depending how it works. i don't think it is immediately evident you have to trigger a special election to somehow serve democracy. when someone is appointed and they have to stand for election, that serves democracy and we've seen that play out. i have some specific concerns here. this would trigger a special election that would only be for one supervisorial district. that is -- it's almost inevitable that is going to be a very, very low turnout election. yes, there will be a lot of people volunteering on those campaigns because you're only going to have one thing on the ballot in one part of the city. so, we will see a lot of people converging on that district. but that's very different than having a broad voter participation in that district. and i think that unfortunately we will see very, very poor turnout in that kind of election.

i also think in terms of when you look at the mayor's power vis-a-vis the board, if the mayor appoints someone who is then prohibited from running for reelection, the mayor will have less incentive to appoint someone who actually reflects that district and who will therefore be viable to seek reelection in that district. the mayor, in fact, will have incentive to appoint someone who is not necessarily responsive to the district, but is more responsive to the mayor. and that person can be in office for six months. and, so, the last thing we should be doing is putting supervisors in office who have no prospect of ever having to face the voters again and who, therefore, are going to have less incentive to actually care about what the voters need and what the voters want. so, i know that supervisor avalos' intention is to reduce the power of the mayor vis-a-vis board appointments, but in one sense it actually

can increase that power. so, in the end i think we have a good and workable system. are there other good and workable systems? yes, absolutely, but this is the one we have. and i don't see any compelling reason or any reason of substance to change the system and so i'll be voting against this charter amendment. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president. certainly has been a very interesting discussion. you know, supervisor tang and i have the distinction of being the only two members of this board that have been appointed by mayors. and while i imagine that the person who appointed me, former mayor newsom iss as proud of his appointment of me as mayor lee is of his appointment of you, i have a different perspective i think that there is a difference of being appointed and not being a point. i've had the distinction of

running as a nonincumbent and i think tell you that it's a very different experience to put yourself as a candidate ~ without the power of incumbency before you. and there is something to be said when, you know, in mexico it's called the [speaker not understood], you know, when the powers that be sort of touch you on the shoulder and say, you're the anointed one. you know, there is something to be said that come with that. and even though there are unusual circumstances and unique individuals like supervisor breed who are a force of nature of their own, you see the result that happened. that's not -- that's not the reality. that is not the way things usually work. there is a great deal of power that comes with incumbency. and while it is true that, you know, folks like supervisor tang had to face the voters a number of times, i think you

need to have gone through the process of facing the voters as a non-incumbent to understand the difference, and i've done both. but as a former -- as an appointee of gavin newsom, i can tell you that i don't think that either system is better or perfect. but the interesting thing about this discussion -- and you know, i've engaged in a discussion about this issue for the last fews months, talked to a lot of people in the neighborhoods. and i think it's important when you talk about these things that we remember. but the question before us, before this board is not what is the best system, is the existing system better than the proposed system. that's not the question. i think that there are good argumentses on both sides. the question is simpler than that. since we are talking about democracy, the question is will we give voters in san francisco

this november the opportunity to decide for themselves what the better system is? or are we going to prejudge that decision today and say, i am going to make sure that this doesn't get on the ballot. (applause) >> and, so, i think that there are arguments either way. but the one argument i cannot and will not agree with is this idea that voters cannot decide for themselves what the best system is. yes, in the words of winston churchill, democracy is a pretty bad form of government except that it's better than anything else. well, let's follow democracy and let's not you and i prejudge what the voters are going to say. (applause) >> put it on the ballot.

