as to incentivize the trees that will help pull carbon out of the atmosphere. the way that this carbon tax would work, the controller would generate about $80 million a year and there are exemptions. anyone who receives at least $.50 to 2% of their electricity from a new will sources, clean power sf customers would be exempt from this tax. this tax would continue the broad exemption for low income customers better in the current utility users tax and that would include all tier 1 customers would continue their exemption, which would represent 40% of residential customers in san francisco. care customers, as well, would it be exempt, the ones that receive a family electric rate assistance. they would be

exempt. currently, commercial customers pay 7.5% of a tax on both electrical and natural gas them a while residents residential customers pay no tax. so, this would actually increase from that 7.5% among 2.5% more to an overall 10% increase. based on the average residential pg&e bill in san francisco being $108 for electrical and natural gas use, this tax will be an additional $2.70 a month all coming from the natural gas side, which is, of course a nonrenewable. the rest, all colleagues i will sum it >> clerk: thank you supervisor avalos good president breed >> president breed: think. this is an exciting time of the year because there's only great things happening all over the city and especially in my

district and i want to take this opportunity to highlight just a few. tonight, from five-7 pm sf jazz and proxy will be hosting their second annual neighborhood block party at patricia's green. in hayes valley on acadia and hays, which also kicks off the 34th annual sf jazz festival. there'll be live music, movies, shown on a big screen, the beer garden is always really popular and food trucks. so stop i hayes valley tonight. on saturday, june 11, there's a grill in the model, which is hosted by adrian williams of the village project. it's a great event. it happens every single year. it said hamilton playground. it's a fun, exciting event. there's food, activities for kids, and there's music did a lot of great blues performers will be present. so, stop by between the hours of noon and 5 pm on saturday. finally, on sunday, there will be the 39th annual

state be as very street there which will take place on from 11 am-6 pm. it'll be on the street between coal and trader street. the fair will feature arts and crafts three musical stages and a family area. this year's strict stage will also feature performance by paul kander, when the original members of the psychedelics rock band and the jefferson starship and a native san franciscan. he'll be honoring him at that dickerson is good thank you supervisor peskin. with that, colleagues, i have one last item and in memoriam for mrs. emma jean burress. she is the mother of civil rights attorney john burris, and she passed away this friday, may 27, and supervisor cohen and i would like to adjourn the board meeting today in her honor. mrs. burress was an exceptional

dresser without, the colorful hats. sure my me a lot of my grandmother when i was c john burris pictures of his mom she'd always have a beautiful hats on. she had a cat for every occasion matching gloves, purse and shoes. persaud was beautiful just as beautiful as her outfits in her motto was, if i can be helpful i will. she was very helpful to so many. for many years, she operated the summer side home and marengo residential facility for those who are physically handicapped or develop mentally disabled. she treated the clients as her children and instructed all employees to do the same. she also participated in a number of nonprofit organizations, including the national council for negro women whose mission is to advance the opportunities and quality of life for african-american women and

families. she was a member of the delta sigma beta sorority in african-american public service oriented sorority that educates the community on issues affecting their lives. and, the continentals of omega boys and girls club of vallejo which promotes the health, social education and character development of children in vallejo. mrs. burress was married for 67 years to the late -and they have six children. she is survived by her daughter faye anderson, her son, rev. dr. ronald burris, mr. clinton burress, and mr. john burris. a host of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren. mrs. burress was the matriarch of her family who treated everyone with kindness and sincerity good she will be dearly missed. the rest i submit >> clerk: thank you. supervisor campos >> supervisor campos: submit >> clerk: supervisor >>[adjournment] >> supervisor cohen: submit

>> clerk: supervisor farrell speed >> supervisor farrell: submit >> clerk: supervisor mar >> supervisor mar: today on election day him and recent charter ballot measure for the november out to expand democracy in san francisco for tens of thousands of immigrant parents by allowing noncitizens the right to vote in school board elections. i want to thank especially some momentum and david chiu of michael's father supervisor campos and avalos cohen weiner and others. i also want to say it's been a 20 year struggle for voting rights for immigrant communities. our coalition of parents and immigrant organizations spans all of our neighborhoods of our city and now is the time the weekend in san francisco pass a measure like this. i also want to say

that san francisco would not be alone. chicago, new york city, and a number of jurisdictions throughout this country have allowed noncitizens the right to vote but for most of the united states of america, history, noncitizens have been allowed to vote. it's only in the nt immigrant movements of the 1920s the repression of that era that was wiped away and now is the time for san francisco grassroots networks of immigrant communities, parents, and others that want expanded democracy to step forward to put san francisco on the map to making it free again. i also want to say too, are immigrant parents and immigrant committee organizations are ready from their own networks from past elections to the specter of donald trump in the immigrant rhetoric at the national level san francisco could stick step four to expand rights for immigrants while others are attacking immigrants. also, i want to thank leaders from our immigrant rights commission by cathy cole and others for dancing this over the years.

matt gonzalez and-to others over the years but especially our grassroots coalition, giving a voice to parents and expanding democracy is the right thing to do in san francisco. it also will help improve our school system by engaging more immigrant parents into the process of their children's education. lastly, i will say expanding democracy is right for san francisco and immigrants deserve the right to vote in school board elections. also, i like to be referred after supervisor peskin talk about the done right the rest i'll submit >> clerk: thank you. supervisor peskin >> supervisor peskin: taking mdm. clerk. colleagues, i actually spoke to the legislation that supervisor mar just referenced last week so i will not speak about it again, but today i will speak to legislation that we are introducing, which will ban candidate control

general-purpose committees in the city and county of san francisco. the general-purpose committees have been used to raise unlimited funds for unspecified measures, usually over a number of election cycles, and in essence, stylish uncontrolled funds for candidates were elected officers who control them. unlike candidate controlled ballot measure committees, which are stylish to support or oppose a specific proposition or initiative ordinance, general-purpose committees do not need to specify with the money being raised is going to be spent on. as a result, as far as i can tell, the primary incentive to donate to these committees is to create a special relationship between the donor and the elected official which is a recipe for undue influence if not legal corruption. not only that, these committees allow candidates and elected officers to circumvent the campaign contribution limits that exist in their own candidate races. on this election day, we have a duty as elected officers and

has occasional candidates to periodically turn the lens inward and scrutinize our own practices, and in doing so to work to reduce the influence of money in our political system. it doesn't take much introspection to realize the obvious. the amount of money flowing in and out of our political ecosystem here in san francisco is seemingly without limit. to the extent that the sources of these funds are increasingly consolidated among a small handful of the ordinarily wealthy special interest, the voices of everyday state's san franciscans and residents are being drowned out by an ocean of money. i want to thank the friends of ethics for the research and investigation of candidate control general purpose committees and also bob stern, otherwise known as the godfather of campaign finance reform in the state of california is eloquent presentations on this issue,

