i love it. i know what a great job you do, so thank you for all of that, and mr. mulvihill. i have spent a lot of time in your store. live very close, even though i'm in district two, and i've heard great things from people who have interacted with you in the community, neighborhood merchants and otherwise. i will throw those names out there. this is not going to be fun. and again, not to take away from anyone that applied here. and mr. ventura was not here, so i think he is probably the easiest one for us to say no to today, but i have dealt with him. supervisor kim: we rarely agree on every single one, but those were the four names i was going to put forward as well. i do want to recognize mr. ventura was not able to make it today, but he did serve on the small business commission for six years and the president speaks highly of him.

i have personally worked very closely with three of our applicants today. first, i do want to mention monetta white. you probably have unanimous support today. we do only have one woman on the commission with janet stepping down. she has been strongly on your behalf as well, and i think it is important we support women business owners and african- american business owners, but more than that, i am truly impressed by the work you do to engage young people that often do not have access to jobs in connection with small businesses and to employment. i think the work you were around that is incredibly important, and that is just impressed that you sit on boards of local community-based organizations. as someone who used to run the program, very appreciative of the additional effort you take on top of the in the small business owner in san francisco, which is hard enough to make those connections. i would love to see you bring that experience and expertise to

the small business commission. we would love to create more of a clearing house so that our small business commissions could also higher amongst our youth community, in the way that large businesses often do. also have worked very closely with bob henry karnilowicz. he is someone who is very active in district 6, and i think he goes to more events than i do. i'm never at one that he is not at, and one thing i have often heard about the small business commission is how important it is for the commissioners to be out in the community and to develop deep and meaningful relationships with business owners. i know that henry would be incredible in doing that work, connecting our small businesses to the commission, and also, very appreciative of all the community work he does as well. i know you also said on several boards in the south of market, and you really do know everyone in that community. the third -- william ortiz-

cartagena. worked with you when i was on the school board. love the innovative ideas you brought in in terms of not only how we can create jobs but also support some of our public resources that do not have enough. that our public schools. with your creative ideas about how a partner with our ppa and school principals and creating revenue for our school districts to say teacher jobs and bring supplies to class revs with your parking business i think was really truly incredible -- supplies to classrooms. i appreciate the incredible detail and follow-up and really being conned -- country does that kids will be playing on those lots where the cars were parked. just that level of appreciation that i have for that. but i did want to just say

quickly i was really impressed by peter and your application. really thought that you were very thoughtful, and i'm thinking really hard about how we could get you in to do more policy work with us around doing local shopping and also local purchasing here. it has been a tremendous frustration of my that i get a big book from staples in which i can review my office orders. because of the process that we have, we do not have a lot of options. i cannot just go down to the small business to buy the supplies that i need for my office with the tiny budget that our office gets, but i think that we really need to do a better job around that and figure out how we can get a better job around local purchasing. our city dollars should be going back to our small businesses. they are the ones that tried to engage in local hire.

these are the values the -- that we support in our small businesses. supervisor campos: thank you. as you can see, this is not an easy thing for us. i think that any of the four names that were mentioned would be great, and i certainly respect a great deal greatkarnilowicz. -- mr. karnilowicz. if we had half as energy, i think we would be lucky. i also think mr. mulvihill would be a great addition. i also personally think mario west would be an excellent choice and has made, i think, a very compelling case, but at the end of the day, i think it is important to us to at a consensus, and the names that each of you had mentioned and

the three names i have mentioned, two individuals that i think we all have in common are monetta white and william ortiz-cartagena. not to take anything away from anyone else, but i think that is where we have consensus, so in the spirit of consensus and compromise, and make a motion that we forward those two individuals. supervisor kim: we have a motion on the floor. those were the names that i think all three members of the rules committee product. i know this is really hard. i really wish we could forward more names to the commission. i will certainly work to be an advocate. i know that the mayor does have one more seat that opens this year. first of all, marks at it already, it is amazing to have