>> excuse me, we do have a rule in the board chambers you not interrupt speakers. please [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> let's not interrupt the voters' right to decide for themselves. let's put it it on the ballot. let the voters of san francisco decide, you know. it can go either way. but democracy, the beauty of democracy, is that it's not the elected officials, but it's the voters who have the final say. so, as a former -- as an a point aloe of gavin newsom, i am proud to say let's change the system or at least give the voters the opportunity to have a voice ~. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> let me just think about what i'm going to add. [speaker not understood] led it out. [speaker not understood] laid it out a couple weeks ago that this body has been known as the mistresses of the mayor over

the years. i know it's not that long ago, and i think there are still those perceptions that are out therethv i think the quote was that we are all mistresses that need to be serviced as one former mayor said. i think the power of incumbency, my belief is that it's tremendous and it has helped me be reelected. christina olague he, our former colleague, she may have been reelected, but i know supervisor breed ran a tremendous campaign. but i know supervisor olague was pounded with an expenditure of money from the tech sector and others, different hit pieces and other thing that maybe changed that race somewhat. but i'll just say that might not be the best example. and i wanted to say as a member of the school board, as i recall, there were times where the mayor appointed several members that definitely benefited from the power of incumbency, but i know that that's not a part of this measure.

and i just wanted to say the lafco study that cited by mr. rodriguez in the guardian article, i wish i had seen more coverage in the mainstream press as i saw in the alternative press. i think it shows that we are unique in giving this tremendous authority to the mayor. and i think this is a good government -- this is a good government charter measure that would, as others that said, help us expand democracy and let the voters decide. and that's my urging as supervisor campos said. let's not hold this up from the voters. let's let the voters decide on electing the official. >> president chiu? >> thank you, colleagues. first of all i wanted to just take a moment and it thank all of you, particularly supervisor avalos, for the work on this measure. the thought around this and the discussion, i think we can all acknowledge this measure has been hard to craft. i don't think that it is perfect, but i don't think there is any perfect way to fill vacancies. there are always exceptions i

think we can't anticipate. i will say under this proposal, i am not a fan [speaker not understood] that doesn't have the responsibility to be responsive to voters 4-1/2 months. i also think that, and i agree with supervisor tang, but i think the board of the board presidency role is inconsistent. i would support if others want to do that keeping it as it is. i don't think that makes sense either. and i have to also say i am concerned about some of the rhetoric by some of those who support this measure who are just doing the job that they are initially appoint today and then elected to. i agree with supervisor wiener, you can go through a long list of extremely competent and first quarter earnings conference call i have and reelected officials who were initially appointed. now, that being said, i appreciate that the maker of this charter amendment, supervisor avalos, has assured many of us that this measure isn't about the mayor, any particular supervisor and i do trust there is a campaign on this that it will not be

personal alliesed. i think at the end of the day for me what's important is to try to think about this policy separate from specific individuals, personalities, or political factions who may currently exist. ultimately at the endv of the day what is good for san francisco. all that being said, i am open to the idea of allowing the voters to decide. i do agree it feel more democratic to allow voters to vote more quickly and very much appreciate the conversation and thought we've had around this. colleagues, any further discussion? with that roll call vote. >> on item 47? supervisor farrell? farrell no. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang no. supervisor wiener? wiener no. supervisor yee? yee no. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed no.

supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen no. there are 5 ayes and 6 nos. >> charter amendment is not submitted. [gavel] >> item 48. >> item 48 is an ordinance amending the administrative code, chapter 16, article xv, part 1, by amending section 16.703, regarding board approval of health service system plans and contribution rates. ~ contribution rates. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you, president chiu. colleagues, i'll speak [speaker not understood] on this item in terms of our plans ask contribution rates for this upcoming year. as we all know, we went through a bit of an issue last year around our kaiser rates. a few comments. i want to say i believe we are extremely fortunate to have catherine dodd at the helm of hhs with her experience and the health care program she's help put in place. our hss rate increase has been below the local and national average the last four cycles.