and i want to thank at the city attorney andrew chen, for drafting this measure in adding candidate control is a proactive step in the right direction and i look forward to continuing this conversation and garnering your support over the coming weeks and months. the rest i will submit. i do want to adjourn today's meeting in the memory of the gene rattner [sp?] and mike and condolences to her husband, lee rattner and to her two children. >> clerk: thank you. before we get to you supervisor cannot understand supervisor 10 m you'll be cementing. thank you. supervisor mar >> supervisor mar: i want to thank supervisor peskin for his comments last week on density done right. as an effort to move forward san francisco's protection assault businesses and residents will also producing more portable housing and housing for our city. i want to acknowledge that was approved by the mayor's office last year to support his version of a density bonus for the westside and other

neighborhoods but it became apparent to me by my review of the legislation that had not been thoroughly vetted, special decimal si communities by no supervisor tang has engaged or neighborhood and it seemed to me it did not do enough to fully promote truly affordable housing and protect the afford housing stock in the city. i want to note, huge advocate building more affordable housing and housing in general but i don't think any development should come at the cost of the rampant convictions of our residents and loss of our small business sectors as well. so, in the past few months i am my office and others in the richmond district work to ensure that a richmond district residents and all of our residents had a chance to at least engage on the mayor's proposal but supervisor tang's proposal, and i think to further the fruit of our labors to that effort from supervisor peskin affordable housing groups and tenant rights organizations in my office. as

a progressive i'm not against building more housing kit in fact, it is critical for our whole region, but am actively leading to create more and to preserve more housing for the majority of san franciscans. this legislation and with the proposed increase to our inclusionary housing requirements of today's ballot, will once again respond to our city's most critical need in the regions need as well. i think the density done right ordinance much is about ensuring that we are prioritizing housing developers are low income and middle income residents, is it also about ensuring the community has some real meaningful input and access into the planning process as well. so, this is been a long process for our city force san francisco. i think density done right is the right thing to do and it helps us work together with committee leaders in every district and hopefully consolidate the planning commissions awful

recommendations or so i really thank supervisor peskin and the housing justice and affordable housing groups are putting their work in many of the small business organizations working on this as well. i urge support as it moves forward to the sport. the rest i will submit. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor kim us to be referred >> supervisor kim: thank you. i don't have notes on this, but i did want to submit an in memoriam on behalf of our office to marry jessop is one of our district 6 tenderloin residents. mary is someone who has been incredibly active in our neighborhood in our community and we just learned of her passing away. i want to semi-condolences to her neighbors, friends, her family. she is someone who always had a smile on her face. attended many of our meetings for-part healthy corner stores, pedestrian safety, good she was one of those women who was active and care to the very last day. she was one of the volunteers of sunday streets, and i know sunday streets have also sent their condolences to

her as well. she was an active member and advocate for her-. she came out of their breast cancer program and she had fought cancer and beat cancer. she spent her life actually teaching in the public schools before she retired and volunteered her time during a tremendous amount of work in our neighborhoods. she will be missed tremendously. most of all, she was just one of the sweetest and kindest people that i knew and her heart was incredibly genuine. so, mary, we will miss you immensely good rest in peace. thank you for all your work and advocacy for your care for your neighbors and constituents. here in the tenderloin neighborhood and the rest i submit >> clerk: data. better president that includes the introduction of new business >> clerk: speak, present. >> president breed: thank you that can you please read public comments. supervisor weiner >> supervisor wiener: there's a 3 pm special order that was continued

>> president breed: i apologize good we can go back to-is that for your item? >> supervisor wiener: it's a conditional use appeal will be continued >> president breed: okay. i'm clerk, excuse me members of the public i apologize. we need to get to 3 pm special order. mdm. clerk, can you get to the 3 pm special order >> clerk: items 38-41 buys a special read through pm for public hearing persons interested in the planning commission to the vocation of a conditional use authorization dated september 24 2015 for certification of a conditional use authorize issue. dated march 31, 2016 for a proposed project at 313-323 cumberland streets. item 39 is a motion to approve the missions to approve conditional use authorization to item 40 is a motion to disapprove the commissions decision to approve the conditional use an item 40 41

is direct operation of finance >> president breed: supervisor weiner >> supervisor wiener: and colleagues, the parties have agreed to and requested a one-week continuance so i move to continue this appeal to next tuesday's summit june 14. >> president breed: supervisor weiner has moved and seconded by supervisor campos. any other members of the public would like to provide public comment specifically on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed >>[gavel] >> president breed: mdm. clerk on the motion to continue can you please call the roll >> clerk: supervisor >> supervisor yee: aye >> supervisor avalos: aye >> president breed: aye >> supervisor campos: aye >> supervisor cohen: aye >> supervisor farrell: aye >> supervisor kim: aye >> supervisor mar: aye >> supervisor peskin: aye >> supervisor tang: aye

>> supervisor wiener: aye >> clerk: there are 11 aye >> president breed: this item will be continued one week to the meeting of june 14, 2016. >>[gavel] >> president breed: mdm. clerk, now please read public, >> clerk: at this time the public may address the entire board of supervisors for to 2 min. on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board to include the minutes and items on the adoption without reference to committee calendar item 46-52. public comment is not about what item has been previously subject to public comment and the board committee. pursuant to the portable structure your remarks to the board as a whole not to individual supervisors not to the audience, please good speakers using translation assistance be allowed twice the amount of time to testify it if you would like to display your document on the overhead projector please clearly state such two sfgtv and remove the document when you like the screen to mov thro return to live coverage of the meeting. >> president breed: per

speaker please. >> testifier:[foreign language] ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. as you know, my name

--i'm here today to tell you that yesterday, monday, used to be the day for ramadan. and last friday, [inaudible] the best man who is named mohammed ali. i am the same age as him. god gives me time to see him two times. in-i met him in egypt cairo. in 90 i had a chance to see them in oakland. what i did, because i am far from him, i told him that can you lay with me? i did it two times. and he loved it. he told

his wife that i'm crazy. and his wife liked what i did and she asked me to say with him and i have to be within one hour in my life. and i supported him until he [inaudible]. i have a little bit of message. i can tell you, goodbye our best friends, are most mohammed ali and go with rest and peace. i have another --i would like to give our supervisor. please, can you take that to give him were to give all of them. god bless all of you and i give him health for what he did [inaudible]. god bless all of you. thank you >> clerk: next speaker, please.

