say red lining and it is a fear. no we have to stand strong for how far we have come and make sure that we go further and lastly i would say that none of this would be necessary at all, and if the banks would just come to the table. and you know, we have been calling them to come to the table, and there is home owners that are covering and struggling and the people hanging on by the fingernails and they are not able to pay for their kids school supplies and not able to fix the repairs in their homes and some not able to, you know, to pay for meals.

>> a quick questions and just as a follow up and i think that we will learn more of the city next week and next tuesday and we will have a session and more information. and but someone mentioned that whoever it was and forgive me for not understanding the political structure in richmond or where you are in the electoral process and that there are there are all candidates running for mayor are opposed to this. >> and actually that is not true, and one of the candidates for mayor is a long time richmond council member who does not support this program and he has been known not to support anything progressive in the city. and the other one, did or does support this and he has knows that it has stagnated and we are looking for this and he is kind of like i don't think that he basically said, we don't know where it is at and it is not front and center and he is

a resident and obviously to run for mayor and he has not played a strong role in the richmond politics and i don't know why and what his position is and why. but the fact of the matter is that the local elected officials, and the nation over, and i am on a local, and i am on a national board with supervisor avalos called local progress, and there are local officials and we have a membership of 300 and i think, i am sorry. >> supervisor mar is also on t >> yeah, so the people are bringing this to their and to the attention of their whole bodies and trying to convince the other council members and their bodies and i think that it was mentioned that newark is moving forward and they are very clear and they grabbed on to and they are moving forward. >> and that is, and i appreciate all of that. and i guess that my question is more if we look to turn into a

jpa with richmond itself and someone can research this in front of tuesday and if the mayoral candidates and the future, that we need to answer my own questions about and the national movement and we do in the city have to look out for the own interests. >> i can get you a letter of support from the one candidate i think that right now he is just kind of in a place, that he has voted for it every single time, and i think that he would, if he knows that there is a partner coming up, and his optism will change. >> that sounds great, thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will close public comment? the public comment is now closed and so colleagues, this

resolution is not initiating a program and it is actually allowing the city to go into negotiation to create a program. and it is not a final step and it is actually just really a baby step in creating a jpa. and clearly, the city of richmond as well, has a pathway leading to go on to approve the joining the jpa, and so, we are really just having a discussion more than anything and creating an idea. we need the tools ta we have to address the housing that is home owners who are in under water or have the distressed mortgages and this is a great pathway to do that. >> moeflt of san francisco is not seeing these in the neighborhoods but we have a concentration of the distressed mortgages that are in the south

east and the southern part of san francisco and we know that the economy is physical and we have dips and turns and the dips have happened in the 15 years are pretty deep and the last one was terrible. and that could happen again. and our city is doing a lot of great work to prepare ourselves for what is considered a down turn in the economy and we have created it, and it has about 130, or 140 million dollars in it and we have a new, larger side and a general fund reserve that is about 58 million dollars and we have a rainy day reserve as well and that is actually smaller than those amounts and so we are preparing the city for that economic down turn, why can't we prepare ourselves for the crisis that will be inflicted on many, working class, and middle class, and the people of the home owners in the city and i think that preparing for that future, and in that will be incumbent upon us to do so, and i hope that we can actually take this baby step and come in together and with the idea of

creating a joint powers authority that will create a tool that is certainly not done elsewhere because we are really doing things outside of the box and housed in the traditionally done with the banks and wall street. but the ways that the banks work do not work for us but this is a way that we can actually create some leverage to be able to support these communities that are a vital part of every city, and in the nation, and especially san francisco. and so, where our economy is a regional economy and our issue with the real estate industry is a regional issue and those that losing the housing in here, go to the east bay and a lot in richmond, california and it makes sense that we go into the living in and how to stabilize the home owners in the regional way and so colleagues, i really hope that we can move this forward, and i am okay to move forward without

