in to extend a grant [inaudible] high wibridge replasment and rehabilitation program for the 4th street bridge for project and settlement cost for the period of january 2007 to january 2012 >> same house same call [inaudible] >> engagement to accept a grant in the approximate amount of 2.9 million from the san francisco interface counsel for the purpose of ren ovateing and opening the san francisco navigation center and assisting with supportive housing exist for one 3 4 f1

>> >> on site units by priced at 75 percent of the max. to clarify the requirements for designated units in downtown

districts affordable to house holds of 120 percent of ami and 150 percent of owner and meet the monitoring and procedures for affordable units under the affordable housing program and afirm the department and sequa determination and other findings >> just for clar tee i heard you say 68 and 69 were not afforded by understanding is 67 and 68. >> that's right, 67 and 68 were not forwarded today >> thank you for that clarification. supervisor avalos >> thank you i want to thank the land use fit xhity for restoring this legislation back to its original intent to clarify inclusionary housing program will apply to group housing projects. group housing is housing that does want include a individual

kitchen for each dwelling unit like a boarding house. the housing program was created in 2002 and the program is base odthen fact more luxury housing increaseathize needs for low income worker squz the demand for affordable housing. the housing program is designed to apply towards a wide range of housing. the definition of the housing projects, it included group housing but at some point the planning department made a determination group housing was not subject to the inclusionary program. however, this determination was never formalized in the written determination which could have been appealed to the board of appeals therefore we only became aware of unofficial policy and developers proposed a number of market rate group housing projects. this brought to light the fact the planning

department is not requiring them to comply with the inclusionary housing program. this ordinance clarifys that the planning department is to follow the original language of the housing program and apply it to group housing. it is encouraging to hear the gep developer of [inaudible] agreed to comply with this inclusionary project and other projects as well in the works that will also be complying as we move forward with this clarification. i want to thank the land use committee for bringing this ordinance back into its original intent and hope we can all support this colleagues, thank you. >> thank you for visor avalos. supervisor kim. >> thank you i want to thank supervisor avalos's office for their work on this as well as april [inaudible] from my office for her work. i want to add a couple words to the ordinance that is before us today and reitthrait points we

made. again this is clarifying language back in 2002, the board of supervisors when they originally passed the affordable housing program they stated group housing developer would be part of this program provided onsite inclusionary housing or the in lieu off site fee. it only came to light recently as supervisor avalos mentioned, that the planning department interpreted this differently due to a variety of definitions arounds housing and dwelling units. we do expect group housing developers provide the same requirements that every other market rate developer in the city provides. we do know now that group housing has become lucrative in the hot real estate market and the reason this hadn't come before us prior is not a lot of group housing was built in san francisco because it wasn't

always viewed as financially feasible. i want to thank the budget committee for bringing the ordinance back to its original form and i look forward to passing this today. colleagues we ask for your support. >> colleagues can we take item number 66, same house same call. without objection the ordinance passed unanimously on the first reading. can you please call item 69 >> a ordance to amoned the planning code to allow existing restaurant in the north beach to open a second restaurant provided it meets certain criteria. >> same house same call. without objection the ordinance is pass ond the first reading. madam clerk let's go to roll call for introduction >> first up to introduce new business is supervisor christensen. >> i have a in memoriam for

father austin conturno who was born in 1915 in italys alba region. we know him as a associate pastor at saint peters where he retired in 2000 at 85. fath rer conturnero [inaudible] severed as teacher and principle in schools and assistant and associate pastors up and down the state of california. we celebrated father conturnoes 100 birth day. he was respected and loved and will be missed. thank you, supervisor christensen. supervisor farrell. >> thank you madam clerk. colleagues today i am introducing public safety reforms in response [inaudible]

the murder at pier 14 was a tragied. every crime in san francisco is unacceptable and the family is testifying back in congress in washington dc. as a parent of 3 young children i can't imagine the grief they are induring. as for the likes of donald trump and fox news and any and other individuals and organizations that sought to take political advant objectf the tragied they should be ashamed to take advantage for rate squgz polls and kudos to supervisor wiener and tang who stood up to them with fanfare. over the last week we have seen a public back and forth between the sheriff, our mayor and deputy shaifer association ending for the time being with a request for the apublic hearing from the mayor to discuss the policy and legislative clarity from the

