a small part of keeping cca alive. so, colleagues, i hope for your support. thank you. >> thank you. , supervisor avalos. any further comments? ~ all right, colleague, can we take these items same house same call? without objection these ordinances are passed on the first reading. [gavel] >> madam clerk, could you call items 15 through 16? >> item 1a is the interim proposed annual budget and appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and expenditures for selected departments for the city and county of san francisco as of june 2nd, 2014, for the fiscal years ending june 40th, 2015 and june 30th 2016. item 16 is the interim annual salary ordinance [speaker not understood] positionses in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance ~ for the fiscal years ending june 30th, 2015 and 2016. >> colleagues, same house same call? the ordinances for the interim proposed end year budgets are passed on the first reading. [gavel]

>> item 17. >> item 17 is a resolution to retroactively approve the new project modification between city and guard smart for services human services agency for the period february 1st 2014 through january 31st 2018 including the three option years in the amount of approximately 19.8 million. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> next item? >> item 18 is a resolution to retroactively authorize the public defenders office to accept and expend a grant in the amount of approximately 230,000 to implement a legal advocacy program from january 31st 2013 to january 31st 2014. >> i had a question -- >> should we rescind the vote? >> yes. >> motion by [speaker not understood], without objection, the vote is rescinded. and supervisor campos. >> thank you. just wondering if we could hear

from the department as to why this contract is retroactive. >> it's on now. >> my name is [speaker not understood]. we were here to present the last item. it is retroactive because we rent through the solicitation proset and in that process we ended up receiving -- we were tentatively awarded [speaker not understood] security services. in that award guards mark, the one that we have now, [speaker not understood] contract to, sued tikon and the contract was actually hung up in litigation for quite sometime, about a hundred days approximately. and because of that we weren't able to award the contract until now. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. with that, colleague, can we take item 17 same house same call?

without objection, the resolution is adopted item 17. [gavel] >> item 18 has already been called. with that can we take item 18 same house same call? without objection, the resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 19. >> item 19 is a resolution to authorize the acceptance and expenditure of state transportation development act article 3 funds for pedestrian and bicycle projects for fiscal years 2014-15 totaling approximately 882,000. >> colleagues, same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 20. >> item 20 is a resolution to retroactively authorize the department of public health, community behavioral health services to enter into an amended fiscal year 2013-2014 contract for substance use disorder services with the state department of health care services for the term of july 1st, 2010 through june 30th 2014 in the amounts of approximately 71 million. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 21.

supervisor breed, did you have a question on item 20 or 21? >> item 20. >> okay, why don't we rescind the vote on 20. supervisor breed has made a motion to rescind seconded by supervisor campos without objection that item is rescinded. [gavel] >> supervisor breed. >> i had a question for clarification. are we retro acting this retroactively approving the contract july 1, 2010, is that not a typo, is that a typo? >> just want to ask the representative from dph here. mr. rose? >> mr. president and members of the board, this item actually did not have fiscal impact.

we have not reported on this item. >> okay. supervisor avalos, do you have any additional perspective on this? >> yes. i think it's great that we're actually questioning retroactive contracts that come before us. it's something that i think we brought before us in previous items that didn't go anywhere, but i think we all want to take a collective stand by holding our departments accountable to bringing us contracts in a timely way, it would be great. so, i really appreciate people questioning these item that come before us. >> supervisor breed. >> just a point of clarification. i think i'm specifically concerned that this contract predates my service on the board of supervisors and i've never agreed to be supportive of any contract that dates back this far before. i know we've had some issues

with leases in particular. i know we've had issues with grant applications. i can understand when things are caught up in litigation, but i am just not very comfortable with supporting this item because it's a retroactive term of july 1st, 2010, and without a clear understanding of why we would approve such an item. i just don't feel comfortable. i mean, it actually would be expiring at the end of this month. it makes absolutely no sense to me and i just can't support it at this time. >> supervisor breed -- sorry. supervisor campos. >> thank you. i do want to thank supervisor breed for raising this issue. my question had to do also with the retroactivity and also there's only a couple of weeks left on this $70 million contract. so, just wondering how we got here. thank you. >> let me ask mr. elliott,

representative of administration, would you give us a call from dph to answer some of these questions or should we vote on it? >> i just noted from the mayor's office i'm happy to [speaker not understood]. i apologize, i don't have an answer for you right now. >> colleagues, why don't i suggest unless folks are ready to pass now, hold it to another meeting. supervisor farrell. >> colleagues, we actually get [speaker not understood] all of our contracts we're required to vote on. we did have a pretty robust discussion two or three weeks ago on one contract that came before us. so, it was retroactive. i've really kind of made a strong statement statement to our city departments not to come back to us with retroactive contracts. sometimes it's unavoidable. we have to laugh at those exceptions, but as a policy we want to send a strong statement. this one i'm going to reserve judgment on and likely follow supervisor breed given she's technically the sponsor of it right here. but why don't we continue it. i want to make sure we all know as a collective body that we have sent that message through budget committee and i think we

did have unanimous thought on that that departments should be forewarned not to bring those before us any more. >> thank you, supervisor. i do have one question to the budget analyst who i understand -- i think he's -- excuse me, colleagues, if we could just have one conversation. supervisor breed? >> i'm specifically talking about item number 20, not item number 21. >> sorry, sorry, sorry. >> okay. i do have one question of mr. rose who i understand is on the phone but maybe i could ask the controller. it states in the agenda this item does have a fiscal impact. so, was there no analysis that was done? >> supervisors, [speaker not understood] controller. mr. rose will need to speak to that question. just to clarify, though, another department should be here to speak to it in detail. there is retroactivity [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] and the period of retroactivity is

