participate in. we're now coming before you with the mechanics of creating this district. you also have in your board packet a letter from attorney james ruben on behalf of a group of unnamed developers expressing a number of concerns about the way in which the city developed the valuation of buildings in the transbay area for purposes of calculating the mello-roos special tax. yesterday staff distributed a memo to you responding in detail to each point raised in the letter. in sum, staff believes that with the one exceptionally note in a moment,edth the valuation methodology used was sound and consistent with the implementation document ~ adopted by the board as part of the transbay plan. however, we want to acknowledge these ongoing concerns and we realize that the cost of this special tax will be a significant component of expenses incurred by building owners in this district going forward. as outlined in the staff memo, we have met with the developer group several times in the last

few months in an effort to resolve these concerns and intend to continue doing so even after the board adopts these resolutions today. the staff should arrive at agreement with the developer groups on any changes to valuation methodology in the next couple of months. the board may authorize these changes in september when it holds a public hearing and considers a resolution of intent to form the district. before closing, i do want to discuss the one item in the ruben letter which staff does agree should be amended. on page 5 of the letter, it is noted that staff proposes to apply the mello-roos special tax rates to gross square feet of buildings. gross square feet of buildings, excuse me, though their valuation is calculated on net leasable square feet. this is indeed an error and would as the letter pointed out have resulted in too high a special tax being applied to buildings. we have amended the rate and method of apportionment document attached to your

resolution to fix this error and go back to charging a special tax based on net square feet of each building. at the land use committee hearing two weeks ago, staff estimated that the total bonded proceeds from the mello-roos district would be about $990 million. with the correction of this net grocerer, that estimate would be reduced by 10 to 20% ~. that concludes my presentation. myself and other staff are here for any questions there may be. ~ gross error >> thank you, mr. rich. any comments? okay, supervisor wiener. he >> thank you, mr. president. i want to thank everyone who has moved this forward ~. the transbay terminal is, is absolutely critical to the future of transportation. not just for san francisco, but for our region and for our city and it's very exciting as terminal moves forward, particularly in the context of our high-speed rail system that

we will have in the future. i'll be supporting this today, and i'm a strong supporter of this project. but i do just want to note that we -- transbay terminal does not exist in isolation. so, the reason that we are making the investments that we have been making and will continue to make in the building the transbay terminal is so that we can have an extension of caltrain high-speed rail to the transbay terminal. that's why this terminal is going to exist. we're not building it for the sake of building it. and it is essential that we make sure that the extension happens. this mello-roos does -- will provide funding for downtown extension also known as phase 2 of the project. but i will say that it is going to provide less than we had

anticipated. and due to increased costs of the transbay terminal which have been well reported in the press as well as other factors, the mello-roos will produce less for the downtown extension than it would have otherwise. and the amendment that we're making today based on this recalculation that mr. rich describes, that will reduce the size of the mello-roos by a significant amount, and i have no doubt that amount will come out of what would have gone into the downtown extension. so, given that we're not getting as much as we thought we would for the downtown extension, it makes it that much more important for all of us to work together to make sure that over time we are putting together the funding to make the downtown extension a reality. it's not going to happen on its own, although there are a lot of ideas for where we can realistically get the money. it's not going to happen unless

we all work together, all of the regional agencies and city agencies and political leaders work together and prioritize it and make it a reality. and i look forward to making sure that we do that. thank you. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you, president chiuv. i just want to echo supervisor wiener's comments and thank mr. rich for willingness to work together on a number of issues obviously been raised somewhat recently around some of the developers. i appreciate your office and have all the faith in the world that you will work to get that resolved [speaker not understood]. look forward to seeing that happen. >> okay, colleagues, unless there are any further questions, can we take this item same house same call? without objections, these resolutions are adopted. [gavel] >> madam clerk, could you call item 44? >> item 44 is an ordinance amending the general plan by updating the recreational and open space element of the general plan; and making findings, including environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ requisite findings. >> roll call vote.