catherine has put in so many processes in place, [speaker not understood] working on transparency together. while most employees are seeing 8 to 9% cost increases year over year hhs aggregated a decrease of 2.8% yearv over year through innovation funding blue shield, care organization ms. dodd is incredibly responsible for in a very good way, in working with kaiser to have the premium costs accurately reflected. when kaiser offered 2-1/2% rate below based on lower utilization, the hss board vote today spend $8.8 million balance on profits to buy down the rate increase. this is a huge victory for the city of san francisco, for our workers, for the city as an employer. overall savings our health system achieved this year is over $20 million. and something that is going to

affect so many things in our city and also our long-term liability as well. i look forward to working together with ms. dodd, the whole hss board on transparency, resolution we will be voting on later today to make sure not only today but in the future we continue to keep our rates affordable and limit the growth as much as possible as a city. >> thank you, supervisor farrell. i want to echo many of us are given a [speaker not understood] probation to ms. dodd. so, i want to thank you for your service and what you have done. with that, colleagues, let's take a roll call vote. >> on item 48, 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. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. there are 11 ayes. >> ordinance is passed on the

first reading. [gavel] >> item 49. >> item 49 is a resolution approving the issuance of revenue bonds by the association of bay area governments finance authority for nonprofit corporations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $30,000,000 to refinance various facilities owned and/or operated by on lok senior health services. ~ housing, incorporated. >> colleagues, same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 50. >> item 50 is a resolution approving the issuance of tax-exempt revenue obligations not to exceed 9.35 million to finance various capital [speaker not understood] presidio hill school. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 51. ~ >> item 51 is a resolution establishing the monthly contribution amount to the health service trust fund. >> same house same call, this resolution is adopted.

[gavel] >> item 52. >> item 52 is a resolution designating the examiner [speaker not understood] and ratifying the office of contract administration extension of the previous advertising contract with the chronicle for july 2014. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you, president chiu. colleagues, this item was heard at the budget and finance committee last week. we have since understood from the purchaser additional amendments are needed to the legislation. these amendments [speaker not understood] defining the time frame for each newspaper during the fiscal year and providing clarification to the corporate name which is the san francisco print media co. a purchaser here is present to answer any questions. and if no discussion, i'd like to make a motion to amend the legislation as detailed in the copy i believe the clerk has already distributed. >> supervisor farrell has amended -- offered a motion to amend as he described. is there a second to that? second by supervisor tang.

without objection, his motion to amend passes. [gavel] >> and on the underlying resolution, as amend if we could take this same house same call? without objection this resolution is adopted as amended [gavel] >> item 53. >> item 53 is an ordinance to amended administrative code chapter 37, the residential rent stabilization and arbitration ordinance and adding chapter 65 a to address temporary severance of specified housing services during mandatory seismic retrofit required by the city building code chapter 34 b the mandatory earthquake retrofit of wood frame buildings. >> colleagues, same house same call? this ordinance is passed on the first reading. [gavel] >> item 54. >> item 5*4 is a resolution [speaker not understood] in landmark buildings in pdr1d and pdr1d districts for 18 month period and making required findings. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> why don't we go to our committee reports.

item 55. >> item 55 and 57 were considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on thursday, july 10th, and the committee sent the following item to the board as committee reports. pursuant to 22 [speaker not understood] 55 and 56 must be continued one week before the board can consider ordering submitted to the electorate. item 55 is a charter amendment second draft to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco sections a8.4 28, and a8.43 2 to provide retiree health care benefits to employees of the former san francisco redevelopment agency or the successor agency to the redevelopment agency of the city and county of san francisco. >> thank you, colleagues. can i have a motion to continue this item for one week? motion by supervisor kim, seconded by supervisor yee. without objection, item 55 will be continued for one week. [gavel] >> and item 56. >> item 56 was forwarded without recommendation. a charter amendment second draft to amend the charter of the city and county of san

francisco to adjust the required annual appropriation from the general fund to the transportation fund annually to reflect increases in population of san francisco, subject to discontinuation by the mayor if the voters enact a new general tax on vehicles registered to a san francisco address, at an election to be held on november 4, 2014, and making environmental findings. >> this item also being required under board rules to sit for at least a week. can i have a motion to continue for one week? motion by supervisor wiener seconded by supervisor kim, without objection this item will be continued for a week. [gavel] >> item 57. >> and, mr. president, both 55 and 56 to june 22nd to specify the date. >> yes. >> thank you. item 57 is a motion to appoint joshua -- >> july. >> that's correct, july 22nd. thank you. item 57 is a motion to appoint joshua marker to the market and octavia community advisory committee, term ending december 16, 2014. >> colleagues, can we do this same house same call? without objection this motion is approved. [gavel]

