i would say personally that i would support a 15-member committee. i do believe that currently we are at a 15-member cuc membership. especially since we are trying to increase the number of youth members on there as well i will support a [speaker not understood] committee. >> supervisor kim. >> i thought it was an 11-member committee. i think it's 15 now. ~ i just wanted to clarify >> my version i have in writing is 15 and i based it on the original, i guess, coalition for the commission. and then i believe supervisor avalos in his amended version would have 11 members. i understand the coalition may

be okay with 11. either way, you know, i would be okay. i just -- you know, there are some advantages of including more. as you know when you have more it's harder to have a quorum. it's a disadvantage. whatever version we come up with in terms of a amendment, we're going to have a week -- i mean, i'd like to say this about in general, that there's a lot of amendments to amendments today. and we will be probably accepting them with the idea that we still have at least a week to really clean up everything and look at it much more carefully in terms of why it doesn't make -- a second chance to rethink whether this is the best way to do this or not. so, that's what the -- >> thank you. no, thank you for the clarification. i just have to say, you know, i

think a 15-member council is fine. my main worry is quorum. i think that size of a body becomes unweildy and it will never be able to meet because it's hard to get that many folks in a room, you know, every two months. i would prefer 11 on a pure practical. i want the group to meet. i've seen large bodies meeting because of quorum issues. i'm also offering a number of amendments. actually i've only charted my amendments to supervisor avalos's children fund version. they're really minor amendments. they're mainly procedural. and i've distributed them before the members of the rules committee. the only -- that i think i want to spell out so everyone is leer in the room is the definition of transitional age youth. i wanted to change young unmarried parents to low-income parents. you might be a married

transitional aged low-income parent and i don't think that that should be the barrier to being eligible transitional aged funding. what we're going for is low-income parents that are struggling and have needs and service with child care. the other change i want to make is instead of immigrant and/or english language learner, i want to say new immigrants. i think that's important to put in because you might have immigrated when you were two or three years old. i think the intent of that language which was really for those that are transitioning to san francisco or the united states. everything else is fairly procedural, the other amendments before us. the last piece, the last major amendment i'm asking in the children's fund is i prefer that we do the membership structure of the committee via ordinance. this would allow flexibility. let's say we decided we actually needed more young

people on the committee advisory committee or we wanted more parents or more youth organizers. we can make those changes via ordinance. once we set this in the charter amendment, that set the 25 years unless we want to go back to the voters and ask them to change the structure and membership. so, i think that we should include the number whether it's 11 or 15 in the actual charter amendment, but that we should leave the membership and structure appointment criteria to do via ordinance and i suggest that we introduce that as soon as possible so that there is space to the coalition we pass to set this before the board of supervisors before we pass this to the ballot. my comment is i really struggle with the children's fund increase. even though youth and family funding is my priority, it is because we're not getting an increase in revenue from voters. we're not asking them to pay more taxes so they can go into after school programming, child care slots. i mean, out of those thing we

desperately need here in the city, we're working within a finite budget. so, when we put more money into the children's fund that does mean less choices for the board on muni services, on senior services and nutrition. i mean, you name it, everyone here comes to our board in the month of june and say, you know, all the different things we struggle with. of course, i believe that we should fund 5%, you know, of property taxes to children and youth services. i think 4% is a good compromise . an additional roughly $16 million to the children's fund and that's $16 million less than what we get to play with for other important need in the city. i do think it's a good compromise. i'm happy to support that addition. i want to say on top of that, on any given year there is an incredible need the board can allocate more money to the children's fund. the 4% will be the floor in

term of what we know we'll be allocating. i do want to thank everyone for their work on that. i think it's been tremendously hard for all of us but i think this is a good, this is a good baseline that we can -- that i can continue to support. understanding it does have impacts to peef and a lot of other fund, but understanding we'll have increased revenue over the years as well. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a couple of quick points. one, i was incorrect in listing supervisor breed as an official co-sponsor of the children's fund. she has been very involved. i think she's still trying to decide the issue of sponsorship in term of which form this takes. but i want to note that just to correct that record. though for the record she is wearing a very, very bright orange outfit i think in spirit

, solidarity with the coalition. i also want to note that in term of the ~ term of the -- i'm a member of the citizen's advisory committee. i normally like more people than fewer people, but i actually agree with supervisor kim, that quorum could become an issue and i think that's why i think 11 does make sense. but we certainly will have time to figure out what the right number is. thank you. >> let me make a couple -- you asked the question about the difference in funding. yes, so, we've had that discussion and i think supervisor kim was very articulate about most of us in term of the attention we have between how we could continue to increase our resources to

children and family knowing that we have many other needs. i think moving us into what i consider from the original ask to the older version has been a good compromise. this has been done before. when you look at the original legislation when it was reauthorized the first time, it was about a 20% increase at the time, and that was over 15 years. so, we're not going to be visiting this for a really long time. let me, let me -- and i also realize that the difference between when we just look at the ramp up between whether it's 4 years or 5 years, the

