i'm extremely excited on my 13th day in this job to be here and to have the opportunity to work with you. i want to say knowing you both extremely well, i appreciate your commitment and with no individuals coming here and opportunities we have, we're not stopping the journey here. this is another step and deryk -- i appreciate being part of it. pro cote thank you. thank you to the speakers who are still here. we're opening up to public comment. i have a number of speaker cards. if anyone wants to speak, please come up. you can line up up here. it is for 30 p.m. for 39 pm -- 4 clack 30 p.m. -- 4:30 p.m. >> thank you.

there are five families in my building. we have six children under the age of 5, a seventh on the way. i do not have any children. i am here for the six parents who had to work today and could not come. and wanted to ask you for help. we're in a bad position. we need help with mortgage help and condo conversion. you are aware of how that works. supervisor farrell: we are. thanks, next speaker. >> i am here today as part of the san francisco parra political action committee but i am the president of friends of -- valley. i would invite you to come to the farmers' market to see the number of strollers and ankle biter is running around.

it is quite great. earlier you asked what are things that the board of supervisors can do to help talk about the great things that are going on in san francisco unified and with families in general. i was thinking about that. a couple things that are happening, there was talk about strings attached to the rainy day fund. that tends to be can -- conversations around proposition h funding and strings attached to that. the way the public or parents perceive their children being used whether it is a perception correct or not, there's a perception children are being used to forge a political want as opposed to honoring the public to be supporting what the voters have.

it is so much easier to get out by muni then it is to get a child to get a stroller on many. that says something. when the joint committee for the board of supervisors and education has not met or was canceled 75% of the time last year and has not met yet this year, that says something about what the priorities are. i would encourage you to think about those things. there is a new funding measure that is being supported by the pta called our children, our future. that will bring in $1,000 per student. i would love to see the board of supervisors support that. >> hello and good afternoon. i am the chair of the san francisco youth commission.

the commission is concerned with families -- family flight. our -- scope is not limited to that. what affects the adult population definitely affects children. we are not talking about youth jobs or transportation patterns. we need to prioritize our families because they include young people. they include adults. we as a city think about these things together, that is how we can best address family flight. i want to say on behalf of the commission, we're looking forward to your policy proposals and how we can provide input. we want to do a similar hearing on family flight and invite other young people to come up

with ideas how to address this on a policy proposal. we have a list of things the commission is doing on this issue. we can provide that for you as well. we gave it to the director. thank you for holding this hearing. supervisor farrell: thank you. >> i work with the bernal heights neighborhood center. this issue is incredibly important for the vibrancy of the city and the future of san francisco. i wanted to highlight the fact that all city departments identify housing as being one of the principal factors of why families cannot stay in the city. that said, the mayor's office of housing have identified that funding for housing with a cut to redevelopment has diminished. hopefully, we can get some of that back at some point during

this election season. that would be great to be able to find affordable housing for the people who are struggling to stay in san francisco. what i wanted to say is our policies are also kind of pointing as in the direction we're not heading toward. we want to keep families in san francisco. the performance art that was released said market -- the rate housing has exceeded the goals the general plan has for housing production. shows we're heading in the wrong direction if our mission is to retain families in san francisco. considering market reproduction is not producing housing to affordability levels that will keep this families here. if we do not get our policies in line in order to stem the production of market rate housing and increase the production of affordable housing, lot of this will not

matter. if we do not have people who can afford to live here, we do not have parents who can advocate for better education or resources because they cannot afford to stay here. housing should be viewed by our policy makers and the population as a right and not as a commodity which i feel like it has been looked at. in san francisco for a long time. thank you. supervisor farrell:. -- supervisor farrell: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. i am so pleased the government audit and oversight committee is taking on this task as -- on family flight. as much as these statistics, but to thousand eight -- 2009, eight reach of contract, one nuisance.

2010, 173 breach of contract, no nuisance. 2011, 195 breach of contract, one nuisance. up till now, there is over 350 people who have received three date notices. if this government audit and oversight committee is sincere about trying to keep people in san francisco, i would hope you would try to keep everyone in san francisco, not the super- rich. not the super-well-off. being of low-income, fixed income, ssi, social security, disabled, senior citizens, all those individuals who do not matter to this group because mark farrell, sean elsbernd,

david chiu voted for high- density and to destroy parkmerced. they started their huge sweep of evicting all bus. where we to go? you are part of the problem. you are the problem. i wish you would -- there is no safety net for us. i wish you'd fix it. we need a safety net to stay here. we are born and raised here, acculturated here. we want to stay here. supervisor farrell: thank you. public comment is closed. i want to thank the speakers who stuck around and the people who spoke in public comment. and catherine and my colleagues. this is a huge and complex issue. multifaceted. it is not something we can fix

