more of a general issue. >> i would be happy to provide more information. supervisor mirkarimi: all right, thank you. supervisor chu: just a quick follow-up question, lisa. you had mentioned that many of the supervisor mirkarimi: pot -- many of the cbd's do not have a capital budget. is that a legal restriction? >> each one has its own management plan. . some districts do not have enough funding for certain projects in their original plans, so they apply for a grant in those cases to supplement their assessment budget. many districts spent all of their money on maintenance. so, they have to fundraiser for streetscape improvements. but that is not every district.

each one is different. supervisor chu: so, there is possibility for improving and larger -- approving a larger capital budget? they would have to change their management plans? >> correct. many of them have to -- many of them require all of the votes to do so. supervisor chu: so, it is onerous? >> if they wanted to substantively change the plan. they are currently allowed 10% changes per year, per budget category, providing some flexibility to meet needs overtime. a drastic case would require voting by those who are assessed and by the board of supervisors. supervisor mirkarimisupervisor a

concern surrounding the equity of how it gets spread amongst organizations. if you do have that conversation, it would be interesting to see who the beneficiaries are. supervisor kim: my apologies for being late. i was actually with another cbd. i know that district 6 has the fortune of having many of the cbd costs that are formed in the city. there are seven total? eight community benefit districts? >> 12. supervisor kim: i think that roughly seven or eight are in district 6. and i do hear from residents. it is mixed. we hear from residents but these are services that cities should be able to provide other realm. on the other hand, a sense of

grant -- break from this for the enhanced services in the area, led by folks that live and work in that neighborhood. one of the things that i appreciate is the higher level of engagement that stakeholders have in shaping the future of their district. two things. one, how does the city work -- one complaint i have heard is that the city may reduce its services from level of services it has given before. how do we work to make sure that the city continues its service? >> in terms of dtw? supervisor kim: i get it. i do. i just want to make sure that we do not lower services in the area. >> we work closely with the department of public works on

baseline services to make sure that they are still doing what they are supposed to be doing. if there are complaints, cbd should be informed. they can work with us so that we can have a meeting with dtw. supervisor kim: i imagine that it is hard to gauge baseline services. >> we have a lead of what they are supposed to do in every district. so that they pretty much do what they are supposed to do. supervisor kim: the second thing, i would like to echo my colleagues concerns over the community challenge grant. i was not aware that part of the 5% was city dollars. i would consider that additional fund-raising dollars. on the other end, about what to make sure -- i would want to make sure that there is not

geographical and equity. -- the iniquity. needs that are not even at the table, as the organizations need to apply for these grants. i concur with my colleagues. >> each management plan says that they have to raise five% about said services. it does not say that you cannot go the city. of course, 95% comes from property owners. they definitely need to be creative in terms of going for those services. -- sources. i want to remain at -- remind the supervisors that most of cbd's do not have the size in terms of a budget thatyerba buena has. they are definitely looking at all of the sources they have.

because so many want to do streetscape improvement, community challenge grant is just a viable source for that kind of work. supervisor kim: and i do appreciate the work of cbd's. i have worked a lot with north market and central market. i appreciate their ability to organize small businesses, partners, what it means to improve the neighborhood and partnering with community-based organizations as well. sfgov.osupervisor chu: were they other questions? supervisor kim: supervisor mirkarimi: -- the community -- supervisor mirkarimi: the community development grant is taken from the payroll tax? >> i am not aware. supervisor mirkarimi: does

someone there want to verify that? i am pretty sure that that is the case. while that is and on down, my gut is that it does. it comes from the payroll tax. coming from the percentage that is correct. >> the new name for the neighborhood beautification program as established by the voters, it allows businesses to check a box on their business tax return and, rather than going to the general fund. supervisor mirkarimi: right. right. i am curious. has there ever been any assessment? any kind of assessment? on the advent upper cbd's in san francisco?

in terms of what services they are able to provide? beyond baseline services provided by san francisco city and county? any kind of evaluation? >> not to my knowledge. i do not recall any kind of evaluation. supervisor chusupervisor mirkars still a relatively new concept in san francisco. yerba buena will likely have unanimous support, but i am hoping to segue into another conversation in the near future, some day. between districts 3 and 6, what is the total number of cbd's? >> just in district 6? supervisor mirkarimi: district 3

and the district 6. >> that would be roughly seven. supervisor mirkarimi: where did the number 12 come from? >> that is because i work with 12 of them. the last two being ocean avenue and city center. would it not be true that those who have the larger budgets with the orientation towards capital improvements? >> working with it the community, for many of them capital improvements have come up as something important to property owners.

