displaced, not having the physical space. people have been pushed off of lands for centuries. anytime they wanted their land, they took it. >> we start to realize the rest of us have a lot in common. >> everyone is concerned. everyone here has to be, too. >> people who live in the mission [inaudible] >> he knows nothing about the reality of poor people in this city. >> in many cases, they have taken money from those rundown

structures. >> and they cannot even afford to rent studio space to us. >> the relationship is changing. >> we are going to come up with our own policy, our own mission- driven policy. >> the displacement of 26 community offices. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on

this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> let me quickly say, i join hundreds of my neighbors, many of us who are cells were evicted in these chambers, and we came and were greeted with closed doors, lock the doors, and deaf ears. as we see another wave of .com land speculation in san francisco, i hope this chamber is open to hearing from the community, public, and acting in the community's best effort. they talk aboutthey talk about s ago, they are talking about jobs now, but it is really about a

land grab. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, i am with seiu 1021. i was much younger and much less gray in the video. i want to work with folks to stop the display and of nonprofits, the displacement of tenants in the mission. that is one of our main concerns. when we hear from the mayor's office that rents will go up in those areas, commercial rents, 25, $0.50 per square foot, the bears organizations that serve poor people will be pushed out of the tenderloin and mid market area. there is no question, everyone accepts there will be some level of gentrification. the question is how much. i would suggest to you that this road has -- plan has grown

enormously since it was suggested. first it was mid market, then tenderloin. i am not a big fan of peril exemptions, but it is striking to me how we just kept adding on in this neighborhood, in this building, and it is becoming a little gross. we support the community benefits agreement. we would ask the supervisors, in their wisdom, if they choose to keep tom here, to take some of that grossness, sleazy, backroom dealing feeling of it, and mitigate the damage by shrinking the area as much as possible, to what was genuinely suggested with some credibility that there might be some buildings in the mid market area that makes sense. certainly, after hearing the

good life person talk about how she revitalize the vernal heights quarter, i am hesitant to say that we need to see a grocery store as well. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good morning. my name is elizabeth alexander. as you know, workers all over this country are facing unbelievable challenges. our workers throughout northern california, here in the city, a nonprofit workers, have made enormous sacrifices to save services and jobs in san francisco. we absolutely no job creation is part of our way out of this crisis. however, the proposed deal, as

britain, is very far reaching, does not have predictable outcomes, and either in terms of job creation, it's to the general fund. certainly, identification including commercial rent increases. the response i have heard is that we do not think commercial rents will increase that much. i would like to see something much firmer than that. unions need to take the stand that social justice, civil rights, identification, are important for all of us. we are defending the rights of all workers. we think these issues need to be divided. you cannot solve one piece of

fast-moving legislation. twitter it threatening to move, and longstanding issue, the revitalization, into one issue. we would like to see its put out, make it as small as possible. ideally, we would like to see some clawback. if a company does not produce the benefits, then they would not have to pay taxes. supervisor chu: i do not have any more speaker cards. if you have a comment, please let up in the center of the room. >> i do not want to just make this about twitter. i think a lot of san franciscans want to see twitter here for civic pride and for other reasons. my concern is much broader. i am concerned the accumulative effect of the development scenarios going on in the

tenderloin will negatively impact many communities who already live there. my preference is to see a community-driven planning process that puts poor people who already live in the neighborhood first, and then see how we can accommodate other people to lift all boats. i have also been through two internet ipo's myself. piper dissipated in the largest ipo in history -- i participated in the largest ipo in history in the singapore stock exchange. there is so much opportunity for shorn stain to help them preserve their cash flow. it is much more elegant all the way around. how about a year's free rent, and then maybe an escalator? everybody is going to want to be there. that is a lot less controversial and a much more elegant way to solve this.

i wish she would find his civic pride, and understand how it would benefit his own pocket but, instead of taking it out of everyone else. like i said, i am concerned about the cumulative the facts. it is not just twitter, tax incentives, tax giveaways. it is that, cpmc, large hospital complexes, it is about the arts district. i would be much more comfortable if we had a planning process that put us first and brought everybody to the table. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> walter paulson. do you know where you are going to do you like the things the city is showing you

where are you going to, do you know once we were standing free in time chasing a better city that you see in your mind you know how i love you but my spirit was free i would like a better city in tax time please do you know where your city is going to do you like the things the city is showing you where are you going to will you find a better way once we were standing free in time i would like a better tax time to shine do you know where you are going to