>> on item 44, supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener no. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos no. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos no. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen -- >> excuse me. >> supervisor cohen. cohen aye. there are 8 ayes and three nos. this ordinance is finally passed. [gavel] >> supervisor yee, a motion to rescind? >> can i rescind the vote because i voted incorrectly. >> supervisor yee has made a motion to rescind. without objection this passes. let's take another roll call vote on this. [gavel] >> on item 44, supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener no. supervisor yee? yee no.

supervisor avalos? avenue lotion no. supervisor breed? ~ breed aye. supervisor campos? campos no. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. there are 7 ayes and 4 nos. >> the ordinance is finally passed. [gavel] >> item 45. >> item 45 is an ordinance amending the heythv code to authorize the implementation of court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment for individuals with mental illness who meet the criteria established by california welfare and institutions code, sections 5345-5349.5, to require the county mental health officer create a care team to try to engage individuals referred for aot in voluntary treatment prior to the imposition of court-ordered treatment; and making a finding that this authorization will not result in a reduction of current adult and juvenile mental health programs. ~ court ordered treatment. >> roll call vote. >> on item 45, supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar no. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee. yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos no. supervisor breed? breed aye.

supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. there are 9 ayes and 2 nos. >> the ordinance is finally passed. [gavel] >> item 46. >> item 46 is a charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to: 1) extend the children's fund for 25 years and increase the set-aside from three cents to four cents over a four-year period; 2) extend the public education enrichment fund for 26 years; 3) create an our children, our families council and require preparation of a children and families plan; 4) create a city rainy day reserve and a school rainy day reserve out of the existing rainy day reserve; and 5) make various technical and administrative changes to the funds, at an election to be held on november 4, 2014. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you, president chiu. once again, i want to give thanks to a lot of people. it's just one of these things where so many individuals

worked on putting this initiative together that i want to -- just can't thank them enough. i want to thank the mayor, everybody from the san francisco unified school district family, community advocates, and all of my colleagues who are on the board of supervisors who are united for one measure that will further san francisco's investment in children, youth and family. we will now be sending this to the san francisco voters in november, hopefully after today's vote. the combined charter amendment means one unified measure in november. to reauthorize the children's fund and the public education enrichment fund, creating, coordinating council and establishing a school rainy day fund. in particularly supervisors kim, mar, and campos and myself who had affiliationses with the san francisco unified school district in the public school

system really know the value of this school piece. and in which it was able to bring the resources necessary to put us ahead of every school district, urban school district in california, even though california is actually one of the lowest reimbursement or spending per capita of all the states. i think we're number 49. but at the same time, san francisco unified school district public schools have continued to improve over the last 8 to 10 years because -- and it's because of this fund. and this initiative also for the children's fund will continue to support the services to all children in san francisco. if it weren't for this, we wouldn't have many of the services we have today, whether

it's from, from so deem to youth development, to job training programs. it's all included in here. and with peef, we also have the early education piece that will, again, attempt to address our needs in early education to provide for getting our kids ready so that the majority of kids will eventually succeed in making their way through high school. so, i ask everybody's support and that for the first time we're going to put everything together and really say to the city children and families first initiative, we really mean children should come first when it comes to how we decide our policies in san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you. colleagues, any further discussion? roll call vote on this item.

>> on item 46, supervisor 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. >> chose charter amendments are committed. ~ submitved. [gavel] >> item 47. >> item 47 was referred without recommendation from the rules committee. item 47, charter amendment (second draft) to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to rewider the department of electionses to hold a special election when there is a vacancy in the office of the mayor or member of the board of supervisors, unless a regularly scheduled election will be held within 180 days of the vacancy; to provide that the president of the board of supervisors serves as the acting mayor until an election is held to fill a mayoral vacancy; and to provide that the mayor appoints an interim supervisor to fill a supervisorial vacancy until an election is held to fill that vacancy, with the interim supervisor being ineligible to compete in that election, at an election to be held on november 4, 2014.

>> supervisor avalos. >> thank you, president chiu. and, colleagues, thank you for your consideration for this charter amendment. i want to thank the rules committee for forwarding this to the full board even without recommendation. its official title is democratic special elections to fill mayoral and board of supervisors vacancies. i have a nickname for it. it's called the let's elect our elected officials act of 2014. this measure would help promote popular democracy in san francisco. it would also bring san francisco in line with how the state and federal governments handle vacancies. it would also strengthen separation of powers in san francisco, in particular between the legislative branch, that's us, the board of supervisors, and the executive branch, the mayor.

