going to be on some of the elderly and the sick who rely on home care workers in particular, and i guess the governor, a democrat found that legislation to be too broad, too enerous and em posing more requirements on the small businesses than was necessary and asked that a more tailored and more appropriate set of legislation come back to him on that subject and i would agree with that. >> mr. leno. >> i supported both of those bills with regard to the domestic workers' rights bill. we heard so many horror stories in the committee hearings. if you could imagine being in the employment and not being able to take the kinds of breaks for meals and for rest, even to have an 8-hour workday, it is a different kind of employment, so it is not as easily tailored to the kind of worker protection rights that we expect in every other industry. so it is a delicate and

challenging subject. i would imagine that maniano will come back with a refined version of the bill working with the administration in hopes of getting a signature because it is not an issue that can be ignored. >> with regard to the trust act, the governor was specific in his veto message that he thought that the definition of non-violent crime needed to be further refined but certainly for those who are committing low-level crimes that the risk that they would have to be sent back to a country which means nothing to them at this point through the federal government is something that needs to be reformed. >> thank you. >> ending with the theme of public safety, our final question, is that the state proposition 36 seeks to amend california law to provide that a life sentence should not be imposed for a third felony conviction unless it is for a serious or violent felony, and

what is your position. >> i spent a lot of time my ten years in legislation working on criminal justice reform to make sure that we have saner drug laws and we don't see the spending grow from 5.2 to over ten percent surpassing the amount that we spend on higher education as a completely wrong track that we are on. thanks to corn brown we have turned the corner and with realignment we will be reducing that percentage of funding on the criminal justice so that we can spend it on education which is the best crime preventive tool known to human kind. i am a strong supporter of prop 36 and i supported the earlier version in 2004 when only because of wise that arnold schwarzenegger said in a television commercial that it was mathematically impossible and factually inaccurate and he said it on television and we saw the support go from 65

percent down to 48 percent in two weeks. it is currently polling in the 60s, i hope that it passes. >> thank you. miss dillan. >> i support it as well. and i am an attorney but i am a civil attorney, but speaking to prosecutor and judges, they agree that the instance of the three strikes law requires a lot of criminals to go to trial who would not otherwise because they have nothing to lose by rolling the dice. and so, it does not pose a cost at a criminal justice system but beyond that it is a moral matter that we have a problem as a society to sending someone to life in prison for a jonvaljon type of crimes and stealing a loaf of bread. i trust the judge to make the right in sentence and they should be given better discorrection in that regard.

>> the reform of the death penalty is another issue, that you have to question where the dollars are being spent as to whether that is a good use of our resources. >> now we come to the closing statements. let me first remind you all that if you are not registered to vote, please do so right away and please urge your friends and family to regular as well. the deadline is coming up. monday, october 22nd, and remember, that if you have moved, you need to register again at that new address, if you have changed your name you need to reregister. so we will do the candidate's closing statements in reversal fa bet cal order. you have two minutes and our timers will give you the cards and first mr. leno. >> certainly, it is now in california, here in san francisco for the past 35 years. starting small businesses in 1978 and coming into public service in 1998. the 14 years that i have had

the elective office have been a rare and privilege opportunity to serve, which i think is to be the best districts of the state of california, and the city and county of san francisco, this past couple of years in the sonoma county as well and going back and representing the west tip as well. and i want to continue to make sure that we have a strong government, strong and effective state government. and i have talked about the governor nans issue, making sure that we let the majority rule so that we don't have the kind of stall mates that we find currently where the minority party can block what the majority wants to do and so we can have the democracy. i make the point that we didn't become the 8th or 9th largest economy in the world by chance. we became so because for generations we taxed ourselves

appropriately and invested in some of the best public structures this world has ever seen, the best k-12 system, the most accessible and affordable higher education system so that children can pursue the hope and dream of a college degree. we invested in water system and transportation systems that works, parks that drew the best and the brightest from around the world so they could pursue their own here in the golden state. unfortunately we lost our way some years back, we got a strong governor who is experienced and i believe is getting us back on track. i want to be able to work with him and have the privilege to represent this district, again for a second term. so that we can continue the good work that we started. thank you. >> dillan >> i am a first generation immigrant and i came from india

and from the south, and i am a civic attorney and i believe in the american dream and as it is exercised here in the beautiful city of san francisco and the state of california where i chose to live, but many california voters are voting with their feet and they are voting with their feet to leave the state of california. they are moving to nevada, texas and other parts of the country where they are less taxed and regulated and less burdened by rules such as calorie count on the menus such as the regulations regarding home care workers, it does not make sense to start a new business here in california. and frankly that is where the taxes come from in most states they come from businesses. as the businesses flee you are going to see the tax base flee and as legislatures such as senator leno continue to pass more legislation that impedes the freedom of business and citizens to exercise their

rights you are going to see them vote with their feet and leave california. >> that attorneys me as someone who wants to retire and die in california i don't want to leave the state as a economic matter i don't consider myself to be fairly taxed. i do pay a higher tax rate and i think that is fine. but the people who are successful in our society are increasingly asked asked to bear more and more of the share of the tax burden as opposed to making sure that all citizens understand that if we are going to have a world class education system we have to balance that against other things. we cannot both have a big bullet train to nowhere that is going to cost probably over $billion dollars and have a world class system. i hope for the american dream to continue here in california and i hope to have the opportunity one day represent the voters of san francisco and play my role in the public service and i come mend the senator for doing that and

sacrificing his career in that regard and i hope to be able to join him one day, thank you. >> i inseerly thank the an dates, on behalf of the league of san francisco, and the jr. league of san francisco. the university of california san francisco, the san francisco public librariry and our media partner, san francisco government television. and thanks to each of you, for taking the time to inform yourself about your choices on november 6th. good evening. [ applause ]