four date of san franciscans apply to any commission body, and i really just wanted to say that. also, reflecting the diversity of our small business community, whether it is a co-op, restaurant, business services. really want to thank everyone the candidate. i think this is an incredibly hard decision before us, but i think supervisor campos made a good point in that we did have two applicants come out with all three of us supporting them. supervisor farrell, any additional words? supervisor farrell: no, look, i do believe monetta and mr. ortiz will do a great job. i just want to say i do not like this, but for henry and pete especially, whatever you guys need to do for the next go round, the for commission, whatever, you have my full support. i will work with my office to

make sure that happens. this is not fun, but i agree that there are two folks that all three of us mentioned, and i think that does make sense. supervisor campos: if i may, i agree that i do not think anyone likes this. i think mr. west is an excellent choice as well, and i'm not happy, but i think we kind of go with where the consensus is. supervisor kim: thank you so much to all the applicants for being here today. i also pledged to work with all the applicants today along with supervisor farrell's office to see how we can get your voice included. occasionally it happens where this really was an incredibly difficult decision to make. again, super impressed by our applicants. glad to see so that it -- so many of our small business owners who want to be involved in the decisionmaking process. i know how little time you walk out with families and businesses. it is an incredible amount of

work, so thank you for making san francisco what it is and hiring people and creating jobs. you have this motion, and we can do that without opposition. congratulations. unfortunately, our meeting has gone kind of long and we do have a schedule conflict. supervisor farrell does neatly. it is a cake, it we could move up items 6. madam clerk, can you please call item 6? >> item 6, ordinance amenities and francisco administrative code by adding chapter 79a to expand upon the minimum notice requirements prior to approval of a city project that are mandated by the citizens' right to know act of 1998. >> thank you, supervisor. in june of 1998, the voters passed the citizen's right to know act of 1998. it is codified s chapter 79 in

our administrative code establishes some minimum public notice requirements for certain public projects that are being funded directly by the city or as mr. through use of state, federal, or local funding sources. what this legislation does is simply expanded minimum notice requirements for these projects. under the current notice provisions -- and i found this out last year during a project in district two, which was a long project that ended up with a great outcome, but something we do not need to go through in the future -- a lot of neighborhood notice comes really too late in the process to enable public input and having meaningful input to city administrators. this legislation requires notice 30 days at a time instead of 15 days, and also requires each state officer, department, or commission to post on its official website and maintain an updated list of all proposed projects coming forward.

we worked on this legislation with the mayor's office of housing. i want to thank them for working very hard on this. , especially due to the fact that this additional noticing legislation came out that the mayor's office of housing worked on in district two last year. and joan mcnamara is here to speak with us briefly about the legislation. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for this opportunity to speak before you. yes, we are in support of the revisions that you have proposed. we have worked really well with you, and we welcome the opportunity to engage the community in our projects, so thank you. supervisor farrell: thanks very much. colleagues, and the questions? supervisor kim: i do not see any questions or discussion. >> with a quick, and also to clarify to our city attorney, is here, just want to be clear because we have had discussions and work, i know, that this

legislation does not impose any additional burdens on the clerk's office. >> it does not. the legislation speaks to the kinds of information that should be made available to the board by the department and does not impose obligations on the clerk in terms of tracking. >> a cake, thank you for comment on that. colleagues, i have a clarifying amendment that i understand will not be substantive to hold it up, but it is again a clarifying language that the clerk of the board felt comfortable having to make sure it does not affect their role in this legislation, so i will be proposing that amendment, but i guess we will take public comment first. supervisor kim: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> calvin mulch from san francisco information clearing house and the human services clearing network. no difficulty with the addition

of the 15 days, nor of the electronic notification. serious difficulty with what we believe has been a dramatic increase in confusion about the project. currently, section 79.2 states that approval of a project shall mean and action. a decision to award a grant and actions of a sponsoring officer. the new language being proposed, the amendment adds be dramatically and unbelievably vague language of "a project shall mean any decision to potentially fund." have no idea what that means and i'm very happy to have sat

through the first part of this committee meeting to provide legal support for civic action. i think what we're doing here is creating a full employment program for attorneys. i have no idea what any decision to potentially fund directly means. does that mean accepting federal money? does that mean accepting federal money that the community -- that will mean the community development block grant? any decision to potentially fund is a dramatic, it seems to me, expansion from the existing 79.2, and i would urge that language to be dropped. does not deal with the findings. i do not know what it is supposed to mean, but it is extraordinarily confusing and bay. thank you. >> good afternoon.

