connected with a range of wrap around services called a full-service partnership. the ordinance would eliminate the [speaker not understood] and court process for requiring treatment and services. it would create instead a pathway to treatment that would allow family members to petition the department of public health directly for services for their loved ones. consumers who qualify for the full service partnerships program will be guaranteed services instead of having to navigate a complicated court process to get those services. first service partnership is wrap around services recognized by the state as best practices and proved ento be client centered and empowering for clients. they also work to reduce homelessness, hospitalization, arrests, and ultimately to save the city money. i look forward to our conversation here at the board about how we can move this forward and looking forward to our discussions.

my next item is a resolution that is in support of the city of richmond's control and [speaker not understood] reduction program. trying to support many households under water in that area. we have a part in san francisco where households are also under water. the city of richmond has been struggling to create their [speaker not understood] reduction program. they need a majority vote and that's not been able to do what some of the pressures of councilmember in city of richmond. the joint powers of authority is a pathway, in the state of california the pathway they are choosing. i asked the city attorney to draft legislation to [speaker not understood] powers of authority so we can join that partnership and support many of the households including san francisco who are struggling with even with the economy the way it is right now with under water mortgages. so, the resolution we have

before us is for adoption [speaker not understood] reference calendar. i want to make sure we can actually provide richmond with some support as they are facing critical decisions about their program moving forward in july and having a resolution that supports the intent of the board of supervisors to perhaps join the jpa, will give them some cover to make some difficult decisions in richmond and the county of contra costa county. the rest, colleague, i will submit. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. supervisor breed. >> thank you. i have one item today that i want to talk about, but first i just want to acknowledge i appreciate the housing balanced proposal introduced by supervisor kim. i know many of us on this board are frustrated and we don't feel that enough is being done to strike a balance and to deal with our affordable housing

crises in the city. and many of us have taken steps to address this issue. and i just want to talk a little bit about what my concerns are with the proposed legislation. i'm looking forward to a discussion with the board in order to come to some sort of resolution, but i do have a real concern. and i want to just start by explaining that market rate construction provides the much needed monies that we use for affordable housing. so, if we ashe trayerly restrict new construction, it means less funding for affordable housing and fewer homes for san francisco of all income ranges. ~ arbitrarily i'm not sure under the proposal we would have less funding to do that. we already experience significant delays as it relates to building affordable housing in our city. in my district alone, we have empty lots that are available

for affordable housing, specifically we just extended a lease with proxy for a lot located on hayes and octavia because we are not prepared to build the affordable housing for that particular lot. there is also another lot located on fell and octavia boulevard. this is slayedthed for affordable housing. we don't anticipate completing those projects for years to come. those are new potential affordable housing projects and we currently do not have enough money or resources necessary to build those housing. the money has to come from somewhere. it comes from a lot of different sources, but one of the most reliable sources has been development and has been the development of market rate units, which help to offset the cost of affordable housing. this proposal, i think, will reroute all of the potential affordable housing funds to new development and i also have an issue with the fact that we

have developments in my district in particular that need to be rehabilitated. there are a lot of different layers to affordable housing. specifically, there's public housing, yes, and there's san francisco housing authority. there is also housing that's under hud directly that exists as a result of redevelopment. and specifically a number of those developments are past their life-span and need to be rehabilitated. and i know we're going to be working on looking at this legislation to determine how those can be included in the number of affordable housing units portfolio as it relates to construction, but i'm just not convinced that we're there yet. imposing a ratio on construction solely on new construction of market rate and affordable housing means we will be ignoring the needs of already built affordable housing. in order to meet the ratio, all of the available funding in the voter approved housing trust

fund will have to go towards new construction with nothing left for the preservation of existing affordable housing development and public housing developments. the housing authority and other hud housing developments will remain as neglected as they have for years, with no hope in sight for thousands of people who may lose their homes if the conditions persist. it is worth pointing out that 30% ratio in question is not even accurate now that the state has dissolved the san francisco redevelopment agency, meaning these consequences could be even worse especially in district 5 where the need is great for rehabilitation of existing affordable housing units. so, i have real concerns. just today, colleagues, you supported an issue of a sale of revenue bonds for buchanan park apartments for $15 million. and there are more to come, especially in my district. they're not moving quickly enough and they should, but this could be a devastating blow.