board of supervisors. what we don't need is hysteria. i don't believe we need a public spectacle at city hall. in response today i'm introducing 3 items. first is a resolution confirming this boards support for our existing law which is a pillar of our public safety policy in san francisco for decades as well as due process legislation authored by supervisor avalos in 2013 and calling our sheriff to resends his memorandum in march 15, 2013 which was a gag order on his department. discretion giving to law enforcement to communicate with other law enforcement agencies. both our

sanctuary city and due process ordinances seek to prescribe limitations in certain circumstances but it is impossible to legislate every situation our public safety leader squz person elwill encounter as law enforcement person el. there is no way as we as a board or the mayor could have anticipated the circumstances surroundsing this individuals presence in san francisco and there are sure tobe unforeseen circumstances in the future. as a result, i believe this discession that exists is necessary. necessary for the public safety of the residence and the job of public safety officials. if the discession is handled well it should be applauded and if not open to chrisicismism however thrks shaifers department wide memo issued this march took the sanctuary city and due process a step further and amounted to a gag ord er unless the sheriff

approved otherwise. this took the city and processes a step forward. it is violation of federal law. the resolution calls for rescission and restoration codifyed in the city ordinance. second of all, we have been work wg the city attorney on this issue for over a week, a formal drafting wequest to create a requirement that before a sheriff brings a

--we need to turn the page. this should not be discussed in terms of a immigration issue

but a discussion about public safety. our sanctuary city policy served us well over the decades and we need to stand behind the policy in the immigrant community as well as due process ordinance. had you ever if the public safety leadererize not appropriately handling this as prescribed we need to take a hard look to make sure other instances don't happen in again in san francisco. public accept is a priority in city hall. >> thank you sfr visor farrell. supervisor wiener. >> thank you madam clerk. colleagueed today i'm introducing along with the mayor the sustainability program which is a successor ordinance to our long standing transit impact development fee. this

is the fee that we impose on new development to pay for transportation impacts that that development generates particularly around public transportation but also about street design and safety measures. the tidf has been around for over 30 years but there were some very very major exemptions particularly around residential development. for the last 30 plus years residential development in san francisco has not paid transit impact development fees so you can build a 50 story high rise and not pay one penny if the entire building is dovoted to residential use. the tsp will rectify that by modernizing the approach to transit impact development fees and extend the fee to any project of 20 or more unit so this will be a

major step forward. it will increase what we see from transit impact development fees to fund muni as well as regional partners and other transportation needs in the city. this is a important step for the transportation system. i look forward to discussion and earning your support. thank you. >> thank you supervisor wiener. supervisor yee. >> thank you madam clerk. so today i will be introducing an ordinance called inclusionary childcare. after many months of discussion and research, today i'm excited to stand before you and introduce probably a first in the nation legislation that will address our historic underfunding and underwellming production of childcare centers. we

currently have 3500 children on the eligibility list waiting for childcare services with only 42 percent of license capacity of children for parents in the labor force. all this means we simply have to do more and think creatively about how to increase the availability of childcare for our families. the legislation i'm proposing willect pand a collection of the impact fees. a fee collected 25 years ago when i was on the other side of the desk as a childcare provider will increase the fees to those analyzed in the 2014 nexus city wide study. these fees result into 5 million dollar frz the childcare facility funds for the next 7

to 10 yearsism . it cost between 400 to 500 thousand dollars to build a small childcare center in san francisco due to high cost of construction and stringent state licensing requirements. the real innovation is finding more affordable options. one of the best ways is through license home based family childcare. this legislation will create an option for developers to dedicate housing units to family childcare. each one of the units could serve up to 6 children. generally speaking family childcare providers do take care of most of our infants 0-3. developers of rental projects will have a option to dedicate up to 3 units dependent on the size of the projects to be dedicated to

family childcare. this will allow them to receive a decrease in the amount of the childcare fee. we strongly believe this will lead to the creation of dozens of units that will have the potential assisting hundreds of families will allowing residential useage. i want to thank [inaudible] carson michele [inaudible] from the office of early care and education. i also want to thank candous wong from low investment fund and also people like rosy kennedy director of family childcare association. and also to the staff of the planning department who helped us work on this. kristen disenjure and man icumohann and steve [inaudible] all these people contributed to this piece of legislation that i am introducing today. i look forward to having your support