>> testifier: cesar chavez spoke out very strongly against the racist organization-for good reason. he knew what he was talking to tom is getting in hot water because of his comments that he made that this judge is a member of the raza, they talk about murdering people. they're terrible wicked organization. eddie garcia is the chief of police in san jose. there's a reason why we have chaos san ricardo, i called up same. they all know me down there and i didn't get through to them but i was then asked him to say a few kind words about donald trump. you know, we have our-he is our differences, but no, he strongly siding with hillary. i find it interesting that you know the bible says that behold

i show you a mystery. we should not all sleep but we shall be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump. it just strange. i'm not saying it's in the bible but unseen cyrus was and it's interesting story agency this and the antiquities of the jews, he says daniel showed cyrus's prophecies about himself and isaiah, and were written about 200 years before cyrus was born. he so related he did what god said he would do. we are wrapping up the end of the age. we are coming so close to the end demand are not sure when the sabbath year began. possibly it began april 13. i got on the house jones show that day and was able to make the announcement that the times of the gentiles has ended. as a matter-of-fact, may 20 was exactly 7003 and 65 days from the end of the times of

the gentiles. when the jubilee began. the 70th jubilee. jesus christ is coming soon. we are in the sabbath you right now. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good afternoon supervisors. political leaders on expanding feature high aspirations. our career in destiny for service of the people. they should [inaudible] into principles for their profitable struggle for true success. that adequate contemplation for better [inaudible] one surely can open up 100 years of [inaudible] for establishing internal foundations for the city, state and nation. transportation, housing, education, business development, government law, and public facilities of concern. in terms of well organized planning, well structured order for the majority of the people. elections always come to be

extremely competitive for the candidates. the outcomes of surely will be determine the future course of an exciting continuation of career for all winners could the life of destiny for all mission date leaders are actually heading for [inaudible] adventure of humanity and just. political leaders should work harder to fight for the rights of the people who matter what platform or public service. the people are with you all the [inaudible] of your mighty deeds you outperform. you should have no trouble in successfully moving forward to resolve problems and enjoyed your great living conditions upon official kingdom [inaudible]. thank you >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: thank you

president breed and all the members of the cobol. my name is christopher doll and i still live at six and howard 10 bucks less than 40 m from sea level. i rise to renew a comment of mine of gender 1220 to get quote them i like to drop the board's attention of article 3 of our beloved charter specifically to the second sentence of section 3.1001 where it says, and i quote, the mayor shall devote his or her entire time and attention to the duties of the office and shall not give any time or attention to any other occupation or business activity. i would definitely categorize the campaign for governor or any office other than the secretary as mayor of our beloved city and county as other occupation or business activity. why is the board merely applying the mayor to

his security detail cause when the board could and should be demanding that he return all salary and benefits and expenses paid to in between his official announcement candidacy for governor and a withdrawal. he suddenly felt each and every one of those days to apply his entire time and attention to the duties of the office and anything less than his entire time and attention is his entire failure to serve. he should also be great salary and benefits and expenses for each day he failed when asked to categorically denied that he would be a candidate for governor. he should rebate salary and benefits and expenses reached a of his expected service when he was so disengaged from contact with our beloved city and county that there was no officially designated acting mayor. i would also ask the board to rebate salary and benefits and expenses for themselves and for their staff for each day of debate on this matter either in committee or full board when no member raise the issue of a

possible conflict with the charter. i'd like to thank every member for customizing the theme of manager class negligence. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: hello. kristi long committee plan policy director four-. thank you for the opportunity to come today. i want to speak to item 49 which is the proposed resolution before you urge our state legislators to oppose the proposed by right housing bill budget traveler. we urge you to support the governor's proposal. this is a statewide bill and it will have statewide benefits. the san francisco residents would also benefit from it. while san francisco does a very good job finding and proving subset is affordable housing as many other problems with this planning process which together contributes to a situation of chronic delay, high costs and under supply of housing. this reform is important for number

recent. important for the environment incurred high-density compact development, transit and urban areas rather than in greenfield location get it will encourage mixed income in places that will local inclusionary housing. some encouraging concentrated development and locations that are conducive to walking biking and taking transit. this form is important for retaining diverse. italy to reduce this placement and greater affordability and our city both directly on our planning process and indirectly through its impact on housing supply and other bay area cities. under the governor's proposal san francisco. great control over land use. wsdl be with to develop our own zoning but the zoning matter will be predictable transparent rules that govern the development is that of an unpredictable system will be ritually reject projects. to be clear, it was to be significant process

public input and decision-making by elected officials. the process will simply take place at the level of the general plan. plan and zoning rather that the individual project level. we urge you to support rather than oppose the trail bill on streamlining for the housing approvals and want to expand housing opportunities for san francisco bay area and california residents. intended with finding a permanent affordable housing the overall supplies by the solution. thank you >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good afternoon board of supervisors. i am talking about item 49 as well. san francisco has contributed to over 7000 permanent legal for the low and moderate income housing units and over 13,000 above moderate income units 11,000 units in the pipeline. fully entitled an additional 20,000 years waiting for approval. san francisco is being lumped in with a bunch of december cities were not creating such numbers of housing which the state bill is supposed to address. yet it dismisses the work by city leaders in our state representatives [inaudible]. by

the governors will preempt the will this board for decisions regarding the local inclusionary housing requirement including having performance standards applicable to san francisco. by right housing approval budget trailer bill should be amended or opposed to allow the state to respect and preserve local authority. san francisco is such a special place, we value your decision. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good afternoon. i am actually here to the board of supervisors for not supporting the trailer bill and i'm also here to thank you for supporting the charter amendment to put some restrictions on the mta board. for some time now, they have been having a war on the citizens of the city, and our visitors, by making it difficult for people to get around, to live their lives

without rate stress. now, i think it really gone too far by removing bus seats off of buses with it was bad enough there to take away bus stops to make people with heavy packages and children and other kinds of situations have to walk distances to get on the bus but now they also want you to be able to stand on the bus. i'm speaking from experience. i actually felt on moving bus on time and about the injured myself, so i can tell you i will not be on standing on any buses were parked cars or trains of any kind. i think it really a dangerous situation. i hope that this board of supervisors will reconsider having any more buses removed off of-seats removed off of buses. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: i'm going to have if you page powerpoint.