>> item 58. item 58 and 59 were considered by the land use and he can vim i can committee at a regular meeting monday, july 15 [speaker not understood]. item 58 was recommended a amended with the same title. ordinance to amend the housing code to allow the storage of tenants' personal items other than automobiles in the garages of homes, apartment buildings and residential hotels and making the required findings. >> colleagues, same house same call? without objection this ordinance is passed on first read. [gavel] >> item 59. >> item 59 is the ordinance a mickey dv administrative code to require certain questions and forthcoming information on the application for specified residential and mixed use projects between the planning department and the project sponsors regarding antidiscriminatory housing policies based on sexual orientation and gender identity. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president. colleagues, we have before us today a first of its kind

legislation that is designed to addressing the very important issue of housing discrimination against members of the lgbtq community. this is a problem that continues to persist throughout this country and i'd like to thank the co-sponsors of this legislation, supervisors wiener, kim, farrell, mar, and avalos. the sad reality is that people continue to face prejudice and sometimes outright hostility from landlords in parts of this country. hostility that is the reason why so many members of the lgbtq community still to this day do not have access to housing in so many parts of this country. one in five transgender people have been refused housing in the u.s., and more than one in ten have been evicted because of a gender identity. a recent study shows that same-sex couples experience discrimination in the online

rental housing market and yet when faced with this reality, we also see that the national fair housing act still does not include protections for the lgbtq community. in fact, the vast majority of states in this country still allow for housing discrimination against members of the lgbt community. only 21 states out of the 50 prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and only 16 of the 50 states prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. we in san francisco and here in california, we benefit from really strong fair housing laws, but that is not the reality for most people this this country. and as san francisco residents, including member of the lgbtq community are being pushed out of san francisco, they're being displace and had evicted from this city, it is important for us to think about what happens to our residents, what happens to members of the lgbtq community as they are being

forced out of san francisco. my legislation is a minor procedural change that has the power to make a substantial impact. it requires companies with out of state properties that want to apply to build ten units or more of housing here in san francisco to indicate in their application whether or not they have a policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in all the jurisdictions of this country in which they operate. if they do have that policy, they will be asked to provide a copy of the policy to the city. if they do not have a policy, we are not asking them to actually have a policy, but simply are asking them to provide the information to answer the question. once that information is provided, the human rights commission will then compile the information and not only provide it to the board of supervisors, but make it available to not only san francisco residents but to the

entire country. this legislation will provide us with data that will tell us whether developers that are looking to build and do business in san francisco are actually protecting the rights of members of the lgbtq community. not only here, but in other parts of the country where they operate properties. it is a chance to highlight best practices and to inform those who may be unaware of the actions of these companies. as marriage equality continues to spread across the country, it is now the time for san francisco to implement policies that ask reasonable questions. information truly is power. i want to thank the director of planning, john ram, who has been working with us as well as his staff diego sanchez and annemarie rogers who have worked to make this a workable piece of legislation here in san francisco. i also want to thank our city attorney's office and specifically the deputy city

attorney john malumet who has been advising us on this piece of legislation. and we also want to thank the planning commission, which unanimously supported this piece of legislation. i want to thank my staff who has been working on this piece of legislation for quite sometime now, laura ling and i also want to thank hillary ronan, and i know that carolyn goosen as well. this piece of legislation actually came to us from community and there are a number of organizations that are responsible for helping us draft this piece of legislation. the san francisco human rights commission, the national fair housing alliance, the national housing law project, the ace legal referral panel, the national sen forefor lesbian rights and aids housing alliance. i also know the lgbt center has been involved ~. the hope is with this piece of legislation you're going to see