recommendation, we have a debate to go through and i urge that we will have a motion to move it forward without a recommendation to the full board. >> thank you, supervisor avalos and i will let supervisor mar speak in a second and i am happy to support that motion and i think that i maybe the three of us have more questions and so forth, and look forward to explaining it. and this week on my own and continuing to learn and next week at the full board, but i appreciate that and everyone who calm out today and everything, and so happy to support that motion. >> supervisor mar? >> i appreciate supervisor farrell's effort to move it forward and i would like to move it forward with the recommendation and i would love to hear more dialogue, and information, but, i wanted to say, that the residents from richmond, and san francisco, and oakland, that have spoken today, have made it very clear that this is a resolution that will help san francisco move towards the additional tools that will help the people who

are struggling to stay in our city and being pushed out of our city in many ways and i think that it is an example of the tremendous organizing by ace, and by the other community based organizations not only for the policy on richmond california but also to i am power the people who are facing foreclosures to give them a voice and to build that power so that we make sure that the city is diverse and we maintain the neighborhoods as well. moving forward without recommendation is okay, but this is one tool that will help to maintain the neighborhoods especially the african american and low income, asian pacific islander neighborhoods in the city and i would support the motion but i would hope that it

will be a stronger recommendation with a positive recommendation, but that is my two cents. >> okay. >> but, thank you, supervisor mar. >> and so, we have a motion on the floor. >> what is that? >> can we take supervisor avalos motion without objection? >> okay. >> so moved. >> madam clerk, could you go to item one? resolution approving amendment no. 2 to contract no. apt 591.01, light rail vehicle (lrv) doors and steps reconditioning and systems rehabilitation, between the city and county of san francisco, through the san francisco municipal transportation agency and ansaldobreda, inc., to remove the doors and steps and air supply unit work from the project scope and shift the balance of the money to rehabilitate the trucks of 41 lrv's with three options to rehabilitate the trucks of 24, 24, and 23 lrv's, respectively, if funds become available, for a total contract amount not to exceed $104,263,354 and to extend the term of the contract to no later than october 31, 2018. >> thank you very much, thank

you for being here and waiting, much appreciated. and if you want to go forward. >> supervisors, my name is elson (inaudible) from the sfmta and the item before you is to asking, and it is asking, for the contract with the current contract with (inaudible) and i have a very, very short presentation here to give you a background. and the reason why we are making the change, okay so basically in october of 2009 we awarded a contract, and we have received, and our lrvs and the, and we targeted 6 major for the lrv to be reout dated and on june, 2010, we have, and we had amendment number one to overhaul 34 (inaudible) of the trusts of the lrv. and this item before you is

amendment number two and what we would like to do is to remove the (inaudible) steps and the air supply unit from the regional project, and then, also, offer to (inaudible) requirement and move the (inaudible) and use the money to overhaul the 41 (inaudible) of lrv initially with the options for 71 more and the reason why we are doing this is because... what happened? okay. it is because in the rehab process, and we looked at the effect of the rehabation process in our, and with the, in order in the liability of the lrv and we what we found out is that the steps rehab, and it is increased their liability by 13 percent, and very supply units did not

really improve the reliability, and they increase it by 50 percent and the arctic (inaudible) and they increased it by 76 percent and the (inaudible) and rehab increased it by 75 percent and one of the trusts and received a (inaudible) rehab and increase it by 86 percent, and so basically what we found out from the data and we said, okay, what is the best way to spend our money, and what we said is okay, so since the trucks give us the best bang for the buck and what we should do is move all of that money that we are saving from removing the steps from the project, and put it on the rehab. and so that basically is why we want to modify the contract. and i am available for any questions. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues any questions at this time? >> mr. rose, could we go to

your report? >> yes, on page 2 or page 5 of our report, details the sources of the uses of the request of not-to-exceed the contract increase of 35 million, 535,833, and on page six, we noted that it should evaluate the performance of the rehabilitation of the first 41 light rail vehicles under the proposed second amendment and report back to the board of supervisors before exercising three contract options to rehab tait the additional 71 vehicles. they have the sole authority to exercise the options and we do not believe that should stay in the legislation and so our recommendation on the bottom of page six is that we recommend that you amend the first resolution to reduce the contract not-to-exceed amount, from the interested not-to-exceed amount of

14263354, to not-to-exceed amount of 74649614, and the state that the three future contract options will require board of supervisor approval prior to the director of transportation, exercising the two option and we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as amended. >> thank you. >> colleagues any questions >> okay. >> any objections? >> no objections. >> okay. so we will open it up to public comment, anybody wish to comment oit em one? >> seeing none, closed. could i have a motion to accept mr. rose's amendment and then, pass the underlying item as amended? >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor avalos and we can take that without objection. >> and madam clerk, could you call item two?