greetings supervise. my name is- i'm a software engineer at cisco systems and [inaudible] april 19 president of japan town merchants association [inaudible] and gave no convincing reason. based on our practice [inaudible] and we were deeply hurt. two days ago last sunday, the same band on san bruno [inaudible] which is 12 miles away from here it was not only warmly received but also on the special word of the prey. so you a few pictures of last sunday's san bruno parade. this is our baton members. next. this is our band performing. next. this is our exciting mom and daughter taking photos with

us. next. this is this tour-the san bruno lines and chairman. he gave us the cup for the special award last sunday. so within two months and a few muzzling the same band was treated completely different. you wonder why good what's happening to san francisco? is san francisco a city that's will by the commonest party? apparently, no. is event known for bias and discrimination? apparently, no. why is san francisco so different from san bruno? a city just 12 miles away. the reason that chinese government through san francisco chinese general counselors and [inaudible] influenced their behavior. to the point of abandoning the bow use that this nation was built upon bringing shame and disgrace to this great city. i

wish you would look into this issue and help us resolve the undeserved rejection. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good afternoon supervisor. my name is--in a citizen in san francisco. i'm here to express my [inaudible] marching band was rejected on the cherry bloom festival. we already got permission from the organizer, but read dressed up and showed up, but at the last moment, we were told we were rejected. that doesn't make sense. i serve the country in 2014. our nation is to fight for the freedom of the world. that is my freedom to parade was [inaudible] to my freedom to parade was deprived of that moment in the country which i serve. i believe the discrimination is not fit.

pursuing freedom of belief is the great country of the united states. pursuing freedom is the reason why this great country, the united states of america is [inaudible] that's also the reason why i came to america from china. i want freedom without discrimination. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: i will speak for her. dear honorable board of supervisors. my name is--a san francisco resin. i'm a pianist and plate saxophone in the-marching band. you might think our group was excluded

from the gym found cherry blossom festival grand parade, but why do you keep coming back to the board of supervisors meeting. why don't you go to the parade organizer, hashimoto? first, the japan town parade is excluded us the much again due to the [inaudible] the southwest chinese new year parade. the chinese [inaudible] is usually influenced san francisco and the root of the problem goes beyond mr. hashimoto. second, does the gym and found parade and southwest airlines chinese new year parade [inaudible] this public money came from tech including us the

marching band who live in san francisco so we have a right to raise our issue here. certainly, the most important the issue is much bigger than the parade. the essence of this exclusion of fundamental value of america. it's about what this country is and is not. it's about the name and image of the san francisco. think about it after a few years what we came to know the brutal prosecution by the chinese

communist party. to find out several meeting people were thrown into jail in labor camps and many died a persecution. to know that over 60,000 and possibly a lot more people were killed for their-the [inaudible] against their will. at that time, they would also come to know that san francisco was once a [inaudible] of the chinese communist party intentionally or unintentionally. how will you face this part of history? they zero children? face their own children. the issue of excluding us from the parade goes far beyond the parade itself. it relates to how we think about our morals of this country and of the city. we are looking forward to your attention and help. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> testifier: good afternoon. tim: gather 300 member organization and individuals of the san francisco housing action coalition would want access our strong support for gov. brown's proposal for by right housing into the density bonus streamlining we would hope the board of supervisors would support the governor's efforts on our behalf. i want to draw your attention to a remarkable letter that came out last week from a consortium of statewide affordable housing and social justice groups. it took a remarkable position of saying, we support the governor's efforts, but as with certain amendments. the amendment a pretty common subject is nothing currently difficult about them. i would imagine that's a very constructive approach to city the taken this. the plain truth, the housing affordability and displacement crises keep getting worse year after year because we lack the tools at the local level to make a difference. we badly

need the states help if we want to different future for san francisco. as governor, and the legislative analyst office recently noted, we do not have the resources to subsidize our way out of our housing predicament and until we figure out new approaches to dramatically increase housing production it does not seem likely that the displacement of logan come an increasingly middle income folks can be slowed much less stopped. and, opposing were trying to get san francisco exempted from this raises some difficult questions because if san francisco succeeds in exempted itself from the governor's proposal, many other committees across the state make similar requests. i think there's a fallback position we all agree on is, we do want more funding from the state for affordable housing and we don't have enough. the federal government is getting out of it. the state has inadequate resource. that's a good as to make to the governor, but nothing we are

doing at the local level scales to the enormity of the challenge we are facing. i would hope that you would support the governor's position. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good evening, supervisors. particularly by sisters in the back there. my name is ace i am on the case. i'm speaking from the heart and hope you hear me through your years. so many of years i'm putting the city on notice. specifically, our african-american black sisters that know about the outmigration. knowing that it's institutionalized through the then mayor newsom now lieut. gov. newsom. it was transferred then out mayor ed lee they did not do a damn thing to people who look like me. how? it wasn't in the budget. it wasn't in the budget. that was the problem that ed lee that's what they told human rights. the only problem that newsom

administrative because he was 59 dollars in the red. but now we are $5 billion in the green and you ain't got nothing for the people that look like me? [inaudible] there's a reason for sisters, legislators, who resent shakers, policymakers, listen to what i've got to say because once i go put something in writing, it's going to stop everything. sisters, in the back, come on up. how can you how could you dare be sitting up here, i been in politics that when you all were little girls. but now you women, your policymakers, you should be proud-i'm proud of you but there's something missing. legislation that prepare

something for youngsters. these other legislators are putting things together. that's what you all do. make history. let me talk to you. because the mayor doesn't care. ed lee he knows maybe we work together >> clerk: thank you mr. washington. next speaker, please. mr. washington, just for next time you appear please direct your remarks to the board as a whole, not to individual supervisors, please. >> president breed: i heard every word. thank you. >>[background speaking] >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> testifier: tom gilbert. before november's election in 2015 talk about how i was disappointed in the leadership of the democratic party and as

mr. ace said, he did nothing, the mayor did nothing for his people. he did very little for anybody when he was living in the city. corporate giveaways, real estate, profiteering, airbnb,. the right shares. you got your money, you got to have a super bowl. oddly, that's our last super bowl party. let's bury that one. then, he was running unopposed supposedly, we had a combined moment and maybe that's paying dividends because i saw in the all the printed political mail, there's an alternative slate, choice is better. the first game of the basketball finals, i was watching at my mother's house. franklin and chestnut. [after the game and the embarcadero station, riding the underground, i met a guy that came from the basketball game

and he was writing on busted with got there sooner they kind of took a richmond train instead of suing her to wait a little bit longer. i don't understand why we are changing three lines of part in every way for two lanes, four lanes of service street. it's still ridiculous. transportation and density, at this part does not make sense. voting today, independence. one third, at least, left and the right, and they're carrying the crowds are carrying bernie and the establishment is carrying hillary. >> clerk: mr. gilbert c [inaudible] >> testifier: my time is gone to what happened there? >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. any other speakers who are interested in making public comment? seeing

none, mdm. pres. >> president breed: think. seeing no other speakers would like to make public, public comment is now closed >>[gavel] >> president breed: >> clerk: mdm. clerk with the vacuum agenda >> clerk: item 46-52 are being considered for immediate adoption. a member may object seven item and have it considered separately. >> president breed: either any supervisor weiner >> supervisor wiener: 46 and 49 >> president breed: pc no other names on the roster, on the remaining items, mdm. clerk please call the roll >> clerk: item 46-52, without 46 and 49, >> supervisor yee: aye >> supervisor avalos: aye >> president breed: aye >> supervisor campos: aye >> supervisor cohen: aye >> supervisor farrell: aye >> supervisor kim: aye >> supervisor mar: aye