it also reduces the temptation of small groups of people determining how vacancies are filled. and it would also limit the power of incumbency to those who first winnie alex. ~ win election. this would strengthen separation of powers in san francisco. in middle school we all learned about checks and balances. the separation of powers between the executive and the legislative branch. but that separation of power breaks down when there is a vacancy in the office of the mayor or on the board of supervisors. when there is a vacancy in the office of the mayor our executive branch, the board of supervisors, our legislative branch, unilaterally appoints a new mayor, an interim mayor. and then when there is a vacancy on the board of supervisors, the mayor unilaterally appoints a member of our branch. this proposes a simple solution to [speaker not understood]. let the voters elect our electses officials in democratic special elections ~. this measure is not about any

existing mayor or any existing supervisor. the most recent member of our board katy tang, supervisor katy tang, had credentials, great experience in the neighborhood, knows her way around here, is an obvious person to serve on the board of supervisors. when it came to selecting mayor ed lee for the interim mayor of 2011, i was one of the persons who voted in favor of mr. lee. my concern was at that time was the process, how a small group of people could make decisions that really should be handled by thousands of people through our electoral process. the lack of checks and balances in the important process means a small minority of people, us, and the interests that are behind us selects who will fill vacancies in the mayor's office or on the board of supervisors. if we approve this measure, it would allow voters to decide

who fills vacancy in special elections. then we move from a selection process with a small group of people to a more democratic electoral process, one where thousands more people participate in the process even in small turnout elections. that would be our special elections. here in san francisco mayoral vacancies are quite rare. only five times have they occurred since 1850, but in 2011 when the board of supervisors selected ed lee to be our interim mayor, i was very troubled by the process and how very few people had a real ability to influence that process as what would happen if we had done so in special elections. vacancies on the board of supervisors are much more common. we have had at least 23 appointees to the board of supervisors since the 1960s. and when an appointed supervisor runs for office with the power [speaker not understood], that person almost always wins.

the power of encumbancy is an advantage someone has and determines participants in what would normally be open seat elections. only one appointed supervisor lost in the district elections. [speaker not understood] creates an incentive for supervisors also to look for a new job before their term expires. a the mayor's unilateral appointment power [speaker not understood] offer supervisors positions when other vacancies occur as well. this creates a process that i think really shapes how decisions are made often behind closed doors. if we open up these processes to full vacancies and give them to the voters, we are empowering the voters and thousands more people to determine the fate of vacancies on the board of supervisors and in the mayor's office. let's elect our elected official back.

restore faith in city government and ensure voters have the ability to choose the mayor and the board of supervisors. there will be questions about the latest amendment for this measure. this amendment, the amendments [speaker not understood], i think the original version had any vacancy in any office. this is actually a measure that's between supervisors and the mayor's office. so, with the vacancy in the -- on the board of supervisors, the mayor would still have the ability to appoint an interim supervisor, but that supervisor would not be able to run -- term limited and would not be able to run in that special election. could run in future elections, but not in that special election. what is important to note is that this is pretty consistent with what the expectation was when we voted to select ed lee for interim mayor in 2011. ed lee was not going to run for

supervisor, not going to run for mayor, but it would be just an interim mayor only. the city attorney assures us having term limits is legal. it is essentially a term which already exists in san francisco. in san diego, when there is a vacancy on the city council with less than a year left in the term, the appointee cannot run in the following election. we already know an interim supervisor or interim elected official in the legislative branch who cannot run is already being done and a major other california city like san diego. in april san diego, the city councilmember was appoint today serve out the remainder of the term for kevin faulconer who is the new mayor of san francisco. that appointee will not be running in that future election. we imagine that a legislative aide for a former supervisor or another city employee would be well suited to serve as interim supervisor.

who would not be running in the special election, but there are many people who are qualified and the qualifications that you have for running for supervisor in any district are endless and there are endless number of people who could work very well to fill those positions. electionses are a great way to determine and allowing the voter to decide, a great way to determine how these vacancies get filled. ensuring legislation we paractionv to [speaker not understood] whether that person could return to another city job after that person's term is finished. supervisors currently are proceeded from seeking other city employment after the term of one year of office. i believe we can make an exception for someone who serves only 3 to 4 months in an interim supervisor capacity. we do not feel that this is appropriate for an interim supervisor to not be able to find employment in the city after that person served his or her term. there are also questions that have been raised about public