in terms of the work through, it has come up as something they would like to have. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. that answers the question. i appreciate it. supervisor chu: thank you. the item is now before us. supervisor mirkarimi: motion to accept. supervisor chu: we have a motion to send forward that we are sending forward without objection. thank you very much. can we returned to item number one? the item has already been called. >> good morning, supervisors. i apologize for being late to the meeting. this item was our attempt to

help some constituents in our community the 48th avenue is a very steep hill, graded with steps. there were hand railings that allowed pedestrians to hold them on the way up the steps, bolted into the sidewalk many years ago. no one in the there is no record of and if they were not permitted or i accepted the

unveiling of the westernmost side of the street was knocked over at that time. many seniors bid on the side of the street sidewalks are often the responsibility of a property owner, as we know. this party to the sidewalk did not have any tenants that benefited from the rambling most of the elderly residents actual bid bid up the hill. and it is not the participation of so that they can safely go.

the idea was to at least assist them in trying to waive the fee. because that property owner not only would have to pay a fee to d p w to put up a railing, but there would be an additional encroachment vp in some funds that put up the railing without the owner's consent. just to clear and typically it is the referral of phillips

with note was ability for installing are braille. >> correct. supervisor chu: the property owner has no responsibility to put in railings, just maintaining the sidewalk. you are trying for a partnership between community members to fund-raising and install the railing and the motion of support before us. waving the city's requirements in terms of the fees. >> correct. supervisor chu: the involvement of the city would be allowing it to go forward as long as neighbors, etc., were able to raise that money. >> correct. supervisor mirkarimi: pddpw, you have spoken on this before. something to add? >> a couple of points of clarification.

the request for annual requirement under the law. a way to give annual assessment. would still require the f attend opinion -- should we see this? the department does not have a position as it relates to labor assessment. it is left to the board in this case. this segment of 48 avenue is what the department has identified as unimproved right- of-way. it has not been constructed to city standards. therefore, for fronting property owners are responsible for the

maintenance of the median space. weekend. supervisor chu: thank you for the clarifications. are there any members of the public that wish to speak? seeing none >> here are some grs showing you what some people make. and this is what other people make a lot more of. nell, on board. i wanted to tell you ♪ climb every mountain, for every stream, fix up balboa street with some green ♪

supervisor chu: thank you very much. are there other members of the public that would wish to speak on item number one? seeing that, public comment is closed. is the remote -- motion to send it forward? i have a motion. sent forward with recommendations. [laughter] done without objection. thank you. item number four, please. >> resolution authorizing the mayors -- item number four. resolution authorizing the mayor's office of housing to expend soma community stabilization funds in the amount of $120,000 to provide grants to nonprofit organizations for: 1) a soma community coordinator to coordinate and focus community participation related to the development of 333 harrison; 2) assistance in reassessing and refining the soma community stabilization fund strategic plan; and 3) a union journey- level instructor to provide employment training for soma

residents. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> in the administer of the fund from the community development division. before i begin, i would like to point to to an amendment to the proposed resolution. if you could take a look at the proposed resolution before you. the amendment is a resolution authorizing the mayor's office of housing to expand community stabilization fund in the amount of -- it should read $100,000 instead of $120,000 -- to provide transport by and about -- relation to the development of 333 harrison.

and then there is another, lines 14 through 17 on page 2. we would like to strike those lines. added per the request of the original grant the unions and union representative on the committee advisory committee. supervisor chu: you just repeat again? >> page two, lines 14 through 17. the lines reading whereas, soma supporting a union-level instructor to provide training as part of the previously approved resolution -- that entire whereas clause, we would like to strike. supervisor kim: why are these happening? these two strikes? >> if you look in the attachment, at the top, it reads funding recommendations for the soma community fund.

it is the third proposed grantee. this was part of a plan to hire and employ an experienced union instructor to provide carpenter training out of asian neighborhood design. since they had these discussions and review the proposals for originally, the cac asian neighborhood design, and unions, have all the sudden this is not the strategy they want to move forward with. they will still be working with amd but also with citybuild. supervisor chu: was there anything in the resolution that recommends that? hiring a union-level instructor? >> no, i do not believe so. supervisor kim: could i have a copy of that resolution? >> i gave my copy to your aid. supervisor chu: could you just

repeat the other amendment? i think there were two. >> at the very beginning, instead of the amount of 120,000, it should read 100,000. and then strike no. 3. supervisor chu: the union journey law will instructor. >> right. so the intent is to still work with a union instructor, but they are rethinking their strategy on how to do that and what partners. supervisor chu: that was something agreed upon by the organization that would have received the funding, an addition to the labor unions, and cac? >> correct. supervisor chu: anything else you would like to add to your presentation? >> i could read the background on it.