>> supervisor peskin: aye >> supervisor tang: aye >> supervisor wiener: aye >> clerk: the 11 aye >> president breed: those items are approved unanimously >>[gavel] speak >> president breed: please go item 46 >> clerk: item 46 a resolution to urge the recreation parks department to dispute primary program whereby individuals can reserve open space at mission dolores park into words the recreation and park department to discontinue any such rental bargains for any grass plot about san francisco public parks. >> president breed: supervisor kim >> supervisor kim: i like to refer this item to committee. he agreed supervisor >> president breed: >> supervisor kim: has made a motion to refer to committee. >> clerk: mdm. pres. supervisor kim [inaudible] >> president breed: it will go to committee. thank you for reminding me. with that, let's get to item number 49 >> clerk: item 49, resolution

to urge the san francisco legislative delegation to mentor posed by right housing approval proposed trailer bill in recognition of san francisco's local planning tools and significant contributions to regional housing development. >> president breed: supervisor weiner >> us for this item to be pulled? >> supervisor wiener: i'm happy to defer to the author. okay. thank you mdm. pres. so, i'm distributing a amendment of the whole here. i wish i previously did provide earlier today to supervisor peskin. so, colleagues, what your view on the trailer bill that gov. brown has proposed, i think it's a good thing that our governor has begun to call the question in terms of housing in california. we are truly in a crisis, not just here in san

francisco, but throughout much of the bay area and two more and more parts of california. we are housing is exorbitantly expensive and where particularly camargo income and middle class residents are being priced out and often, squeeze out of their communities. it's unsustainable and inequitable. it's a threat to our economy and it's a threat to our environment as people are forced to move further and further away from their community and from where they work. so, this is a statewide issue. it is an issue that the state legislature and governor should be taking up and again, whatever one's view on this bill, it is good we are finally seeing a push in this case by the governor, we know there's also bills from various numbers of the legislature to address other aspects of the statewide housing prices and that is a good thing. i have-the trailer legislation, the trailer bill, as of right

by right housing, it's not perfect and there are parts of that particular bill that i don't agree with. from i read, it makes it too easy to pin it loses of demolition controls and the last thing we need is to make it easier to demolish housing particularly rent-controlled housing in san francisco. it does not allow nearly enough latitude in terms of reviewing design, architecture, urban design in general good in making sure we are getting high-quality well-designed development with good street skating. it also i think potentially could short-circuit some environmental and labor standards that are very important. however, the heart of this legislation, i think, is really about the number of units allowed under the zoning. we see far too often, i'm

talking throughout the state, situations where the zoning allows for a particular number of units and through the approval process and through community opposition, that number of units are pushed down. so i project his own 450 units, but they're only allowed to build 20 units. when that happens over and over again, as it does, we have less housing. we, at the heart of our housing crisis, is that we have grown tremendously good san francisco has grown by 200,000 people since 1980. the bay area, i believe, has grown by 2.5 million people since 1980. we have not created enough housing to keep up and the result is an explosion of housing prices. that is at the heart of the problem. this problem is not

going to go away. the bay area is projected to grow by 2 million people an additional 2 million people, between now and 24. san francisco is projected to break 1 million people by 2040. this problem is not going away, and we have to get it together in terms of housing production. affordable subsidized low market rate housing forces a crucial part of the solution. we need a legislature to help us in other communities to fund affordable housing. but that is not the total solution. in addition, we have to have more housing of all types overall. we are never ever going to solve this problem or come close to solving this problem, without a robust mix of housing creation, including subsidized low market housing but including also other forms of housing as well. the problem i have with blanket opposition to the bill is that it does not take into account the need for more housing overall. the

problem i have with the provision in the current resolution before us that asked for an exemption of any jurisdiction by if i read it correctly, where at least 25% of our overall housing production is below market rate, affordable to low income or moderate income, the problem with that is that it doesn't set any standards for what the overall housing production is. so, 25% of a small number of units might be a high percentage , but that's still a small number of units and are housing prices then continues to get worse and worse and worse. so, i don't agree also with the whereas clauses. in the resolution before us, which really frankly, i think paints and in accurate picture of where we are in san francisco. san francisco is not doing well when it comes to house. san francisco, frankly is doing poorly when it comes to housing

and the proof is in the pudding with the average rent being $3500 a month. in the last couple of years, we have accelerated housing production, and that is after many many many years of largely very very low housing production. so, it's great that for a couple of years now we've been doing better. that needs to continue, let's not pretend like were doing awesome in san francisco. so we need to be exempted from any state effort to try to improve housing policy in california. so, the amendment recognize and the whereas clauses of the gravity of the situation in terms of our housing crisis that is threatening the very fabric of our community, not just in san francisco, but elsewhere. instead of opposing the legislation or asking for an exemption from the legislation, the revised language that i'll distribute, instead, commends

the governor for stepping up to call into question but also recognizes there are flaws in this legislation and asks our state delegation to work to amend the legislation to focus it on making sure that communities are not arbitrarily reducing the number of units allowed under the zoning while keeping fully intact other areas where we want to make sure that local control is robust, including relating to urban design standards and architectural standards, regarding affordability and the affordability percentage, relating to the preservation of historic buildings, relating to the preservation of rent-controlled housing stock, to make sure this legislation does not in any way make it easier to demolish our housing stock in terms of labor controls, labor standards

including prevailing wage, and our mental standards including conformity with senate bill 375. so, i think this legislation were this resolution the medics i am proposing, will focus our efforts and instead of opposing brascan san francisco to be exempted, it will focus us on what really needs to happen at the state level which is to stop the reduction in the housing that's produced as opposed to these other issues, which should be amended out of the bill. so colleagues, have distributed this amendment i move that we adopt this amendment of the whole. >> president breed: supervisor weiner has been a motion to amend. second by supervisor farrell. supervisor peskin >> supervisor peskin:

