shared san francisco values. i am so proud to represent the board of supervisors of harvey milk once served on. i am so proud to be part of the city that comes together all the time, but in particular comes together in the month of june to celebrate our specialness as a community. like many of you here, i did not grow up in san francisco. i grew up in another part of the country that was not quite as tolerant or reverse. san francisco drew me as it your all of us because we live in a very special place. i want to say on behalf of the board of supervisors, we have a special responsibility and leadership role in the world. as we come together, we symbolize all of the space -- this faith we have inhumanity, civil rights, as a common family. -- we have the spacfaith in humanity, civil-rights, and as a common family. i want to congratulate our grand marshals not just for being lgbt leaders, but for representing what is truly the best of what it means to the sentences in -- a san franciscan. i also have the pleasure to

- to help the san francisco, 7% to -- to healthy san francisco? >> that is one option they have to meet this requirement. that is what this figure shows. with that, there is another way to look at this. we were able to determine the way each given employer makes the requirement. many employers choose a combination of factors. they provide health insurance to a number of their workers and pay into the city option for some of them. with respect to that, 80% of the employers have chosen health insurance

healthy san francisco. they end up at the general clinics and it is the city picking up the tab. this legislation does not pave a new road. this is nothing new. this only reaffirms what the previous board passed unanimously. it is time to pass this on. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> vice-president of the labor council, founding member of jobs with justice. we are all here to say one simple thing. five years ago, some of us in this room worked hard to get this health care legislation passed, unanimously, by the mayor. i just heard the mayor's speech about what a great law it was. in my opinion, these are unscrupulous employers who are not living up to their obligation and taking our money, at the restaurants or small retail stores. this has got to be stopped. the reason it has got to be stopped is because it is growing. this loophole is becoming worse. please, passed this loophole, let's be done with it and get on to the other important business at hand. supervisor campos: thank you. n

we need to do a lot in san francisco to encourage young people and young families to stay in san francisco. i think we are missing out on a lot of our diversity when young families leave our city. we need to do all we can to be mindful of the needs of young families in the city. we mentioned housing. schools are a big deal. but also being able to be flexible with transportation and children. >> what is happening with crime in your district? give me your thoughts on how you think the police are doing with respect to crime in your district? >> i think we are very fortunate in district two. we have a number of great police captains that oversee the stations that touched district two. richmond and northern are the two major police stations that touched the district. we do have a lot of crime in district 2. both crimes against individuals but also against merchants along our merchant corridors. chestnut. union in particular has been hit. fillmore and sacramento. it is a big deal. we also have the break-ins. we need to be very mindful that people keep their iphones and laptops out of sight. but

>> no one can be enrolled in healthy san francisco and be a non-san francisco resident. commissioner clyde: employed outside of san francisco. i thought all san francisco residents who do not have insurance -- if they are employed in alameda county, san mateo county -- as residents, they are eligible for the program. is that correct? how many people are employed by employers outside of the city and county of san francisco? >> we do not maintain that information. employment status is not relevant. we do not care about your employment status or immigration status. we do not ask that information. >> for me, as a resident of san francisco and a san francisco taxpayer -- if one of the goals of this program is to protect the san francisco taxpayer, i would like to know how many employers are being defective subsidized by our taxpayer dollars. -- being de facto subsidized by our taxpayer dollars. when we look at shifting this $52 million relatively quickly, and people starting to shift their game plan around, it would not be good to continue the exodus of opportunity outside of

it is costly and difficult to do business in san francisco, to raise your children in san francisco. i would like a voice at the table to create policies that will minimize the stigma that san francisco is not a business- friendly city, minimize the stigma of that san francisco prioritizes the rights of dogs over children. we started walking down that path largely because of political ideology. it is less about politics. i want to have a positive impact on the city overall, specifically district 10, connecting it to the city. people have been left to defend for themselves. i am honored to have been elected to serve to be the next advocate for the next four years, hopefully the next eight years, to really protect, defense, and serve the residents of district 10. >> we will talk more about some of the issues facing district 10. before we do, i would like to know a little bit about what you learned campaigning for supervisor. talk to me a little about that experience. >> first, i learned that a lot of the conversations we have about our neighborhood and community happens in silos. we ha