overnight but it is something that hopefully people know now we will focus on in a big way and i look forward to working with everyone here today. members of the public who could not work on policies and proposals to make a difference in the future. thank you for coming. madam clerk, colleagues. any other items? could i make a motion to continue to the call of the chair? we can take that without objection. madam clerk? >> no other matters. supervisor farrell: thank you. we're adjourned. >> the only item on the agenda

is consideration of amendments to legislation. >> hopefully, this is a great simplification over what we expected to do today. i will ask you to more or less ignored them, what we had earlier this week, and look at what is in front of you. although the board of supervisors passed out a version of the public finance proposal that the ethics commission adopted, there were a number of amendments included. even though it passed the board, since then, there has been some dissension among board members on that language. so in some fairly frantic negotiation going on this week and into last night, members of the board have come to an agreement on this, the ones that are actively involved.

what that means is, the proposal that ethics has adopted with the two changes in front of you, reducing the overall cap of the amount in the election campaign fund, from $13.5 million to $7 million. the purpose of this is to escalate concerns and there has always been a surplus and that money is idle when the city could be using that money in other places. this is certainly acceptable to the staff. the second change is the ethics commission adopted an increase in the cap for the mayoral race , and the board had decided to leave that where it is. this is something that's that is fine with working with. there is a third technical change that recreates the formula at which the commission staff wants to notify the board

and the mayor there will be a shortage in the fund. because of the way it is written, there will not be a shortage when the trigger hits, we are changing the trigger so that it matches the mathematical intent. that is really it in a nutshell. you have before you what you already adopted with those two changes, which are simple to understand, and those are the technical changes. >> could you describe, procedurally, what happens if we adopt this, these changes in the legislation? >> the rules committee, likely will hear this on april 5 -- >> possibly late march. >> at that point, it goes back to the full board come first and second full of reading. our understanding is there is sufficient support that this would be adopted with the changes.

>> we have sufficient confidence -- if we do not vote on the version that was sent to us by the board originally, but instead, vote on this version that was negotiated over the course of the last week, we are not running into any procedural problems? >> no, if the commission were to adopt these last set of changes the director just presented -- and these were last minute changes -- there should not be any holdup in terms of how quickly it could be enacted at the board and how quickly the ethics commission could implement. >> procedurally, we are also ok with this regarding the version that had originally reidy that had originally come down from the board. >> certainly within the ethics

commission purvey to make any changes that you see fit, frankly. even if it is something that several members of the board at least initially expressed support for. although, that seems to have changed a little bit. >> so your review is that this was satisfactorily noticed that we reluctant changes to what was done, that there were visions to that and the public was on notice that we were addressing this topic in this level of detail today? that is another procedural issue. >> yes, in terms of noticing this item on the agenda for the special meeting, the notice is sufficient. the ethics committee can also make changes and still pass it

out the same day, or evening, as it usually is. >> thank you. commissioners, comments regarding the proposal? >> briefly, on the $7 million, can you tell us more about what the staff thinking was when you came to the conclusion that that was adequate? >> the most we have ever spent in a single race is the past mayoral race, $4.8 million. that is too close to $5 million for what we are thinking about next. in projecting forward the anticipated inflationary costs and everything, we wanted to

make sure there was enough money looking for to at least the next mayor's race. we costed it out and just under $7 million. we started at $5 million, but there was concern that that would not be enough, so we recalculated and moved up in that way. >> a question about the conforming changes in the last paragraph. previously, the trigger was much further away from the cap, giving more time to find money in the budget, if necessary, make other changes that would allow that to work. i am just wondering what the thinking is about having the cap at $6.9 million, which seems pretty close and not allowing as much policy room. i know this does not speak to timing.

what is the background on that one? >> i was not in the room when this figure was arrived at, actually. the fact is, even though this stipulates a time when we are to go in the case of a supplemental, there is nothing constraining us -- >> from doing it early. so it is required at this point, but could be done at any time when we believe it is proven in the cycle. >> yes. -- prudent in the cycle of. >> commissioners, any other questions or comments? >> if i could just add a lot more on the question presented by commissioner studley. the ethics committee needs a signal prior to the election. the possibility that a commission may request a

supplemental appropriation is permissive. if that extension was close, $6.7 million, for example, we would still be required to notify the board of that, but it is not clear that the ethics commission needs to go through all the groups to ask for that money -- hoops to ask for that money. >> in the words, it is possible there may not be $7 million in the fund, but at the extent not have the obligation necessarily to ensure that there is $7 million. >> the ethics commission would be required to notify the relevant authorities but is not required to actually go through the steps of requesting that money. it is not practically required. >> is there any mechanism for the board or mayor to put money in the fun without a request

