his idea but also along with housing justice leaders many decades ago, was to propose a tax like this. it was one of his final pieces of legislation. but our effort today is building off of that tradition and the power of the movements to maintain the diversity and the beauty of our city. the idea also comes out of large numbers of gatherings of communities throughout our city to deal with the horrible affordability crisis that we're in, and to fight back with balance and fairness and to stop greedy speculation going on in our city. so, i'd like to thank the hundreds of san francisco residents that were with us today and that we will build through november who have spoken out and identified real estate speculation as the main culprit causing san francisco's housing crisis and have asked all offices to step forward to help us move this measure to protect our city. here's how it will work. it will create a graduated real

estate transfer tax, short-term flip property. when a profit is being made off of the sale. if the resale is within the first year of purchase then the tax will be 24% of the retail price. within two years, 22%. three years, 20%. up to five years at 14%. if you buy property and hold onto it for five years or longer it doesn't impact you at all. the tax also focuses specifically on greedy speculators. it does not apply at all to six categories. single-family homes or condos, owner occupied tics or tenancy in commons, new construction, buildings over 30 units. when a property owner sells their property at a loss, and lastly, sales to create permanently affordable housing. we know that speculation leads to increased housing costs. there have been a number of studies showing that. also, we know that astronomical housing costs like we're facing today in san francisco is the

greatest concern of many san franciscans throughout our city from the rich modxctionv to ~ richmonds and other neighborhoods as well. we need to work together to preserve our neighborhood, character and diversity, also to make sure san francisco is affordable for all. if we pass this measure, we have a fighting chance to accomplish these goals. it will take grassroots efforts and unity across our neighborhoods to win in november. i wanted to thank the san francisco antidisplacement coalition, the antieviction mapping project, affordable housing alliance, alliance of californianses for community empowerment or aid, [speaker not understood] housing opportunities program, [speaker not understood], central city collaborative, the chinatown community development center, ccdc, coalition of community housing organizations of [speaker not understood], [speaker not understood], harvey milk lgbt club, [speaker not understood], san francisco rising coalition, san francisco

tenants union, sda or san francisco senior and disability action and many, many others. i wanted to also thank nick [speaker not understood] from my staff for spending countless hours building unity among people, addressing different concerns, but really moving this forward in a masterful way. and i'd like to thank ken fuchioka and fernando marti for helping in the process. with strong unity in our neighborhoods we can hopefully addressee vixes and displacement going on in our city. ~ also i wanted to introduce a resolution today supported by supervisors john avalos and david campos. it's to find a balance between our city's transportation needs and the safety of drivers, passengers and pedestrians. it's addressing the issue of the rapid increase in the uber lift type vehicleses or transportation companies. the tragic new year's eve

killing of six-year old sophia lu but an uber driver and the injuries of her mother and brother is something that is still fresh in our minds. ~ by the incident raised a number of questions about uber and lift type companies also known as transportation network companies or tncs. i believe the term was coined by our public utilities commission a few months ago. i'll have to get used to tncs as the term. but these new types of companies that are providing popular transportation services, i use them once in a while as well, are operating in what i would call a wild west of unchecked industry without any controls and regulations where efforts to protect public safety and consumer safety. also as we've seen from a budget analyst report, [speaker not understood] carefully rapidly expanding as well as a

new industry and business is it the city. some of the statistics i've seen are -- in the city we have about 9,000 cab drivers and about 1,856 full-time cabs on the street, and yet according to the budget analyst report i commissioned from june 9, we are seeing a rapid expansion of an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 tnc drivers operating in san francisco. so, it's a huge industry that's expanding. and last week our budget and legislative analyst, the report that they competed, also detailed a number of risks that are raised by this expansion of this industry, and it followed a march 6 hearing on tncs where we heard from some experts, but also some in our communities. the bra analyst report and findings are really important. they recommended that or they pointed out san francisco taxis

are required to do significant extensive background checks, safety checks, training courses to maintain low fares, and especially to serve vulnerable people like persons with disabilities as well as, but there isn't a comparative balance with the uber type tncs and they can exploit this to providing unfair advantage at times. the existing uber type tnc companies are also not required to charge predictable fares, be accessible to persons with disabilities, and aren't required to demand more extensive background checks for drivers for public safety reasons. and this is leading to what i would call and the budget analyst found the price gouging found last week in muni's stick out or denying people service with animals. it's not okay for uber to put people at risk without strong safety precautions or deny service to people with disabilities. for today i'm putting forward this resolution. it will urge our state's public