difference year during the four years would be about $800,000 [speaker not understood]. if you want to increase five years it would be 3.2 million. so, it's $800,000. and what's happened, i was comfortable at five years ramp up and then there's been quite a few things that have changed to make me soften my stance. the main one was the timing of everything. when we finally figured out what the timing was in terms of completing the spending allocation plan that we looked

when it was going to land, it would have landed at the beginning of year 4, where then you would adored need the funding. that in addition to the many, many, many contacts and communications and phone call i received by people in the field to say it won't make any sense if we vote to have a plan and we don't have the funding. so, i have to really dig really deep down to figure out, well, i had a comfort level of five years and that it looks like there is some logic behind still a ramp up, but it's a four-year ramp up rather than a five-year ramp up. so, at this point i will

reconsider my five years and look at supporting the four years. supervisor tang? >> great, thank you for sharing that. again, i think that all of us want to see the increase. i just wanted to make sure all of us especially when we have a full board to feel comfortable with what we have on the impacts of our other baseline. for the purposes of today, i wanted to know what our plans are in terms of reconciling from the differences in the amendments. i said i would be comfortable with a 15-member oversight committee. really for me i just want to make sure we have the various seats dedicated for all the different kind of age groups and communities. so, to the extent we can accommodate that with an 11 member or 15 member, i don't know we want to consider what supervisor kim did, which would be refer to the board to determine that makeup. >> let me respond to that.

i think her recommendation or this amendment is a solid recommendation. it's consistent to the other two , two groups that we have that's going to be new, which is the community advisory committee for the office of ece . we framed it in term of what the framing -- what the general makeup may be, but in term of the actual membership, it would be done through an ordinance with the counsel. it would be the same thing, we would go through an ordinance. and then rationale here to me was that if you do it for an ordinance, you have an opportunity to see it would work or not work, and that then

everything else could be working. but you don't want to go to the voters just because the committee is not working and it would be easier to make changes through the ordinance. so, i would be supportive of supervisor kim's recommendation there. >> just if i may, mr. chair. in term of procedurally sort of how we should move along here, i know that you have, you know, some amendments. i had amendments. supervisor kim also has some amendments. i'm trying to figure out -- >> suggestionseses -- >> supervisor kim? >> thank you, supervisor campos. if i can make a suggestion, i have the same amount of amendments. [speaker not understood] we use supervisor avalos's fund. if we can make a motion to

amend supervisor avalos' charter amendment, that is the page that's been distributed to you all here. i did want to clarify. we did keep the number of seats at 11 based on what supervisor avalos had put in. obviously we have another week if you want to clarify that, but it does say the mayor shall appoint for seats 1 to 6 subject to confirmation by the board of supervisors. the board of supervisors shall appoint members seat 7 through 11. the board of supervisors shall further provide by member, so, we did keep the 11 membership. so, i was just going to leave it at what supervisor avalos said. if we can make a motion to amend supervisor avalos, and then i think a motion to amend supervisor yee's, i think that would be appropriate ~. >> i think the question really

is, supervisor kim, some of the recommendations that you have made for amendments is incorporated into the language that supervisor avalos has for his amendments to his -- >> no, supervisor avalos has agreed to our amendments, but the amendments in the sheet we have handed out have not yet been incorporated into the supervisor avalos's version. >> thank you. would you like to have that considered for today? >> yes, i would. i would like the motion to amend to be considered today. >> okay. procedurally -- >> but when do i -- i mean, i can make a motion to amend along the lines of the documents i circulated to you, changes supervisor avalos has put forward. and can we include in the motion that these amendments would also incorporate the amendments that supervisor kim

has also circulated, which is an additional sheet that amends this document? is that appropriate, madam clerk? >> yes, i would actually suggest you adopt supervisor avalos first and [speaker not understood]. >> have a motion to adopt supervisor kim's amendments to the amendments i had circulated on behalf of supervisor avalos. >> thank you. >> is there a second? >> second. >> second. so, with no objection, motion passes. [gavel] >> and then i make a motion to adopt the amendments that i have circulated that include the amendments from supervisor kim. >> okay. >> sorry, i just have a point of clarification. i'll ask the city attorney perhaps. supervisor yee's amendments incorporate all of the me you'rex in one. so, are we also going to -- >> let me clarify. it's a little confusing.

if we pass supervisor avalos' amendments then -- and then we pass any amendments we have for peef, then i would make a motion to [speaker not understood] language that i have amended, put them for amendments. substitute with what was just passed so that we have -- issuing one document going through. >> thank you for that clarification. >> city attorney owen? >> i'll wait till you make the actual amendment. >> okay. so, there is a motion to adopt supervisor campos' amendments and did you second that? okay, no objection. it passes. [gavel]