>>resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco (city) to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development (director) to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee (cdlac) to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $60,000,000 for 588 mission bay boulevard north (also known as, mission bay south block 7 west); authorizing and directing the director to direct the controller's office to hold in trust an amount not to exceed $100,000 in accordance with cdlac procedures; authorizing the director to certify to cdlac that the city has on deposit the required amount; authorizing the director to pay an amount equal to such deposit to the state of california if the city fails to issue the residential mortgage revenue bonds; approving, for purposes of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended, the issuance and sale of residential mortgage revenue bonds by the city in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $60,000,000; authorizing and directing the execution of any documents necessary to implement this resolution; and ratifying and approving any action heretofore taken in connection with the project, as defined herein and the application, as defined herein. >> okay. pam >> thanks for being here. >> good afternoon, farrell and supervisors i am pam sim. and a development specialist in the community investment and sometimes i forget, the resolution before you will authorize the application for the bonds to pay for the construction and related to the development costs and associated with the mission bay, south, block 7 west and located at 558, mission bay boulevard north, mission bay block seven partner ss comprised of related companies of california and the chinese tent center and they are the project sponsor, and when completed the block 7 will be a 200 unit development comprised

of 71 one bedroom units and 129 two bedrooms, and managers units and they will be targeted to house holds of no more than 60 peshs of the income and 58,258 for a family of four. and mission bay is one of three former redevelopment project areas, and approved to move forward by the state department of finance. these transactions are financing only which do not require the city to pledge the payment of the bonds and anticipate the application to the california debt limit committee on october tenth and if awarded, returned in march of 2015, for the board of supervisors approval to issue. and with construction anticipated to begin shortly there after and the complete construction in early 2017 and we appreciate your support and look forward to seeing you at a ground breaking event. >> thank you, any questions at this time? okay, we no analyst report. anybody wish to comment in

seeing no public comment, closed colleagues could i have a motion to send this item forward and we can take that motion without objection. >> do we have any other business in front of us. >> no, mr. chair. >> thank you, everyone, we are adjourned.

>> hello, i'm holly knox with commissioner honda along with the legacy of women voters of san francisco i'm here to talk about measure a on tuesday november 4th pursue measure a is an ordinance that is will allow the city to borrow up to 5 hundred thousand discolors for bonds this decide that use this for the improvements identified by the transportation at the desk the city could use the funds for construct transit only lanes and separated like ways and assessable platforms and escalators that are and muni and install pedestrian count down signals and audio central nervous system and bulb outs

raise crosswalks medium island and bike parking and upgrade muni any proposal will be subject to the review by the mayor and board measure a will allow the property tax to are increases and landowner to pass up to 50 percent to the tenants measure a will will require the citizens advisory committee to review the spending of bond fund tenth of one percent will pay for the oversight functions if you vote yes. i want the city to issue $500 million in general obligation bonds on infrastructure projects designed to prove metropolitan accessibility and prove the position of streets and make that safer important bicyclists asia pedestrians if you vote no,

you don't want the city to order the bonds i'm here with steering wheel and proponent of measure a we're also joined by just quentin the chair of the transportation under 98 to 98 and the member of board of supervisors 80 from 1986 a property thank you he'll start with opening comments ms. brinkman the bond is boo about the sufficiency and efficiency and safety you have our streets if you use the streets in san francisco by private automobile or bus why business bike you care about this bond measure passing it will help all to move better and get rid of congestion it has not passed a bond measure