>> has not grown by 200,000 people since 1980. the population of san francisco wasn't 600 thousand people in 1980. there is a huge amount

of turnover and replacement but disagree with that number as a matter of fact. i do understand what you are saying-what supervisor wiener is say with regards >> student the percentage number but look at the numbers in the state of california. not just as a function of percentage, but as a function of total development of units that are very low, low and all affordable units. 7 year period in loss angeles, total all affordable 7957 units between 2006 and 2013 compared to san francisco-by the way they built 46, 7640 total units. compare that with san francisco, we built 7064 all affordable units on a total of 20, 455 during that time. those are just raw numbers mpt

we have led the state. i absolutely agree with my colleague supervisor wiener there is so much more we can and should do but somebody actually has to stand up and say that the governors solution is not the right solution for san francisco county. it disadvantages san francisco county and that is precisely why senator leno is pushing perfornlance based exceptions in the trailing bill in sacramento. colleagues, i think this resolution is fine exactly the way it sits. we have used our existing tools and those tools by the way will be augmented tonight after-the polls close when a certain proposition passes, but we have been using the tools that we have to get increased amounts of affordable housing chblt that is actually what the

conditional use process affords us. by right disadvantages the city and county of san francisco. the good newicize there isn't much policy difference in the body thmpt case supervisor wiener spoke to where a property can have 30 units but the city inicists should only have 12 rsh that doesn't happen. we are all of the same policy mind. while it is true we had a global recession between 2008 and 2012, the work that the board that i served on previously did authorized the increase more dense development of 22 percent the city, everything that you is say, octaivia boulevard, rincon hill, supervisor kim's district, hunter point is rolling out. is there a lot more we have to do? absolutely, but i don't believe the trailing bill is the right

way to go and respectfully hope we can pass this resolution as is. >> thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor tang >> thank you for had comments made and i would say that first of all, there are portions of the governors trailing bill that i agree with and there are things i do not agree with so understand the reaction that is sparked and why supervisor peskins resolution is brought forth. i would like to associate myself with supervisor wieners comments and think what he is proposing is something that is fair. instead of asking for a whole sale exemption for san francisco which every other jurisdiction will ask for as well, we like to say governors office we would like amendments to adapt so we are not feeding complete local control over planning decisions in san francisco. i just don't

understand what would set apart san francisco from other jurisdictions that the governors office would allow only san francisco to have exemption from his proposal and so again, i think that what is probably better for us to do as a united front from san francisco is to say there are certain things we locally like to preserve. for example, allowing the local jurisdiction tooz have the ability to make decisions about good design, making sure that we are having policies in place that prevent us from demolishing rent controlled units, historic preservation issue squz making sure we keep a eye on that and limit demolitions and making sure we are pay attention ocertain virmtal studies and standards that we want to promote in san francisco. i think those are fair thing tooz ask for what we want for local control while not saying let's just exempt san francisco completely.

one thing supervisor peskin mentioned is there are jurisdictions throughout california where the proposal from the governor where it st. good to have this in place. i wouldteric it further and say that maybe we feel that san francisco a a whole is doing better than other jurisdictions, there are neighborhoods within and districts within san francisco that could be doing better. i think the west side for example is one of them. we talk a lot about density equity and that is something i would like to promote as much as possible while preserving our neighborhood characteristics. again, i think i agree with supervisor peskin that the governors proposal is a one size that does not fit all, i do think that what for visor wiener's amendments have brought forth are very fair and allow to continue work wg the governors office on future amendment tooz allow to retain some sort of local control over certain issues so support the amendment today mpt

. >> thank you supervisor tang. supervisor peskin i had a question for you regarding your resolution. realistically do you think especially when san francisco under state center mark leno when he tried to propose specific reforms around the ellis act for san francisco they unfortunately failed. realistically do you think there is a real chance that san francisco through this urging could receive a exemption? >> i do. >> can you explain why you think that is the case? >> because our legislative delegation is uniquely positions in sacramento by vuchue of the fact that state center leno is the chair of the appropriation committee and this traity legislation

is part the entire appropriation negotiation in sack ramento is subject of discussion in conference last thursday night where senator leno make clear his position is phil ting is the chair of budget on the asumbly side san francisco is uniquely positioned. >> thank you. supervisor peskin you had your name on the roster den? >> i just wanted to rise to remind everybody and i think this is worth noting that we are all in receipt of a letter dated yesterday from the san francisco labor counsel which is something i think we should take very seriously. yes, we received letters from the labor counsel periodically, this letter is written to express their

strong opposition to development by right proposal of governor brown's administration and think it is important because when the labor counsel does that, that is all of labor speaking. that is the building trade speaking, that is municipal employees speaking, that is the health care workers speaking and the hotels workers speaking. i think that is very very important. i also want to remind people there is not a single local housing organization that supports the trailing legislation. these are housing organizations that are dovoted to making sure that we build the maximum feasible amount of affordable housing san francisco can build whether it st. bmr or subsidized housing or public housing. not a single organization is supporting the trailing legislation and then i want to ring a note for democracy and transparency with which is unlike any other

bill that is heard by this body or heard by the legislature. this has not been the subject of public haerbings in sacramento. this isn't the subject of deliberations, this is at the very end the session and scheduled to be voted on in the next few days. i have just spoken with supervisor wiener and i think we have come up with a judicious compromise for all of you which is that, this item be continued one week. that will give supervisor wiener the opportunity to move his companion resolution forward and perhaps in the intervening week with a sufficient time we can marry those together and come up with something a consensus piece where we have boleth in front of us next tuesday. >> so, supervisor peskin, is that a motion? >> not yet. >> okay. supervisor wiener.

>> thank you very much madam president and i appreciate the comments supervisor peskin. i want to note that we have-we did see a letter from a coalition of state wide affordable housing organizations and antipoverty organizations indicating that are willing to support the trailer bill with certain amendments. so, i think that our state wide affordable housing organizations rather than having a automatic oppose, or exempt have indicated they want to work to come up with a solution so want to say that for the record. and yes, supervisor peskin is correct. he and i had a discussion and what we agreed to rather asking this go to committee, instead supervisor peskin will continue

one week. i will then introduce my amendments as a stand alone alternative resolution for next weeks agenda and supervisor peskin what i requested as part of my agreement not to send his resolution to committee was an agreement not to both resolutions will receive a up or down vote. is that correct? >> yes. >> okay, so is there a motion on the table? >> motion to continue item 49 one week. >> supervirez peskin made a motion to continue one week to june 14, 2016. seconded by supervisor cohen. colleagues can we take this without objection? the item is continued to the meeting of tuesday june 14, 2016.

madam clerk. >> will you read the in memoriams. j todays meeting is adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals. on behalf of supervisor kim for the late mrs. marry jesp on behalf of supervisor peskin sfr the late mrs. rogene ragner and on behalf of president breed for the late mrs. ammo gene [inaudible] >> thank you. madam clerk this bring tooz the end of-supervisor cohen is also a part of that in memoriam. for ema gene. that bring tooz theened of our agenda. any other items before us today? >> that concludes the business for today >> okay, good luck everybody today. looking forward to the election results after 8 o'clock. don't forget to vote. we are adjourned.