would you help us, budget and finance help us lead today and a city that makes it better and how [applause] supervisor chu: thank you. if i could ask folks to hold their applause. >> good morning. my concern is, is the city ready to carry the burden of these nonprofits, if they are displaced? i realize so many nonprofits are supported by the city, but they're also supported by foundations. the other issue, from my

experience, studying these issues of giving away finances to ballparks, other institutions that want to relocate, they stay a few years and are gone. have we considered the fact that twitter may come in and they get a better deal somewhere else and they are off? i would like to have consideration for all these things. thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good morning. my name is susan. i am an educator but not full time, so i supplement my income in other ways. one of them is working for a bookstore in the mission. it is a small business. we have six employees. the bookstore i work for employs mainly white, cranky middle-

aged men and women, and not many other folks will hire us. small business does not benefit from this payroll tax exemption. as a matter of fact, small businesses are most likely to be pushed out of these areas if the large corporations attacks exemption they seek and can pay the higher rent. we are the winds that are vulnerable to the rent increases and to the movement of big boxes and corporations into the tenderloin and mid market. so i am very much against this proposal. supervisor chu: thank you very much. are there any other speakers that wish to comment on item 1? public comment is closed. the item is before the committee. i wonder if we can take the amendments first. i believe they are fairly

noncontroversial. the amendments are on page 4, lines 11 and 15, inserting the word "full" before the tax year. supervisor mirkarimi: without objection. supervisor chu: ok, we have accepted the amendments that are not substantive. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: i want to return to a question that i had asked last week. needed to the budget analyst or to the controller. written in the ordinance is a sunshine provision of six years, if i'm not mistaken. that is assuming that it can be renewed? maybe to mr. rose? >> members of the committee, supervisor mirkarimi, on any sunset, the board of supervisors at the end of the period would

be authorized to renew or create any double legislation relative to this, which would include the discount -- exclusion, if they so desire. supervisor mirkarimi: is it inconsistent or impractical that it was a onetime benefit that would have been prescribed in legislation, purses leaving it open for some type of renewal? >> could i clarify? the provision expires. it ends and would take an affirmative act from the board to not either change the legislation before it expires, put a new expiration date on it, or to create new legislation. it affirmatively expires eight years, if adopted after adoption, it is over. supervisor chu: in the legislation, in eight years, it

expires. if the board did nothing, it would be gone. then we would have to bring forward other legislation. >> yes, it is a hard expiration. any tax credits not used would not be carried forward supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. that is my understanding as well. there has been discussion about a community benefits agreement. do we know what that analysis is, what that looks like? a little more hard, empirical evidence would be helpful. >> the details of that community benefit agreement are not part of the legislation. i have not seen the agreement. i would be happy to respond to any request for analysis. supervisor mirkarimi: it just seems to be a cornerstone discussion attached to the legislation that says there is a cba beyond the question of there

being a benefit of looking twitter in mid market, that there are some hard, and parable benefits. it would be important to get a full complement of what those benefits are, anything like that. >> supervisor, through the chair, legislation requires any taxpayer that wants to opt into this potential tax exclusion, enter into a by the community benefits agreement with the city. currently, my understanding is, the proposed community benefit agreement between twitter and the city is still being negotiated. what i heard supervisor kim say is that she would hold this legislation at the full board if it was not completed. supervisor mirkarimi: through the chair to supervisor jim, are we suggesting that between now -- kim, are we suggesting that

between now and then, in advance of this legislation, that there would be negotiations to disclose what the cba is? >> we can follow up with your office. supervisor chiu and ir committed to continuing this item next tuesday if we are not able to make advancement on the community benefits agreement by monday. supervisor chu: i would request, if that information is shared, that it is shared fully. supervisor mirkarimi: i agree. i do not want to box ourselves into a corner here. if there is information coming up and you want to leave this at the budget committee, it feels like an incomplete process, and there could be the need to get some sort of analysis, to see what the cba looks like.

supervisor chu: thank you. any other questions for the office of economic workforce development? any comments before we take action? supervisor mirkarimi: what kind of action are you suggesting other than what we just heard from supervisor kim? is this ready to be advanced? supervisor chu: if there is no other questions, we would vote to continue or to send this item forward. we do have a number of other agenda items. if we are not able to for that

reason, we see no reason to continue the budget committee meeting. we are both committed. supervisor mirkarimi: through the chair, it feels like this is lopsided. maybe there is a more polite term, but if there is a negotiation going on about the cba between now and monday, and then you reveal to us, that between friday and tuesday, i want to treat it with the same level of depth and analysis that any of us would. i do not know if that provides us any sufficient time. i would be willing to support your intention of advancing without recommendations, but