financing and election process, and we're also looking at [speaker not understood] legislation to make sure that in scaled down time frame for special election that we can put timelines in place for [speaker not understood] program, to effectively work during the short-term election. lastly, this charter amendment is about investing greater power in the hands of the voters. if you are on the [speaker not understood] measure, i hope you can still send us the ballot measure forward to the voters and let them decide whether this is the power that they would like to have, yes or no. thank you very much, colleagues. hope to have your support. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, president chiu. thanks to supervisor avalos and the coalition to expand democracy and for good government in this city. i'm very supportive of this. i think it's a common sense measure that would take away the power of incumbency that's

used to the advantage of appointing vacancy on the board of supervisors. it's an example of tremendous mayoral power or even power on the board of supervisors. and i think this is the measure that, as supervisor avalos mentioned, would put more of an influence of voters so that the electorate could elect our elected officials as opposed to having the mayor appoint with that tremendous power and the power of incumbency our vacancies on the board of supervisors. also on the flip side is giving voters more of a, say, versus the board of supervisors selecting the interim mayor like we did several years ago. i wanted to also just add that the coalition for ethical government that's behind this as well, i think they are promoting something that would be good for the electorate and good for our communities as well. lastly, i know that this may be challenging this body of 11, i would urge colleagues to let's let the voters decide on good government policies like this. it expands democracy and gives voters and communities more of a say in government.

thank you. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you. first of all, i just want to acknowledge supervisor avalos. i think that we actually do share common goals in expanding democracy, transparency, open government. i do have a couple of questions to start with. number one is that the way i read it, the board president is filling a vacancy even temporarily and even in rare occasions that have come up in history of san francisco, they would still be allowed to run for mayor in the subsequent election. so, my question is why is that okay and how is that consistent with what the board of supervisors portion of the measure does not allow for? >> if i may, through the board, through the chair. it is a completely different position as acting mayor, board president would be serving. the board president would have further responsibilities servesing as board president and serving as acting mayor to

make sure the city can run effectively. and i believe also when it comes to having the most important or powerful oath of office in the city, serving that dual role, the person should be able to run for that office. it's more -- not just an obligation, but a responsibility that the president of the board would serve as acting mayor. it's not that that person necessarily has chosen to do it, but it's an automatic type of assignment that person would have to serve as acting mayor and member of the board of supervisors. so, to me that person should be allowed to run. when it comes to an interim supervisor that's appointed by the mayor, there isn't a dual role that that person is playing. and, so, when it comes to that office it makes sense that we actually bring him -- provide the special election that

allows that the voters to determine how that vacancy is ultimately going to be filled. but if you have the person who is appointed who is the interim and can run, the power of incumbency is great and that power of incumbency can determine who else can jump in the race or not. people can choose not to, but they look at how daunting it is when someone is -- has the power of incumbency. that can shape their determination not to do so. -- not to run. in both cases we still are offering to the voters special elections to fill a vacancy in the mayor's office and a vacancy on the board of supervisors. >> thank you. i really appreciate your answer. i still feel that it's very inconsistent [speaker not understood]. no matter how short or long a time a president is serving in the dual role, they will have that power of incumbency should they be allow today run in a subsequent election. in any case, the other question that i do have also is that,

you know, currently as written the special election that would be held to fill the vacancy where the members of the board would not be able to run, that or mayoral position on that ballot, there would not be allowed to be any other measures. it would only be those particular offices. so, my concern is that we already experience very low voter turnout [speaker not understood]. the election that i ran in, it was about 2% voter turnout, and there were four measures, local measures. there were other city-wide positions on there. there is the controversial washington prodwelt and there was a very low turnout. so, i just question whether it's really more democratic if we're only allowing for those seats to be available on the ballot, not other measures where you're not going to be driving out other voters to be at the ballot box. ~ project >> well, i would just respond

that having, give hep a low turnout special election for thousands of people who participate in the election, the supervisor or city-wide there are tens of thousands of people that will participate in the election of the mayor versus us selecting serves as interim mayor which is the current version that's in the charter. or the mayor selecting who will serve as a member of the board of supervisors. and maybe among us 11 in selecting a mayor, we might consult with hundreds of people in that process collectively. a special election would always mean that there are tens of thousands more that will take part in the process, which is much more democratic than a smaller group of people determining that a smaller group of people who are often shaped by interests that are common to city hall, but not necessarily common to the neighborhoods that will still be represented by person who serves in the mayoral capacity.

and if it comes to a mayor making a better decision about the board of supervisors, a smaller group of people then would be involved in that process, and people who may say -- not know the district as well as the -- where there is a vacancy as people from the neighborhood who will be voting for that vacancy. >> well, thank you.