[meeting adjourned]. >> shop and dine the 49 challenges residents to do they're shopping with the 49ers of san francisco by supporting the services within the feigned we help san francisco remain unique and successful and rib rant where will you shop the shop and dine the 49 i'm e jonl i provide sweets square feet potpie and peach cobbler and i started my business this is my baby i started out of high home and he would back for friends and

coworkers they'll tell you hoa you need to open up a shop at the time he move forward book to the bayview and i thinks the t line was up i need have a shop on third street i live in bayview and i wanted to have my shop here in bayview a quality dessert shot shop in my neighborhood in any business is different everybody is inmall banishes there are homemade recess pesz and ingredients from scratch we shop local because we have someone that is here in your city or your neighborhood that is provide you with is service with quality ingredients and quality products and need to be know that person the person behind the products it is not like okay. who

>>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco budget and friends committee for wednesday, june 8, 2016. my name is mark farrell. i'm sharing this committee and i'm joined by supervisor norman yee and scott weiner and we joined by supervisor jane kim and katie tang. i want to thank sp keady sfgtv any announcements? speaker please sounds cell phones [inaudible] >> supervisor farrell: thanks very much. i'm clerk item number one >> clerk: item 1 and option to

ground these in connection with parcels at 11 1 connecticut st. >> supervisor farrell: i know in the mayor's office. >> staff: my name is kate kirkpatrick project manager at housing and can need to element. before you today is a resolution authorizing the execution and performance of a option to ground lease in connection with two adjacent parcels. located at 25th and connecticut street. these will merge the two parcels do great one 30,000 square-foot lot and lisa went to bridge housing who will construct a 72 unit portable housing building known as block text which is part of the potrero hope as a revitalization plan. the site is currently vacant and will require adobe location in order to start construction. the project is anticipated to have 75% of the units available for the location of households at

the first demolition phase of the broader potrero hope sf project number which allows the master plan phasing to achieve minimal aussie relocation. two key terms to the option to ground lease of the term and the lease and rental payment to the city and are consistent with most of the common practice in affordable housing transactions. the term of the ground lease is for 75 years with extension option for 24 years ensuring 99 years of affordable housing for households making no more than 60% ami at the site. the city will receive an annual payment of $15,000 and up to 10% of the appraised value in residual receipt payment to available cash fund. the block x option to ground ground lease is a critical first up in financing the building of the printer hope sf project. the option to ground lease will provide necessary site control to the

sponsor as it applies to the state for financing in the next couple of weeks. leveraging the state funding sources is critical for most of these local subsidy to spread as far as possible across the entire preacher hope sf site. if awarded the state funds the project be on scheduled to start construction by the end of the year. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions as is dan adams from bridge housing can be felt thank you very much. colleagues, any questions i now? will move on in public on. any wish to comment on item number one? seeing none, public comment is closed >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: think so much. colleagues, motion to move this item for? >> moved and seconded. we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> clerk: item number two when examining number 16 10 to authorize the collection and levy a special taxes within the city special tax district

2009-14 modification and improvements to privately owned buildings or real property. >> supervisor farrell: thank you. this item is sponsored by supervisor tang solo turn it over to her. >> supervisor tang: this item builds upon previous legislation that i've already submitted. basically our city at set up a special tax district previously to promote green financing and so we had actually put forth legislation to amend the special tax district so we could allow people to utilize this for accessibility improvements. so, this item before us today is really just a trailing legislation to authorize the collection and levy a special taxes within this special sustainable financing special tax district for accessibility, modifications and improvements. >> supervisor farrell: okay get colleagues any questions or comments? will open this up to public, could anyone wish to comment on item number two

quick seeing none, public comment is closed >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: >> moved and seconded. without objection >>[gavel] >> clerk: item number three what looks to appropriate three and the thousand dollars per district 7 board projects in the general city results ability and appropriating $300,000 to various the permits in order to support the district 7 participatory budgeting project in fiscal year 2015-2016 >> supervisor farrell: thanks very much at this item is sponsored by supervisor yee. will turn it over to them >> supervisor yee: this item is to appropriately $3000 from the can. as to that apartment. we will be implanted in the participatory budgeting project that were awarded on the seventh resident could participatory budgeting is a democratic and completely community driven process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of our public budget.

anyone who lives in district 7 that is 16 or older could to make proposals and vote on which ones to award. this is the third year prioritizing and implementing the pb in district 7 and actually the most successful. in total 11,000 votes were cast for all proposals. just to name a few, westport [inaudible] which is part of the schoolyard that supervisor farrell is leading. to open schoolyards will not have funding to make significant implements, including resurfacing the yard and replacing basketball meds, painting game courts, adding seating and shading, adding turf and creating a mural. then, another example through capital improvement project of ymca will have the ability to increase nutrition-based social services for seniors. another

example would be seven neighborhood associations applied to add additional events and entertainment to public spaces. that's a variety and in addition, we have a part of this funding going to safety project and some of the parties include things like title lighting on brotherhood weight. renovation of the scrabble triangle that one hands vision for pedestrians and motors at the intersection did so, colleagues, i hope you have your support on this item. see felt okay thank you supervisor jimmy. without holding up to public comment. anyone wish to comment on item number three? ms. wilson >> testifier: my name is bill wilson am i presenting sent his ipod advocates. we received 25,000 auto grant promoted by supervisor norman richards or influence 23rd part supervise

yee and everyone who's participated in this program in previous years deserves a great deal of thanks. i think it speaks very highly of supervisor yee that he's decided to continue this program allows people to the direct say in how the government spends its small part of their money. this is actually the second year we received $25,000 grant from improvements to our product and it is a caused one concern i have regarding follow-up on the completion of these projects. i urge you to approve this transfer but would respectfully ask for some kind of follow-up to assure that the money allocated to the various departments actually goes to that project. it has been over a year since we got approval to install a goal or picnic tables in a part. even though we had a contract lineup was willing to complete the project in six weeks of getting approval of the design by rpd for only $17,000, the department decided

they would make no exception the fact that the contractor was not a city vendor. so it is been 12 months with no project and more frustrating, no prospect of how long it will take before it is completed. so far, all we know is that rpd has hired a project manager but won't tell us who he or she is or how many projects are ahead of us on the to-do list. they're very concerned that as long as the money sits unused the more likely it we used for other projects were either weight by administrative cost. that is not an idle concern given rpd history at sunnyside park. thank you. >> supervisor farrell: thank you very much. anybody else was to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: nay mr. wilson make sure you contact your office we can find out who to contact.. >> supervisor farrell: motion by supervisor yee. >> moved and