>> so, let's talk about peef, peef amendments. do you have any other additional -- >> no. >> okay. so, there's -- do we have to -- he we would have to pass that or not? ~ it's coming to the rule. >> oh, you're talking about the rainy day fund charter amendment. >> no, the peef. we can't talk about the rainy day fund yet. >> right. i believe -- >> you didn't have any new language since introducing it to the full board? >> no. so, what i would request is, understanding that we're combining children's fund and peef into one measure, i believe that item 3 has already been called. so, having the charter amendment that is before you today, the public education enrichment fund, be motioned into supervisor yee's combined

children's and family council of san francisco and children and family plan. >> so, i just wanted to clarify that. you didn't have any additional -- >> no. and my understanding is that your version already has included the preamble for the public education enrichment fund. that's already in your version. we're just going to insert the charter amendment underneath that. >> okay. so, i'd like to make a motion that i amend my amendments. i think that's how i'm going to have to do this. where i would substitute what was just passed through the children's fund amendments that supervisor campos just introduced. i will substitute that language for my children's fund language which is section 116.108 a

through p, i believe. so, that's one amendment. ~ that i'm making. and i believe i would need to include inclusion of the peef language into the amendment. >> i apologize, i do have one amendment. i thought this had already been incorporated into your legislation. i had actually requested it, but it's not -- >> >> [speaker not understood]. >> this is not in what was brought to me. it's page 27 lines 11 and 12. it says the measure may be referred to the art, music, sports and early education for every child amendment of 2014. and i had actually, in the original charter amendment that i introduced on april 24th, i had entitled the measure, the measure may be referred to as

the public education and enrichment fund of 2014. >> okay. >> and it coincides, then, with the rest of the language that refers to the fund as the public education and enrichment fund through the rest of the body of the charter amendment. i'd like to make a motion to incorporate what supervisor kim just said. >> this is your piece, right? >> no, it's into your piece. >> so, we'll have two amendments. one which is to substitute the language for children's fund into my -- what i had originally wanted for amendments. >> just to clarify, you are going to move your second draft as has been circulated, going to change the reference to the peef, and then you are going to substitute wholesale the language of the avalos charter

amendment file 443 for the corresponding section of your second draft which is 4-4-1. so, it will be supervisor avalos' 16.108 with supervisor kim's amendments and supervisor avalos' section 16.108-1, which is where he sets up the oversight committee. >> correct. >> thank you. >> so, that's my motion, if you got that. that's why we need another week to look at it. so, i made a motion and second. any objection? no, okay, with no objection the motion passes. [gavel] >> so, we now have a unifying

document that we will be i guess hearing next week. so, at this point i guess we need a motion to continue this item. i think we need a couple motions here. >> i was just going to move that motion to continue the item to the next week. >> okay. >> to the next rules committee meeting. >> and then for -- okay, let's do that first. is there a second? >> second. >> no objection. motion passes. [gavel] >> mr. chair, just to clarify. you're continuing this to the next regular meeting of june 19th or -- >> yes. >> or just continue to the call of the chair in case there is a special meeting held? >> no, this will be heard on the 19th. >> june 19th, okay. >> okay, i think we're done, right? do we have anything else? okay.

madam clerk, is there anything else on the agenda? >> that concludes our business for today. >> meeting adjourned. [gavel] (applause)

>> this coffee memory i remember having coffee with any grappled. in the old days myelogram ma get together >> i was six or seven i made a faces a good face. >> when i was younger i know it did something to my body. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> i've been drinking coffee since i was 17 really the only thing i'm good at i was trying

to find out what i was good at i got a job at the coffee shop i decided to do that the rest of my life. i like the process of the coffee and what are those beans where do they come from oh, they come from a fruit. >> the coffee stays with me since i was a kid i grew up and opened coffee shops everybody. in the 8 i visited over 11 hundred coffee shops maybe more to see why people go to coffee shops >> we're searched the beans all over the world from east afghan and tokyo. >> when i wanted to do was get into aspect of the personal

coffee and the processing and everything else there was multiple steps in making coffee and we did have a lighter roost because of the qualities of the keep once you roost it it home gisz the coffee. >> one thing about the coffee they were special blends and i spent seven years on one blend so that's my pleasure. each bean they were all chosen and blended with each with different cultural and beans is like people and those people give me a reputation i can't buy. people love you my clients love

me they take me to the moves movies. >> fell in love with coffee and went to the coffee shops the community aspect i really enjoyed. >> i think it's important to have a place for people to show up and talk to their neighbors and recorrect. your surrounded with all those behalf communicated i communities >> i love my city san francisco has a good name my has every cultural in this planet living in san francisco it's a small city 7 by 7 but it's huge. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> i really like the idea of staying in the neighborhood and living in the mission i've lived here the whole time and the community really stick to it people talk about seattle and portland now they talk about seattle and san francisco. or portland and san francisco but san francisco is definitely on the cutting-edge of the coffee scene in the entire nation. >> there's so many romance in coffee is surrounds the sourcing of that and thinking about where it came from and how and coffee is wonderful. >> i know for a fact i was born to make coffee. i have a notice from the dad let

the life i live speak for me and let's have a cup of coffee and talk about it. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