utilities commission to quickly take stronger action to further regulate the tnc services and require the mta to develop an action plan to enforce these stronger regulations that are coming through state legislation and through the state's public utilities commission. the resolution is urging our public utilities commission to establish more stringent safety regulations including annual vehicle inspections conducted by third parties and driver background checks using state and federal criminal history databases, to, to create more comprehensive insurance requirement, three to restrict the number of consecutive hours that a tnc driver may work and, four, requirements fully accessible to persons with disabilities. it also directs the mta to report on the action plan steps necessary to establish tnc regulations or locally enforce state's public utilities commission regulations. lastly, this is about ensuring

that all of our transportation services are safe and accessible for everyone in our city of san francisco. we don't need to trade our safety to get good service for transportation in our city. again, i'd like to thank our co-sponsors supervisor avalos and campos and peter in my office for put thing together. thank you. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, today i'm introducing legislation that will do two things. first, it will provide our public utilities commission with the right of first refusal to be the power provider for all-new development in san francisco, and second, it will generate funds due to that increase in retail customers for the power enterprise to

invest in the puc's power infrastructure including our long neglected street light system as well as other infrastructure such as mountain tunnel. the power enterprise has been providing power in san francisco for about 100 years. we are relying on the power right now as we sit here in city hall. so, if san francisco general hospital, san francisco international airport, fire stations, libraries, police stations and so forth. this is a reliable source of energy. in addition, it is 100% clean renewable energy being hydroelectric power. this is the direction we should be going in terms of expanding clean energy in our city. unfortunately, the power enterprise, unlike its sister agencies, the water department and the sewer department, has a very, very small customer base. the puc does a great job both in water and sewer services to

a broad segment of san francisco, but the power enterprise is very limited, providing for the most part municipal energy to city departments as well as the school district and city college. these rates are basically at cost and the puc power enterprise very much needs retail customers in order to generate funds to meet its infrastructure needs. right now the significant amount of hydroelectric power with the power enterprise does not sell at retail. it's sold onto the wholesale market at a much lower rate. by increasing the power enterprise's retail customer pool, i.e., giving it the first right of refusal for all-new development in san francisco, residential office, et cetera, by providing that increased retail customer base, the puc will generate significantly more revenue for every ten

megawatts, megawatt hours of electricity that it sells at retail, $4 million will be generated. those funds will then be reinvested. we know that our street light system is not doing well. the puc owns and operates 25,000 street lights, many of them are in a state of disrepair, significant deferred maintenance. we have very, very large street light needs. the puc also has significant infrastructure deficits in terms of its up system infrastructure. it's total infrastructure needs are pushing a billion dollars and this clean energy plan in addition to increasing clean energy in san francisco will allow the agency to begin to address its very large infrastructure requirements. so, i look forward to moving this legislation forward, and i look forward to asking for your support. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. supervisor yee. submit?

supervisor avalos. >> thank you, madam clerk. just a couple of item for introduction. see if i can pull this all together. [speaker not understood] is our city attorney request to draft an ordinance to authorize the implementation of full-service partnerships for individuals with mentor [speaker not understood] who meet the criteria established by california welfare and institutions codes, sections 5 -- 53 45-53 49-5 laurel law making a finding that this authorization will not result in a reduction of [speaker not understood] and mental health program. this submission strikes out the court bureaucracy due to the proposed assisted outpatient treatment policy that will be before us later this month. the new motion would instead guarantee mental health treatment for those who are mental health system has traditionally failed.

the mission moved away from the politics that often surrounds the most disabled san franciscans including disportion atly african-american and latino residents struggling with mental health illness. the measure also addresses what family members want most for the children for the children struggling with mental health issues and those are services. services are also what consumer want for themselves. under the proposed ordinance clients who qualify would be 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] thursday, june 12, 2014.

like to remind members of the audience a please be advised are not on today's agenda. commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll commissioner president wu. commissioner fong. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. that commissioners before i jump into the items for continuance i want to advise the members of the public we've received a request if supervisor wiener's office to take his item out of order the