san francisco human services network. i want to echo the remarks regarding the vague language in this proposed ordinance. when i hear that, i think of a phrase that my father used to use with very young people where he would say cassette and i knew you when you were just a gleam in your father's side -- "i knew when you were just a gleam in your fathers eye." if someone did not get required notice, could they sue and it definitely hold up a project well into its approval process? i also need to mention, around the original legislation as well as this that we do see this as an attack on projects that benefit people are or arepoor -- who are poor and who are

disabled. if we want to open a child care facility that is privately funded, but is only for child care facilities that our city budget, and that is true of many projects that are going to come under this ordinance, and we are deeply concerned that the city would be setting up a special process directed towards the projects that serve vulnerable people in sanford cisco, and we hope you will take that into consideration as well. thank you. >> good afternoon. i hear the other comments in public comment. i'm not sure that the language is vague, but i suppose it is potentially vague, and that is important. i supported this original ballot measure that former supervisor yee had proposed and passed. i support in concept the

legislation. i think it clarifies some of the requirements that now exist. i think that this needs some additional work to amend the language at a minimum. for example, on 79a.5, the website notice, line 17, shot at a proposed project at the earliest time when the following events may occur -- i think those are triggering events, but the language should say "shall within 48 hours quarter may or three working days or something so that it is more clear what the requirement is. in 79a.7, the actual notice

posted and the list of those persons that were interested in the project should be forwarded to the board of supervisors. when there is consideration of a project that you actually have an interested persons list generated out of this, and i think there are some other comments we just heard. i would encourage you to continue this. i would be happy to help with that. i think that there is some work to be done. supervisor kim: thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i know you have some amendments to it is, supervisor farrell -- to introduce, supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: thank you. i appreciate all the public comment, but i have not spoken with any members of the public to spoke to my office before today, so i'm surprised that

that, but i read it to everyone, as i always have, at my door is open to people what to think about changes possibly to this legislation. the one comment i will say to what mr. walsh was talking about, section four, that is something we put in. it is not something i am wedded to if there is strong feeling among community members. i'm happy to take thatit is somh in different departments. we want to make sure that it captured and work through different apartments and whether it captured all things. -- that this was behind. this is not meant to be a cog in the will but to bring neighborhoods and neighborhood members into the planning process and to get their voice to be heard. even if you end up disagree with neighbors or members, to give

them a voice early on it means a lot. it is something we should try to include here. if there is comments on that, that is fine. otherwise i would ask you have a motion here to accept these amendments. >supervisor kim: there is a measure to accept this. we can do this without opposition. supervisor campos: i appreciate supervisor farrell's thoughts. i wonder if there's a specific change to that language that anyone has in mind that could clarify some of the concerns. i do not know if it is appropriate to ask mr. welch. >> i would urge it to be stricken. that phrase.

79-2 defines -- or approval, showing an action of a city officer, or department, sponsoring a city project, approval should not include decision to undertake a preliminary study or one or more potential sites. approval shall refer to the actions of the sponsoring officer, department, board, or commission. that seems sufficient to me. i have no idea why we're adding language to that that says in addition, any decision to potentially fund directly or the project shall constitute a proposed project. supervisor campos: i get the point. >> this is language we worked with a number of different departments. there was no objection we talked through it. i express because the real intent here is not section 4.