more people become aware of this issue and that this will in turn push companies to not only have policies, but where the policies are discriminatory, that they actually change them. and i also think that this will not only make an impact because san francisco plays an important role in the business plan of these companies, but i believe and i hope that other jurisdictions will follow suit and that other jurisdictions will be asking the same question. so, i want to thank you for your consideration and i look forward to your support. >> colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. [gavel] >> and with that why don't we go to roll call for introductions. >> first supervisor up to introduce new business is supervisor farrell. >> thank you, madam clerk. so, colleagues, just a few moments ago we voted on a

ordinance to amend our garage code to allow for more thing than just automobiles to be stored in our garages. that was the product of constituent feedback on [speaker not understood]. i want to thank the land use committee for hearing it yesterday and it blew past us, but i didn't have talking points so i didn't get to go through. when i announced it, however, back in april i also announced the scholarship opportunity for all undergraduate and graduate students here in san francisco. i think we all do agree that our city's youth are often under represented and under heard here in city hall. i wanted to try that for a change. the scholarship opportunity call on our city's college students to interact with our laws and codes on a new platform that was developed in partnership with the open gov foundation san francisco code.org. this brings policies to a more accessible and modern format that can be used and reused to bring the bay area to assessing, understanding and hopefully navigating the laws of our city.

[speaker not understood] part of this opportunity called reimagine s.f., we're able to comment on the laws directly and have discussions on specific areas of the law that matter to them. over the course of the scholarship opportunity in the last few months we had replies from numerous students on over 30 different unique laws and codes on our city books. they range from serious policy issues like ranging the minimum wage and milestone accomplishment championed by president chiu [speaker not understood]. comments and proposals on the protection of duestion, how we printout voter [speaker not understood], receptacles businesses he put out and resolutions around, believe it or not, the keeping of cows in san francisco, laser pointers, jukeboxes, laundry establishments, gasoline stations, [speaker not understood], in our city parks all which exist on our books in one form or another today. i was interested in the creativity of our students. when we announced the

scholarship opportunity with the open gov [speaker not understood], both from san francisco state university. at the onset of this opportunity, i said that if the ideas that they mentioned were strong policy ideas and that would benefit all of our city, i work to turn them into law here in san francisco. as i mentioned earlier, one of the most outdated ones, and i've asked the city attorney to start drafting a number of them on our book was a law regarding the permitting of cows that still exists in our city code. currently health code article 1 section 12 states that if any person firm or corporation may keep one cow upon any lot within the city and county of san francisco along as they receive a permit from dph. they can technically keep up to two cowses as long a the cows have access to at least one acre of land and/or obtain a second permit. obviously i don't believe there are that many cowses in san francisco. after consulting with department of public health, we found there are no permits for

cows in our city and that in the 32 years thatth current manager has been on the program he has never seen a permit issued. given that i have asked the city attorney to strike the section from our health code as outdated and unnecessary. another outdated law during the contest has to do with requirements for gasoline stations in our city. in our health code article 12 section 725, gasoline stations are technically required to have at least two bathrooms, one for males and one for females. i am all for providing bathrooms at gas stations, but requiring at least two separate bathrooms, both separate secondes can be costly and unisex has been the trend [speaker not understood] we can be flexible with the city. i have asked the strona mend this code so they are only required to have one bathroom on-site to serve the needs of guests and reduce the cost of doing business in the city. there are a number of other serious issues that were raised. we're doing a lot more research on as staff and my office to

see if there are issues we can bring forward to the full board here. but i do want to thank [speaker not understood] from my staff who hoox been running a lot of this open data open gov work. i have to say overall i was really impressed with the participation from our city's youth and college and law students from here in the city. we continue to live in what is becoming the global center of innovation and this is one way to engage our residents what we do in city hall. look forward to continuing to utilize this tool and technologies to modernize what we do herein side of city hall including our legislation. and, again, i want to congratulate the scholarship winners. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor farrell. supervisor kim. okay. supervisor mar? >> thank you. i have several item. the first addresses san