on this legislation as it makes its way through the process in the fall. thank you very much and the rest i submit >> thank you supervisor yee. supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos is not in the chamber. we can rerefer roll call for introductions. >> okay >> if appropriate when he returns >> okay, madam clerk at this time let's go to our-is it time for 3 p.m. special order? >> on our watch it is in one minute madam president >> okay. supervisor tang. >> thank you. today i had 2 items to introduce. one is something that came out of our office effort collectively where all our staff members took the nurt training, the

neighborhood training sponsored through the san francisco fire department. after concluding that training we realized there are things quee do in the city to improve people who are especially tenants living in multiunits buildings from better understanding how to be safe in a emergency. todays legislation amends the san francisco fire code and require building owners and home owners association with 5 or more units to post fire safety information to residence and we'll also have to have the legislation through the state in order for their approval but whatory legislation will do is property owners post on each floor written information such as location of fire extinguishers emergency exists and location. gas shut off valves. in addition the

property owners need to send to new tenants information about smoke alarms, how to confirm they are working, location of carbon mu moxide units and when they were last replaced and doing that in various languages especially upon request. we hope that through these requirements that our tenant can be safe especially in multiunit buildsings. 2ndly today i introduce a resolution cosponsored by supervisor kim supporting the campaign called, no trafic ahud to take a stand against human trafficking before the superbowl and beyond. this is a effort we are trying to take into many counties and cities state wite wide so we can prepare in the restaurant and hotel industrys as well as public safety departments as a form of

concerted effort to insure we don't stand for human trafficking in san francisco or anywhere else in the country. i'm thankful to the cosponsors and if anyone else would like to cosponsor we are hpy to do so so we can continue this erftd through the state of california. with that i submit. >> thank you supervisor tang, my apology. >> madam clerk let's go to our 3 p.m. special order and before we move to our 3 p.m. special order, i know that there are members of the public here who want to speak in general public comment for item 72. there will be a opportunity to comment on this item during general public comment hounch we do plan to send this item to committee and at that time there will be another

opportunity to comment. we probably won't get to this item for some time now since at this time in the meeting we will be holding our hearing for our jail that is being proposed here in the city and county of san francisco. i thought i would let you know that but you welcome to speak during public comment. madam clerk let's move on to our 3 p.m. special order. >> item 61-64, comprise the board of supervisor convening a committee as a whole pursuant to a motion previous approved july 9. item 61 is public hearing of persons interested in the planning commissions determination of a final mitigated negative declaration of june 25, 2015 for the proect to prelace county jail 3 and 4 locate #d at the hall of

justice 850 bryant street and make a determination. item 62 a motion to [inaudible] under sequa by the planning commission. item 63 is a motion to disapprove the final mitigated declaration and item 64 is a motion to direct the declaration of findings&colleagues we have before us today a review of mitigating negative declaration for 850 bryant street. our consideration involvesa nalsis of the adequacy efficienty and completeness. up to 10 minute for citizens united who pealed at the planning commission to describe the grounds for appeal. up to 2 minute for public commenters to speak in support. up to 10 minutes for

representatives of the planning department to present its analysis for certifying the negative declaration. up to 10 minutes for representatives of other city departments including real estate, public work squz others to present their case for certification of the negative declaration. up to 2 meant for public commenters to speak in support of the issuance of the negative declaration and finally, curve will have up to 3 minutes for a rebuttal argument. with that, i will ask members of curb to come forward for their presentation. >> we are just going to set up a powerpoint while i get started. good afternoon

supervisor squz members of the public. my name is lisa [inaudible] coalition on homelessness and we organized along side a larger coalition made up of organizations throughout san francisco and some individuals who oppose the jail rebuild as it has been proposed. curb, californias united for responsibility budget is a state wide coalition that provided infrastructure but there isn't one organization that is behind this, it is very broad based and many organizations. in fact, a broad-a copy of our most recent appeal to the [inaudible] as well as about 200 cosigners, i would like to submit that to you so you have that for the record. there are many organizations and hundreds of other san franciscans who stand in opposition. what we have been in active struggle with in termoffs the planning department is what we regard and what we think