we have an obligation to protect san francisco consumers. let's talk about the third group impacted by this loophole -- other businesses. employers. from my perspective, this is pro-business legislation that tries to level the playing field for businesses in san francisco. olsc has given us much information, a lot of statistics, and they have more they can give us. the reality is that the vast majority of businesses and employers in san francisco are playing by the rules and doing what they are supposed to. we will hear from restaurant owners. we will hear from many businesses that are doing exactly what the health care security ordinance intended to do, which is to cover their employees. businesses that understand that there is a business interest in treating your workers with respect and dignity, that there is a business benefit to making sure that you have a work force that is in fact healthy, and that in fact, having a healthy worker means increase productivity and something that not only helps the business but actually helps the consume

francisco would crumble because of this legislation. the parade of horribles has not materialized. the one study that looked at the impact of the legislation makes that very clear. but this loophole is something that was never intended when this legislation was first introduced. a loophole that was never envisioned because it really undermines the original intent of the legislation, which is that we want to -- we wanted to make sure the taxpayers in san francisco were not burdened with the challenge of providing health care for those who are uninsured. that has significant consequences on every taxpayer in san francisco, and that was the ultimate objective. as important as providing health care to the worker was, the overarching goal was to make sure that there was no unfair and undue burden placed on san francisco's taxpayers. this loophole is problematic for many reasons, and it impacts a number of individuals. many individuals here in san francisco. i would like to identify who those are. first, it impacts the employees, the workers

san francisco -- 90% of businesses in san francisco. by closing the loophole, that is how we even the playing field and make sure workers have access to health care. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> i am a restaurant owner in san francisco, and i would like to address my remarks directly to some of the questions president chiu ask. i appreciate it. some of the questions you ask were really good. i would like to shed and on the ground business owner's light on those questions. we have an hra. we fully notify our employees. we provide any coverage that can be covered. dental, medical, so on and so forth, but utilization rates are still low. president chiu ask the question about 20% compared to 55%. there may be an assumption that is incorrect. we are assuming all things are equal. in healthy san francisco, i believe these are people who sought out health care and applied for it because they knew they needed to access the health care system. in our hra's, utilization rates are lower -- nobody argues that you

and whereas the san francisco carnaval is produced by the san francisco cultural arts tradition, a nonprofit that strives to make multiculturalism a -- tangible reality by uniting people in celebration with music, dance, artistry and food and these endeavors continue to be a significant contribution to the vitality of our communities. whereas the theme of this year's san francisco carnaval, live your fantasy, i think that's what i'm doing, celebrates the magic of life in the san francisco bay area and our city's legacy of acceptance, tolerance and equality for all people. and whereas california's largest annual multicultural celebration, the san francisco carnaval, will take place in the historic mission district for its 33rd year to showcase the very best of latin america and the caribbean cultures and traditions. now therefore be it resolved that i, ed win lee, along with the board of supervisors, in recognition of the celebration of our diversity, proclaim may 28 to 29, 2011, as carnaval weekend in san francisco! >> so, greetings. i would get to follow the mayor. well, of course let me st

i am with the san francisco commission.y biggest concern is we went into a contractual situation with recology for all our children to go to work at their recycling plants that we were helping them to set up. i am sympathetic to all the police from yuba county and the people from yuba county. i believe that is the situation yuba county and recology can work out for themselves. my concern is to pass the budget and you need to go to the next step and work out the problems of this contract. i hope so much for the people who could not be here today, working at those recycling plants, the baking continue to work as recycling plants. and there would not be some big lay off because no one wanted to take action in this situation. like i said before, i am very sympathetic to the folks of yuba county and what they had to say to today. but we have a different scenario down here with our young people and how we need to put a lot of them to work because of our relationship with recology. and we ask that you pass this item. thank you so

san francisco department on the status of women. san francisco zero divided foundation. we would like to thank the city department heads that are here. the department of status of women. the human rights commission, and our own director, the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs. you have an opportunity later in the meeting for public comment. please indicate if you would like to speak or write down your questions and return the cards to staff members. i would like to introduce an outstanding leader who has worked hard to bring the diverse segments of the san francisco community together to reach a common ground. since coming into office in january of 2009, he has brought thoughtful leadership to our city. we're pleased to welcome the president of the san francisco board of supervisors. thank you. [applause] >> good evening. i am pleased to be with all of you today. i want to think the immigrant rights commission and all of the many partners here to talk about a very important topic. 13 years ago, i lived in washington, d.c.. i worked for the senate judiciary