from ethics? >> yes. >> it is in their budgetary authority. >> further questions or comments from the commissioners? public comment? >> good morning. i have not seen this before. i walked in the room and you were talking about it. mr. hill said he was vaguely aware. would have been helpful if this was available yesterday, to let the public know. i am not sure i can digest the changes right now. i think that is a problem in terms of public notice and consideration of further changes to what was already a complicated proposal. i was prepared to talk about what was made available in earlier this week. i am sorry. i am a little bit unhappy right now. >> at the beginning of the

meeting, we addressed these changes and the procedural mechanism for how they came about. perhaps you can provide another recap -- >> perhaps staff could have let the public know that this document was available yesterday? >> the document was written last night after 6:00 p.m. >> and we are considering in this morning? >> this proposal was with the ethics commission adopted before with two changes that are simple to understand and one technical correction. >> the negotiations continued into evening last night, and this was prepared immediately after those. >> we sought for the first time this morning as well. >> i will try to restrain my unhappiness, but i expressed it. the technical changes that i had

here on what is now paid 18 subsection b, with respect to insufficient funds, in addition to notify the commission and the board of supervisors, i would suggest adding the mayor on line six, line 16, 17. to the extent this suggests a supplemental appropriation that could originate from the border or the mayor, or as suggested by this commission. i think notify the commission, board, and mayor would be useful. i have no policy objection to the changes in the program structure. as i have testified before, i would use different figures, but i think these figures work as well. this is an evolving program. it is possible there could be a

future court decision that says a non-incumbent candidate cannot be treated differently. we may have to go back and revise the formula to that end. to my knowledge, there is no such decision in that regard right now. i think it is fine to handle incumbent, non-incumbent candidates in the manner proposed. whether or not my concern about the single subject rule is still pertinent, i still think, on a policy basis, moving back the filing deadline 58 days has the effect of extending the campaign season for two months, which i actually think works against one of the goals of the commission with respect to financing of campaigns, which is to limit the expenses. by extending the campaign season, that will increase expenses of running for office, not keep them level, which i

think is not a good idea. why candidates should have to file in june 4 in november election rather than august seems to me there are other approaches to deal with the zombie candidate issue, or reducing the number of candidates -- limiting the number of candidates that may seek public financing under a reasonably separate -- structured program. i will leave my comments there for the moment. >> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. steven hill. it has been a long road. yesterday was a pretty furious day. lots of people were involved trying to tweak anything at the last second. it was not an attempt to hide anything from the public. there were just a lot of concern from members of the board that

we are doing the right thing here. as someone who has come here before, an advocate for public financing, i am not 100% happy with everything in this, but, on balance, it is a good effort. the standard that you are charged, to look at changes like this, does this further the goals of the campaign finance reform ordinance? that is what any changes meant to do. looking at it that way, this document does that. it does a number of good things, including dealing with the zombie candidate issue, and will make the program itself more stable because it is making us more conscious of the use of public dollars. it is going to make sure there is enough money in the fund, we hope, to finance all the candidates based on past elections, but it is also going

to make it a love it harder to get the public financing, as we know. on balance, we have struck a good package here. i would urge you to support it. we know we need a boat from the board of supervisors. that is a high threshold. when you need at high of the threshold, sometimes everybody can get what they want. the major substantive change that was made yesterday is a very good one, after all the back-and-forth. the amendment that came to you was going to put money into the fund in june, in the middle of campaign season. that would have allowed the program to become a political football. that would have used up a big lump sum, instead of doing it year after year.

those of us that have been around this issue for a long time remember in the past mayoral administration where they raided the fund and turned it into a political football. this was alarming to thing that money would be injected into the fund in the middle of a campaign, in june. i am pleased we were able to get agreement to go back to the year to year allocation, and to keep it that way, where it has already been. and it is also true the ethics commission itself is overseeing this program, which is funded by that. the lower that amount gets, the less funding the ethics commission has. if you are getting in a lump sum, i imagine it allows more difficulty in planning for staffing and all the other needs of the commission. doing it year by year seems to be a better way to do the sorts of things, to allow the commission and staff to plan,

knowing that the money is coming each year and plan accordingly. not everything i wanted, but on balance, it furthers the goal of the cfro, and i would urge your support. >> commissioners, any further comments, questions? is there a motion? --is there a motion to pass the provisions to the cfro? is there a second? >> second. >> all those in favor? opposed? the motion passes. >> that being the only item on the agenda, the meeting is adjourned.

thursday, march 8, 2012. please note that the planning commission is meeting at this time -- i should note that the scheduled joint hearing between the planning commission and recreation and park commission is cancelled. we have a proposal to continue the items on that special calendar and the proposal for continuance is to march 22 at 10:00 a.m. to be held in this room. the planning commission will consider that proposal for a continuance and prior to the action of the commission, they will entertain public comment period before the commission will be a proposal for a continuance of all items on the calendar which are item one,