that is where it sits. supervisor chu: from my point of view, if we have exhausted the conversation with the department, we have taken two public comment at the budget and finance committee's subcommittee -- excuse me. i would like to send item forward out of the committee out of consideration for the full board. that would be my preference so that we can move the items along. the item is before the committee. do we have any other final comments from the committee before we take action -- thank you very much. we have already taken two full days of public comment. >> [inaudible] >> we are more than happy to

provide drafts to the cba -- supervisor mirkarimi: i know that we have some interested public here, but with the flow of discussion, procedurally, it raises a good point. we do not want to see the integrity of this process compromised. if, in fact, what supervisor jim is saying, working with supervisor chu and others, you have our understanding that you are continuing to refine a document. we get that. but it is true, it is only consistent that we have to create a committee so that there is public comment on the cba, or keep it in the committee until we see it. i am only saying this because i am concerned it could come back to bite anybody later. if there was not that sufficient period of time that allows their

to be full disclosure and consideration of that document. procedurally speaking, i am trusting your process, it will be required to disclose it. it does change the conversation if we do not allow conversation. supervisor chu: would you like to continue for another week? i do not know if i want to do this as the committee as a whole. supervisor mirkarimi: i am try to be supportive of your process, but at the same time, clear that there has to be a true public accounting of what the delta queen now and when the final document comes before us. i know you want the same thing. let us figure that out. if we want to keep it here, one week, if not, go to the committee of the whole. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim?

supervisor kim: our main reason for moving this out of budget committee is we do not have any recommendations to make to the budget committee. the main concern for our office is strengthening the cba to ensure that twitter is partnering and investing with our community and neighborhood organizations, which is why we suggest moving it out of committee and hold it from the full board next tuesday. but if the choice is between putting it as the committee as a whole and then budget committee, i would prefer the budget committee. supervisor mirkarimi, i do not know if you have thoughts about that. supervisor mirkarimi: you want to be as methodical and inclusive as possible. that is right, if you are able to furnish a document that enhances the discussion, but there has not been ample time for people to review it. it is the proper thing to do. so i agree.

supervisor chu: why don't we return to this item in a second. we are going to get to another item so that we can go through the agenda. we are going to call item 3 please. >> item 3. resolution authorizing the department of children, youth and families to retroactively accept and expend grant funding in the amount of $3,000,000 from the bill and melinda gates foundation to fund the san francisco bridge to success program, a partnership between the city and county of san francisco, city college of san francisco, and the san francisco unified school district, to double the number of low income youth who earn post-secondary credentials by age 26 for the period of august 13, 2010, through august 31, 2013.

supervisor chu: thank you. i believe we have a repetitive from dcyf to present on this. >> before you is an except/expend for the bill and melinda gates foundation to award the city $3 million. it is a three-year grant which runs from august 2010 until august 2013. it will fund the san francisco bridge success program, a partnership between the city and county of san francisco, sfusd, and city college. the purpose of the program is to double the number of low income youth who earn post secondary degrees by age 26. in the partnership, the three different entities will share information, data sharing, research together, specifically on the city's and, we will be working to align our funding for

student workforce development, preschool, and after school for school readiness. and also, the city will serve as the primary fiscal sponsor, as we will be providing the fiscal and programmatic reports to the bill and melinda gates foundation. city college will participate. one of their main implementations will be looking at program and policy changes to improve sf usd access for students. in addition, they are working on implementing programs and policy changes to improve the curriculum. city college will also be looking to improve on four sequences which will assist in shortening a path to graduation. in this grant, there are no new positions and it did not require any type of local match. we have someone here that is on the project committee who can answer specific questions, if you have any about the

partnership. thank you. supervisor chu: this is an except/expend for $3 million, we do not have any matching funds from the city, which is why we do not have a budget analyst, and it does not include the hiring of any new positions. when the open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we send this item forward with recommendations. thank you very much. please call item four. >> item 4. resolution authorizing the san francisco department of the environment to accept forty seven (47) electric vehicle chargers and three (3) years of service from coulomb technologies, inc., as a sub- award under grant de-ee0003391 using federal recovery act funds from the u.s. department of energy to coulomb for these purposes.

supervisor chu: thank you. we have a representative from the department of the environment. actually, i think you are with the mayor's office. >> director of climate protection initiatives. i just want to speak briefly on behalf of merely in support of the grant program. 50% or more of our greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation sector. we are doing all we can to get people into biking, walking, public transit. for those people for whom those alternative do not work, we are doing everything began to support alternative fuel vehicles, including electric. this grant, through a federal grant program, will provide the city 47 electrical chargers. city 47 electrical chargers. it will do so in city-owned