the san francisco health care ordinance works. more than 50,000 san franciscans, residents have access to health care through healthy san francisco. the health ordinance saves taxpayers money. a loophole cheats workers, as we have seen in the committee today. another point i would like to make, closing the loophole in the health care ordinance create scalable playing field of san francisco businesses. currently, the local creates an incentive for employers not to comply with the spirit of the legislation, and that is a devastating thing. not only the you have the intellect and knowledge of it, but the spirit of it. i hope you will improve this area and make sure the people of san francisco will be adequately represented. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> otis charles. i speak on behalf of the episcopal diocese of california. we wish to show our support for the amendment that you are proposing to the current san francisco health care insurance. nationally, the episcopal church has urged a single payer, universal

san francisco has been doing all it can. i have been the head of recovery planning since the last mayor. it takes a lot of partnerships and good planning and a focus on the vulnerable aspects. like we are focusing on our soft story buildings in the bay area. we will continue to also have a healthy city. a healthy city is one that is not as vulnerable. and economically healthy city. the have to invest in our infrastructure. that is not only a debate in the bay area. is also a debate nationally. how do we make sure of our infrastructure, whether it is bridges or roads. >> [unintelligible] >> you will find it takes a lot longer to rebuild a city? what's it generally does take a lot longer -- >> is generally does take a lot longer to rebuild. you can expedite recovery. you can literally cut it in half. that is what we're trying to also instill in other cities that we talk with, exchanging information. recovery is about preparation. it is a mind-set that right now, i am actually educating residents of san francisco to think about

one, my commitment to san francisco and the committee. two, the opportunity that has afforded folks to go through lsf, which is about leadership development and growing committee trusties, folks who not only live and work in this city but also take ownership and pride and ensuring that we have a great place to live, work, and drive. i have been on the board since 2003. supervisor kim: supervisor farrell capito supervisor farrell: -- supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: have to apply for any of the commission's report? >> i have not. supervisor farrell: any particular reason in this besides interest in san francisco? >> that is correct. 10 years ago, it was not a big deal to me at the time. supervisor elsbernd: one question -- sorry, you get to be the first person to be asked this. some others may be asked this. you have but a very good resume. it sells well in the public would like it. are you going to run for office in the next 10 years? [laughter] and the me be very blunt, i do not want to see people on this committee who are going t

we're eager to continue to work with the city and county of san francisco to facilitate san francisco'sstrategy. bentley prince street. blue shield of california. cole hardware. gap inning, google, inc., hilton san francisco union square, the new resource bank, pacific gas & electric, wells fargo and yahoo inc. [applause] so on behalf of the department of environment i wanted to, first of all, thank our staff, who did a fantastic job of pulling together the panels as well as all of the advisory panel members. i know it was quite a time commitment over a number of months to have these discussions and make these recommendations, but we really truly appreciate your commitment and your time. now it is my pleasure and honor to introduce to all of you mayor ed lee, who's going to make a few remarks. [applause] mayor lee: thank you. first of all, i think that elephants and sharks are probably not going to be on the cuisine this year. [laughter] but i am very happy to be here, and i wanted to, first of all, thank you for these papers. i do take this very seriously, as you know. i know that joha

there are many individuals who work in san francisco who do not live in san francisco. many of those employers would not be eligible. in addition, because healthy san francisco is for individuals who are not insured, there are employers who use it to make supplemental expenditures above and beyond what they may choose for their employees. that individual would be ineligible for healthy san francisco. they would get an mra. finally, because it is for individuals between 18 and 64, if that employer was making contributions on behalf of someone under the age of 18 or over the age of 64, irrespective of their county of residents, they would also get an mra. those are the principal factors we would use to decide whether they would get healthy san francisco. commissioner yee riley: are their standards in terms of access? >> we use the guidelines that are set out by the internal revenue service, the tax code. we use that guideline in reference for the range of expenditures that are held related that are eligible for reimbursement. we provide a listing of that two employees. th