if that is something that is meaningful to people, i am saying i am willing to take it out. i had to reiterate mr. welch. i would have loved to have heard from you before hand tried to have my phone number and we could have done this before today. if that is something members want to do, no problem. supervisor campos: i would make a motion to strike that. one motion would be this can go to the board. if there is a need to add different language. and maybe that is an opportunity to do that. i would make a motion to strike that. supervisor kim: we do have a motion to strike. supervisor campos: it would have -- it would be to strike the definition of proposed product -- project. to strike that. supervisor kim: we do have a motion to amend. i believe we can do that without opposition. are there any further discussions?

supervisor campos: to move forward. supervisor kim: we can do that without opposition. thank you. madam clerk, can you please call item 4? >> appointing one member, term ending to the pedestrian safety advisory committee. supervisor kim: i believe that abigail evans is here today. thank you for patients. we appreciate your application. pedestrian safety is one of the top priorities for my office. as you know, so many of the collisions between vehicles and pedestrians happened in district 6. i did appreciate your application and background and expertise. you can speak to your interest on serving on the pedestrian

safety advisory committee. >> thank you for having me. i am currently a research associate at san francisco general hospital. we are one of 13 injury centers funded by the cdc. currently i managed and direct a handful of projects aimed at reducing the incidence or recurrence of injuries among people of all ages in san francisco. many experience this -- experiences says that this leads to a sustainable results. we executed an economic analysis as a cost of auto verses pedestrian industries. -- entry. the cost is $80 million each year. we found 74% of those involved in a collision were san francisco residents and 75% of the cost was charged to public

funds. that is medicare or mettetal. in 2010, 36% of art, patients were struck by cars, including people on bikes. in our cdc renewal submitted in the late fall, one of our proposals will aim to study pedestrian perceptions of violence. the goal is to establish a comprehensive database that reflects all potential variables representing risk and protective factors. our aim is to construct a database to keep san francisco policymakers informed of all aspects. this database which will be housed at the department of public health will serve as the cornerstone of information necessary to create well- informed policy. today, the voice of injured -- the injured pedestrian is reaching the absence. our proposal will aim to address this piece by going to bedside

and screening and interviewing patients that are struck by vehicles. we hope the analysis and recommendations will be provided through the proposal for collective and individual behavior changed your education, outrage, -- outrageach. i would look forward to meeting a wide array of pedestrian safety advocates and stakeholders. i tried to attend most of those meetings on the second tuesday of each month to get a feel of what is going on. i would welcome the chance to work closely with the department of public health in this arena and also mta. advocates for an increase in the dess trace it -- pedestrian safety countermeasures. also most importantly, i would have the opportunity to share and -- committee findings with a pedestrian population.

it is something i have been passionate about. i have not been born and raised in san francisco, but i love this city. i wish i have. we see a lot of individuals come to that general -- is becoming an economic problem, it is a public safety issue and something that can be avoided with proper measures. >> thank you. i am a big fan of the injury center and the immense amount of work to compile data, it is just striking. it is a huge budgetary cost for the city in the state. the data of that was put out in district 6 you have to dedicate $13 million. whatever we can do to prevent collisions returning -- occurring, we can say city dollars and that is important. i think the data also showing

this is a huge equity issue. this impacts our low-income residents and seniors disproportionately over other residents. it is important this is an issue we address. if you could talk more about the empowerment center to increase social capital amongst the victims of violent injury. that was interesting and i want to hear more about that. >> we visited supervisor campo'' office. this is a group of individuals that go through our background program which is our violence prevention program that was spearheaded by dr. decker. she started this program seeing a lot of injury recidivism. she ended up hiring three case managers who go to bed side and help these individuals. we tend to believe that --

referred to anything we can, whenever they need. it is substance abuse, metal health. typically what we're trying to do now is instead of letting these guys and ladies go, we enrolled them back into the empowerment center. they can foster change within their communities. we hope giving them opportunities to me with city's supervisors, going to city college, uc berkeley, a handful of other events will help them move in the right direction. it has been successful so far. we're starting our next round in the next month. supervisor kim: it is important for us to connect people that have been victims of violent injury to give them that type of support they need. it is part of the healing process. i appreciated that. if there are no further questions