finally -- i will go over this in a few slides, but this is the first time a lot of flexibility was given to the congestion management agencies. previously we had gotten fundss in silos for different programs . this round where we have a lot of flexibility as to what type of projects we can program. this is the map of san francisco's priority development areas, also on page 59. i won't go into it in too much detail unless you have questions. the framework in 38 million, 3.5 million is

planning activities of funds every cycle, congestion management. generally over sight of fubd funded projects, county transportation and regional transportation and lots of thesering activities. next portion we see here, 24.6 million, that minimum we have to spend in the priority development areas. we created the next line down. this school is an eligible project. eligible projects within this program. and we created this target to really identify the school infrastructure projects in the city. there will be another round of funding and another call in winter, january of 2013 where we will be focused on the education outreach portion of this school program. the final piece is

remaining balance, funds we can spend outside the area. >> the funds you are articulating in buckets, are those written in stone or asked to approve? >> that is that we are asked to approve. the piece in stone from mtc is 70% in priority areas. that flows down to us. >> what types of projects can be available? previous cycles of funding, all these funding programs more or less were separate discreet programs that would come to us separately or regionly competitive. now we can fund all -- we can, for example, fund all the projects that qualify for transportation for livable communities project, so this is a valencia and streetscape, local streets and roads, a pavable rehabilitation project. new features, the bicycle and pedestrian improvements pot have previously projects could only be funded through larger

streetescape projects or a bicycle project could be funded if it was on the bicycle network. those restrictions have been lifted. we can fund virtually any pedestrian project including education and outreach, a flexible category. and the school portion. we decided to call that out and focus in on a small amount of funds to look at infrastructure projects. the schedule we are working with right now, the funding framework, which we just looked at, the priority schedule, released today, will release projects after the board action next week. initial application also be due in october. we are working on getting a little of a previous release out a week early, making sure the application is up and online and projects will begin looking at it and understand what we are looking for. we are doing a two-part call for projects, so the

first initial round will be due for approval in early december, what we are calling the initial list of projects. we will be using prop case sales funds or other funds, making early investments in the projects. over the next few months work with the sponsors to increase the public outreach specific those projects, includes doing presentations for the bicycle and pedestrian and advisory committee and looking at the design and cost update funding plans to ensure once we approve as a staff and you as a board and move forward through the federal pipeline, which can be a very complicated deadline driven process, the project also go through as smoothly as possible. we put this under the rubric we call project readiness, looking at environmental clearance and making sure it is a solid project moving forward. again, you will see money flowing to the projects in

14-15 through 15-16. how will projects be selected? we have a criteria on page 63 of your packet. a lot of the guidelines, screening and priorities are dictated by the federal level. we have to follow the guidelines. a specific example is if a project wants funds it has to be a certain condition below 70. i won't get into the technicalities. certain things we have to make sure they are meeting benchmarks. mtc included criteria focused on priority projects on the growth. these will come down from mtc following san francisco specific criteria. if you look at what is in

your packet, where we have italics, this is the project criteria. readiness is something we will be working on with project sponsors. we will be given priority to project streets. one of the advantages of having the different fund program under one rubric as it is much easier to fund projects that address multiple modes and multiple issues on a corridor. finally we will be giving priority of projects that make improvements on high-risk and high activity corridors so this speaks to the mayor's working group and action forward. we will be working with sponsors to specifically identify what the safety issue is and how the project is addressing it. i want to point out at the regional level mtc is updating their criteria.

throughout the region project sponsors will identify the amount of improvements and bicycle improvements in the project so we get a good regional level look at how the funds are supporting those projects. with that -- >> quick question for you. as we talk about the guidelines, can you help me -- put that back up, thanks. how do those interact and what i understand, understand the priorities, we have zero control. that is our representative. i look at a map of san francisco and high priority areas and by supervisor districts 4 and 1, half of eight and two are not in the districts. not in the high priority districts. how are we going to i guess these concerns but making sure we have improvements and how do these

interrelate and how are these going to work pragmatically. >> let me point out one piece that may assuage some concerns. the idea with supporting priority development -- can i go back to the map quickly? that is probably easier. here is the map. we can fund projects that the cma -- you know, the authority deems to have proximate access to priority development areas, so the best example of this that i can give is if you look at the priority development area on 19th avenue, we don't necessarily have to provide funding for just the piece of project that may be on 19th within the pda but if project provides access we can also use that project. that means the criteria. there is that piece of it. so that can be helpful for a lot of the districts that have the large corridors and the citywide networks providing access. >> someone -- give me an example. not representing district one or four here, since we

are on the committee here and in district one, the one california feeds into and starts by the ocean. but this is not in district one but the california because it feeds into it, we can prioritize to 40th? >> we would have to look at where the improvements where, make sure improvements are serving the priority development area. if we do all improvements out at 40th, we would have to balance those two things. >> okay. >> priority development areas, these are established at the local and regional level in 2007 and 2008, really areas that have land use plans taking on growth. >> i fully understand that again but i think from an equity perspective -- we can talk about that. in certain areas they say zero dollars of improvements, we talk about a lot of the board and commission here about making sure different areas

of towns see improvements and see government working for them. district four and the streetcars that go downtown, i guess that is a question when you get back to mtc goals, i agree. that makes a ton of sense. how do you balance that out. when you talk about san francisco and how does that work pragmatically? >> again we have prior development areas, then looking at readiness. if there are projects that meet pda goals and provide access and are ready and gone through a robust planning process and street approximates project, address safety concerns, that would be something we would look at to balance those two. just a general question because the commissioners talk about districts 10 and 11, which is valid. i'm not here to defend other districts but how we allocate our dollars