in august 2005, the rincon hill area plan was approved, rezoning the carrier for residential development. the board of supervisors approved an amendment to the code establishing the soma community legislation fund. this has an impact fee of $14 per square foot on residential neighborhoods in rincon hill. in addition, approximately 6 million of the rim, held improvement bonds, $11 per square foot, will be transferred to this fund. the ordinance also stipulates there will be a soma community stabilization fund advisory committee. the chair of the committee is also present today. composed of seven members of the soma community to advise the mayor's office of housing and board of supervisors on the administration of the fund. in february 2006, the board appointed seven members to the committee. the committee staffed by the

mayor's office of housing developed a strategic plan to guide the administration and expenditure of the fund. committee and it was a critical part of the process and the committee held three town hall to solicit input regarding their needs. the plan has four coal areas, one to strengthen community cohesion, two, support economic and workforce development for low-income residents and businesses that serve the community, 3, increase access to housing opportunities for existing residents of soma, and four, improve the infrastructure and physical environment. the strategic plan was approved by the board in april 2008 and plans serve as a framework for the first round of grants, which the mayor's office of housing is currently administering. in july of last year, the board approved resolution 38110 authorizing the mayor's office of housing to expend soma community stabilization fund dollars to subsidize the development of on-site affordable rental housing units at 333 harrison.

under certain conditions. including 450,000 that will be deposited into the fund for community benefits, such as work force and jobber in the services, as well as housing average services to make sure some residents can benefit from the employment and housing opportunities created by this development. the committee is recommending 50,000 of this 450,000 be allocated to fund a committed to coordinator to assist community based organizations serving soma prior populations in preparing for the employment and housing opportunities created by the 333 harrison development. additionally, prior to releasing another round of grants, the committee is recommending 50,000 the allocated to hiring a strategic planning consultant to assist the committee and mayor's office of housing in assessing and revising the fund strategic plan now that we have had a first-round pick in the assessment would include any evaluation of the car grantees performance and achieving outcomes. on january 31 of this year, the

mayor's office of housing released two request for proposal for a community coordinator and one for a strategic planning consultant and technical assistance workshop was held on february 2 and proposals were due on february 11. panel consisting of five members, two mayors of office of house staff, two committee members, one expert in committee -- community development and the land of the main recommendation. the committee met on february 17 to finalize the recommendation that are before you today. supervisor chu: thank you for your presentation. why don't we open this up for public comment. i have two cards. ada chen. stephen suzuki. >> good morning. i am the chair of the soma stabilization fund. connie, the co-chair with me, was not able to attend.

we wanted to make sure to talk about the purpose of the funds. as you know, soma had the bulk of the development that occurred in the past decade. in the future decade, we expect a lot of development will be occurring in soma. 333 harrison is one of the new developments in the city. we are excited to be a part of this. specifically, because we see there are some tangible outcomes that we will be working with the developer to ensure accrues to soma residents. also, the community coordinator position we see as critical. we thank ccdc in helping with the implementation and helping to bring their capacity to ensure jobs and housing outcomes come to some residents. we also know this capacity will probably be looking at other issues in soma, too, so this position is critical for the long term success of the fund because it will also be evaluating our ability and out

comes around 333 harrison. the strategic plan, the grant is -- i do not know if you are familiar with ms. walker. she has a lot of experience on the national front in terms of foundation work. she is also on the local level in soma and citywide issues, so she will be looking at us in that context and coming up with outcomes regarding soma. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. the speaker. >> i am the executive director of asian neighborhood designs. i wanted to speak in support of this measure. we are a soma-based nonprofit provide architectural planning and green contruction trading services throughout 7 cisco. this initiative would really help us as an organization set up of market by providing greater strategic planning and resources. -- throughout san francisco.

given all of the cuts, we need as much support as we can get. my comment -- asian neighborhood designs have been working with the stabilization fund and the union for a number of months to try to bring this great opportunity to fruition. we have a contract with the stabilization fund right now. we are providing soma-target residents with our construction training programs. we have a 40% higher rate right now, folks graduating out of it. it is difficult with the economy. the real point of this, moving forward, is that the opportunity for union work, a career in union, we have to make sure that as we move forward measures are in place that ensure residents from soma are recruited into the program, that they are case managed, and that they are placed on the jobs and followed

and case managed after. we have been meeting with citybuild, the developer. i know the intent is to get this in place. my comment is really, this is a great opportunity. we are working -- looking forward to working with all the entities to bring this forward. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. bright line defense project. for several months we have her murmurs that the local hiring commitment has been going sideways. the project's sponsors commitment to 27% hiring was an expected to to product approval, especially as hiring law was moving in the background of 333 harrison. it is our understanding there is still willingness on the part of the developer to follow through with this commitment, and thankfully, there seems to be committed to that in the hearing today. but we have also heard of pressure by some remaining holdouts, the local hiring law, who seem to -- seo