in over 60 years you you'll of the work done to packing pass the bond measures give us the system people will say night not good in order to continue to improve this system we're going to have the make the investment now and not only for the generations to come. >> thank you just coping our opening remarks measure a is as simple as abc so that at this point the abc a stands 0 for a blank check they don't thrill this is a general obligation bond a boring of money a half a billion dollars repayable over thirty years at interest which will be over

one million dollars one hundred million it contains no denied specific projects it is written in glittering gentle itself and allows spending on anything mentioned or perhaps unmentioned in the measure the it isn't probably going to pass because it takes a 2/3rd's approval and i doubt san franciscans wanted to approve a billion dollars in debt. >> thank you ms. bringing brinkman which changes one of the changes similar to the project people who ride the six and the 5 l seen changes it will increase sufficiency and we're carrying more people on

the bus line little 14 mission bus is something this bond money will be spent on saved accident 14 bus about 4 or 5 minutes so passengers on that ride are having a softer ride we're going to see see severe streets people riding open bikes and walking on foot we're going to see the busses able to move faster to allow to carry more people as if we've added for business they'll be able to pick up more people so we're going to see a lot of positive changes. >> just cop. >> well, i can't put a finger on any one of those on page 199

of the proposition is states specific that this doesn't note quote involve any contempt implicitly commitment to specific projects to be constructed with bond that precedes and use that to say therefore it didn't need an environmental impact reporter it includes money phenomenon the caltrain system you you know what that is 88 percent of rider are from woodside arthur ton palo alto and potrero hill and san mateo and santa clara valleys not san franciscans they could take this money and spend as much as they want for people in the suburbia's that are not 2k3w50b8g9d to pay it back it's probably illegal under the called government code and uses

the word money maybe spent not shall and didn't define even what the money maybe spent on. >> how will the use of those funds impact levels finds traffic congestion. >> they're to impact them positive less traffic congestion meantime people choose to take a 0 bike instead of a car it is positive in order for people to lease it leave their automobile at home we have to make at that safe and sufficient so some of the projects we've increased the ridership and i on business lines people are switching modes and car driving in san francisco is a declining mode share meantime we make it easier not to drive again, it is a win for

all of us. it helps with air pollution and helps with children's activity levels having the streets safe so kids what walk and bike and parents are comfortable walking their kids to school we're going to see positive results from this as we approve transit only lines on market street the buses move more quickly in the transit again, that's a win for tens of thousand of ryder's. >> just cop. >> again another wish list which nauflz every ballot measure and tells what's in it any proposed use of the bond bonds it subject to review you can't even building this document because the man in the

board of supervisors if it ever passed could change those gentle lettuce every general obligation bond we have voted on in san francisco the earthquake save bond a couple of years ago in 2011, the school bonds defined and identified the schools that the money would be spent on when we established bart in the 62 a seven hundred and 92 general obligation bond for bart when we approved the high speed rail authority ♪ 2008 this is a conglomeration of words they're to put money into mta's pocket to spend as we want to spend just like they're doing

with the central subway from that an estimate in on a 3 of $6000 million plus to 12 plus >> we'll take final remarks. >> this is boring of a giantic performers which will effect no time property owners in measure a is a specific provision that allows a psycho of our renters to 50 percent of the one billion dollars one million dollars over a cost of thirty years don't let them fool you, you offering we won't sell off a bond is isn't in measure a they'll say well, it's policy if its policy why did the controller go to all of the specific details to tell voters how much this is going to

cost them so if you're a entertainment don't think you're getting a free ride you're not florida passes it should be rejected and no on measure a and get specific projects. >> thank you final remarks and yes. i want to remind everybody this about say future of the san francisco about investing in future transportation for our citizens the bond oversight committee do their why in san francisco it states the prashs are not going to be going up because sf general hospital all of those bonds have the same type of oversight i landmark to the citizens of san francisco show they have the commitment for the future of the city we need to change our transportation with the city. >> thank you both for your time and comments we hope this

discussion has on informative for more information on this, please visit the san francisco website at sf election.org remember earlier voting available ton city hall from 8 to 5 and vote at the city hall two weekend before if not be sure to vote