i have always said that improving public housing is one of my top priorities. there are so many layers to public housing and affordable housing and they all need our support. and i want to help ensure that san franciscans, regardless of income or background, have access to affordable and safe housing. yes, we can and we must do both. these goals are not in conflict. in fact, providing funds for existing public and affordable housing is one of the most effective thing that we can do to make the city affordable. but the other challenge that we're not talking about is the lottery system. we talk about the fact that we want to help homeless families, we want to help teachers, we want to help doctors. we have a lottery system that doesn't lend itself to be supportive of housing those folks who needed affordable housing the most. so, maintaining public and affordable housing is an efficient and effective part of my overall housing goal. it is not a diversion from

those efforts. if our overall goal is to find housing for people in need, we need to do something about these crises as it relates to not only building more but also supporting those who we know need this housing most. i support both existing and new affordable housing developments and today along with the mayor will be supporting an initiative that protects funding for both new and existing affordable housing units, creates more affordable housing funds, and reflects neighborhood plans as well as helps every san francisco find an affordable safe place to live. i hope that we can come to a resolution. i do not want to see dividing or two measures on the ballot that are in conflict with one another as we're working together. and working together, we can develop a system by which we can support affordable housing and we can support the preservation of affordable housing.

and, again, those two are not in conflict with one another. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor breed. mr. president, seeing no other names on the roster that concludes roll call for introduction of business. >> let's go to general public comment, madam clerk. >> at this time the public may comment generally for up to two minutes on item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board including items on the adoption without reference to committee calendar. please note that public comment is not allowed on items which have already been subject to public comment by a board committee. pursuant to board rule 4.22, please direct your remarks to the board as a whole, not to individual supervisors nor to the audience. speakers using translation assistance will be allowed twice the amount of time to testify and if you would like a document to be displayed on the overhead projector, please clearly state such to sfgov-tv and remove the document when you would like to screen to return to live coverage of the meeting. >> first speaker, please. thank you, mr. president and members of the [speaker not understood]. my name is christopher doll and

i live at sixth and howard, 13 meters above sea level. i raised a comment on my motivations for being so rude so occasionally. as at months fear warms from climate change, climate regions that are now hospitable to our food relocation -- to our food production will relocate. food production rates will fall drastically in major populations will starve. ~ and major populations will starve. planet systems that hold back ecosystems that [speaker not understood] will be disrupt and had will release those plagues upon us. major populations will cough or bleed or sweat and die. violent political upheaval will overtake many regions. major populations will die in the conflicts. economic upheaval will lock down production and distribution systems throughout the globe. major populations will die for lack of care and infrastructure. all of these things will happen

at the same time. it is possible that billions of people will die because of these changes if nothing else changes. remember, free energy for freshwater to grow new trees. at g-4 bond on twitter and hash tag carbon balance, [speaker not understood] is the youtube channel. christopher doll, sfc on facebook, and no excuse for ignoring this. thank you, mr. president. >> next speaker. good afternoon. my name is don maxwell. i'm a transit operator at the sfmta. i wanted to present to you a proposal draft of a charter amendment that would reform muni and take the power away from the mayor to appoint the staff as well the mta board.

plus allocate funding towards adequate transit services for the people. i have some pictures that i wanted to show some of the working conditions that i have encountered in my 11 years working with the sfmta. some of them are too graphic for tv so i can't ~ so i don't want to put it out there. so, they're going to be published in the newspaper. i want to talk about this initiative. we're trying to get the signatures together we want to get the board support on this. we know the mta needs to be reformed in its entirety. some of you have received this and some of you have gotten this today. i dropped it off at your office. right now it's going to be called proposition s until we get the necessary signatures

together to make this happen. one of the [speaker not understood] but the potential campaign they were supposed to meet with me and talk about some of the working conditions and that meeting, here it is four years later five years later and that meeting still hasn't taken place yet. so, muni needs to really be reformed in its entirety from ed reiskin all the way down to sharita britt. you guys need to [speaker not understood] and support this measure and make sure that [inaudible]. >> are there any members of the public who wish to speak in public comment? seeing none general public comment is closed. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you go to the adoption calendar? >> items 72 through 74 are

being considered for immediate adoption without committee reference. a single roll call vote may enact these item. if a member objects a matter can be removed and considered separately. >> colleagues would anyone like to remove any item? roll call vote on the adoption calendar. >> supervisor campos. campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. there are 11 ayes. >> those items are passed. [gavel] >> and, madam clerk, could you read the in memoriams? >> yes, today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individual. at the suggestion of supervisor kim and supervisor breed, on behalf of the full board of supervisors for the late mr. kevin weston.

>> madam clerk, do we have any more business in front of the board? >> that concludes our business today, mr. president. >> i want to thank sfgov-tv brought to us today by nona melkonian and jim smith. streaming live into your homes. with that, ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. [gavel] úx