in the fiscal year we're in. so, not to excuse the department because of re row activity, if folks get a reading from the summary it is retroactive to 2010. the amount of 70 million is not accurate. >> thank you. question to mr. rose, it said in the agenda there is a fiscal impact. i assume under your standard that was -- that didn't rise to the level of an analysis? >> mr. president, member of the board, it is my understanding that this is revenue to the city which did not meet the fiscal impact threshold. we would certainly be glad to take another look at this if the board wanted us to. the other thing is i might add, supervisors, that during -- this came to us on a very late timetable where we didn't even have a chance to report to the board on this item. if the board would like a report on it, we would be happy to do so. >> thank you. supervisor campos. >> just a quick note. i would simply respectfully ask the departments if you have a

contract, an item on the agenda, don't assume that it's simply going to be passed. you know, take into account the responsibility there may be questions asked. i think that certainly makes meetings move along a lot quicker. thank you. >> so, colleague, unless there are any follow-up questions, why don't i suggest we defer item 20 until a dph representative comes in. madam clerk, item 21. >> item 21 is a resolution to approve the issuance and sale of a tax exempt bond by the california municipal finance authority in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 15 million for financing the acquisition and rehabilitation of the buchanan park apartments. >> roll call vote, please. >> on item 21. 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. supervisor yee. yee aye. supervisor avalos. avalos aye. supervisor breed. breed aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> items 22 and 23. >> items 22 and 23 together are the resolutions to declare the intent of the city 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 promote the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $32.5 million for 2600 and 2700 a railious walker drive. >> colleagues, same house same call, these items are approved. [gavel] >> add item 24, madam clerk. >> item 24 was referred without recommendation from the land use and development committee. it is an ordinance to a medv the general plan by repealing ordinance number 108-11 and

adopting -- an adoption of the 2009 housing element and making the requisite findings ~. >> colleagues, this item is related to items 33 through 36 which i understand must be resolved first. so, i ask that we pass over this item until that time. item 25. >> item 25 is a resolution to determine that the transfer of a type 48 on sale general public premise of license for the expansion of premises located at 246 kearny street for future beverages [speaker not understood] which will serve the public convenience and necessity of the city. >> same house same call. this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> aye item 26. >> item 26 is an ordinance to amend the municipal elections code ~ regarding proponents and opponents ballot arguments. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. president. this is a piece of legislation that will finally put an end to the gaming of our system for

selecting the official proponent and opponent ar youthv in the ballot handbook ~. as you know, many voters rely on the integrity of the voter handbook so they know who is the official proponent or supporter of the measure, who is the official opponent and they can review those arguments and be assured that the best pro and con arguments are being made so voters can make the best decision. voters understandably assume that the arguments that are being presented to them as the official proponent and opponent arguments are exactly that, proponents and opponents. unfortunately, we've seen over the years through a flaw in our municipal elections code that some people have been able to game the system to be able to take on the role of official proponent or opponent, and they do this because when the board of supervisors itself does not keep the official proponent or opponent role, anyone from the

public can submit a proposed argument to be official, to be official proponent or opponent. and if there is more than one submitted, a lottery is conducted and one of those arguments is selected. over time we have seen a number of situations where someone will come along and will submit 5 or 10 or 15 or 25 or even more arguments and make them very, very slightly different from each other and will basically overwhelm the process, overwhelm the lottery and become the official proponent or opponent, even though other people have only tried to be very meticulous and only submitted one argument. and it's an unfair system that someone can come in and submit dozens of similar arguments and game the system that way. over time, it wasn't that big of an issue because at least the people who were gaming the system that way were actually supporters or opponents of the ballot measure.

unfortunately for this last june's primary relating to proposition b, the campaign manager for the yes side gamed the system through should i cainery and got himself appointed as the official opponent even though he was the campaign manager for the yes side. and he did this by submitting something like 25 almost identical ballot arguments ~. the actual opponents of prop b were very diligent and submitted one and they got overwhelmed in the blatery. fortunately the department of elections was able to get his argument removed so that the voters were not fraudulently misled into thinking he was the actual official opponent ~. but it really brought to light the need to reform this aspect of our municipal elections code. so, this legislation will do two very simple things. first, if you or the member of the public are submitting a proposed official proponent or opponent argument, you can submit one and only one

argument. everyone will be on an equal footing. and second, you will have to sign a certification under penalty of perjury that if you are submitting an official argument on one side or the other that you are not in some sort of leadership role -- and i think that's very well defined in the legislation -- but that you're not in some sort of official or leadership role for the opposite came pain. this is common sense and overdue legislation and will close a significant loophole in the ballot handbook and law, and it will significantly reduce the odds in the future of this kind of chicanery happening. so, colleagues, i ask for your support. >> colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? without objection this ordinance is passed on first reading. [gavel] >> item 27. >> item 27 is a motion to confirm the mayor's reappointment of leslie katz to the port commission for a term ending may 1st, 2018.

>> colleagues same house same call, this motion is approved. [gavel] >> item 28. >> item 28 is the motion to reappoint linda richardson to the treasure island board of directors for a term ending april 28, 2018. >> same house same call, this motion is approved. [gavel] >> colleagues, why don't we go to our 2:30 special orders. we have two today. first will be district 1 colleague supervisor mar. >> thank you, president chiu. today there's a number of companies that are here with us today and i'm pleased to recognize them as winners of san francisco and the bay area's great race for clean era wards. as some of you know, supervisor john avalos and i sit on the bay area quality management district board and it's been an honor to help clean the air, fight pollution, and create healthier environments for everyone. but these companies from san francisco joined a number of other companies from the bay area in reducing greenhouse gases, rb