seconded. we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> clerk: item number four, resolution authorizing the city and county officials to execute and file on behalf of the city and actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining state and federal financial assistance under various grant programs. >> supervisor farrell: supervisor avalos >> supervisor avalos: thank you. for many years now san francisco has been the leading the region in the urban areas strategic initiative. that's a result of disaster and set up as well after 9/11. now, it's been many years in the making and in practice and in recent years there have been many concerns about the use of quasi-funds for poor urban shield type events that lead to the multiposition of our police department. this is not something that i have seen

evidence that has happened to a great extent in san francisco but there are parts of the bay area where that has been a reality. in particular, an alameda county. in alameda county, as well, the urban shield program, which has been a program that's come out of-they have put on weapons expositions. they were actually removed from oakland i think moved to another part of alameda county could they were moved from people that didn't want to have them in oakland and the very controversial because in oakland we've seen a group much more deliberate and strong crackdown two free-speech efforts during occupied and similar destined demonstrations as a result of officer involved shootings in oakland and so we seem like a heavy use of military action

and people in the region are looking to make sure that the funds are going to be used not for militarize asian mo but for other things that can lead to help coordination, management, ways to prevent disaster, ways to increase disaster preparedness. in the past, i have also looked into how we could use the funds less for policing, but more for the coordination and collaboration of neighborhood residents to be able to be repaired on the ground in their neighborhoods for disasters. that something that actually has not happened, i think there are difficulties in how the federal government sets its guidelines for how funds can be spent. but, i think what i'm interested in seeing to do and people here from public comment, is a way we can put some language in

this resolution that would prioritize the use of dollars for risk management planning coordination, around disaster preparedness versus the further militarize of our police department in the bay area. so, i don't know-i just talked with deputy city attorney john gibner and he will be looking into how to perhaps provide a language to that extent that we can consider. i don't think you'll be available today, but will make it to the full board i do want to have that conversation. this is the best-the first place we can have it get so thank you colleagues. i just one highlight this as a concern and something that i want to see if we can have some latitude to set some priorities for how we would spend our dollars in the region. >> supervisor farrell: thank

you supervisor avalos. any other questions or comments i know? >> testifier: the legislation before you today regarding the resolution authorizing the city and county of san francisco to apply for this year's home and security grant. supervisor avalos to your question, the funds have been used for preparedness initiatives. stephen sf 72 program. it has helped fund the nurse program as well as what has been used in some cases on preparedness initiatives >> supervisor campos: that's right. i think of the best uses of the funds in our dirt program is severely underfunded to actually have a real strong neighborhood network to practice disaster preparedness and collaboration and coordination. we often have to pay for the training that they do to the

fire department in the general fund versus the true heart chili our grants. so there is not a lot of money that's on the ground in our neighborhoods doing that type of coordination and that type of capacity building of residents to be prepared around disaster preparedness and you been around in any place we had a big disaster, last one we had was in san francisco during the 1989 earthquake, it was amazing to see how many residents were taking in their own hands to protect one another having some dollars that could help make that happen more efficiently, more effectively in a more long-term would be tremendous. we don't have that. that would be great way to prioritize the funds. >> supervisor farrell: >> testifier: thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. developed acute colleagues, any questions or comments? okay. we'll move onto public commons on this item. i think i do a number of speaker cards. >>[calling names] please come forward.

everyone will have to minutes to speak and if you line up on the far side, there. >> testifier: thank you supervisor. stephen-the american friends service committee here in san francisco. we have a youth program with oakland high school students who come over here and organize around different issues. when we asked them how many had experienced swat raids in their homes four of them came forward. two of them have actually recorded their experiences, which is online. i'm raising this because these funding has far beyond san francisco. it leads to militarize of police and other district decides san francisco. we urge the board and the subcommittee to incorporate language that is

forthcoming that will call for the funding 12 priorities respond to natural disasters and emergencies. also, recovery. many of the-funding does not go to the recovery activities that should be undertaken by various jurisdictions. i think i'll stop there. thank you. speak up next speaker, please. >> testifier: hi. my name is-air resource and organizing center and the number of the stop [inaudible] we are considering a resolution that allow the city and county of san francisco to take action necessary for the fiscal year 2016 grants. we strongly urge the board to incorporate language that stipulates emergency response. if you guys don't already know, we are part of the stop urban shield coalition under several dozen organizations throughout the bay area and is a statewide mobilization happening this year against urban shield and it involves san francisco directly. san francisco agencies participate in urban shield training every single year including the san francisco bart district san

francisco county sheriff's department, san francisco fire department, san francisco police department, san francisco , and a bomb squad and the san francisco puc watershed. there's been a lot of growing distrust of urban shield and a policing more generally in northern california and in the bay area in urban shield only further creates that sort of distress in san francisco can we urge you that you look at this funny to be used primarily for activities and language in the resolution that's because these activities are working towards natural disasters. since 2012, of the 12 urban shield simulation exercise that were held right here in san francisco, all 12 involved a mock terrorist attack or hostage situation did not one exercise involved anything having to do with public health and safety training for fire, flood, earthquake and other natural disasters. we see a serious popular and we urge you to put money where it should

go. thank you. >> supervisor campos: we did have an outbreak was done here in the civic center and i look like there was that type of emergency preparedness activity but it was just a hollywood film. >> testifier: my name is molly and him with the number of the south urban shield coalition at the bay area san francisco bay area receives millions of dollars each year from the bay area urban security initiative. the primary source of funding urban shield. while the initiative charges to prevent to protect this onto and recover from terrorism, the-acknowledges many the capacity which support terrorism preparedness simultaneously supports preparedness for other hazardous including natural disasters and other major incidents. stipulates the funds may be used for other preparedness activities. so as long as those activities could shore up antiterrorism capacities alameda county applies and has its funding allocated to the san francisco

fiscal s sponsorship could alameda fiscal year 2015 proposal included $4 million to enhance homeland security exercises coming evacuations, and training programs should urban shield, yellow command, and similar urban shield both of related activities. by contrast alameda county did not request any funding for planning and risk management medical and public health. emergency planning and community preparedness or recovery. these constitute 50% of the bay area on and security goals and those most closely allied with the community health and well-being. the urge strongly the board to incorporate language in the resolution that any proposal requiring swat, pleasing collaboration weapon use purchase exercise or training be brought before brought

before the full board of supervisors prior to approval. thank you >> supervisor farrell: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good afternoon supervisors. my name is mohammed with cocoa resistance and stop urban shield coalition. just so you have a sense be to compare all these things about what urban shield is, just to have a sense of what it is, it's a annual swat training and weapons expo that happens every year post by alameda county just to give you an idea of the kind of swat training and expo it is, at the expo, last year, it was a t-shirt that was purportedly the most popular item for police officers. it was a t-shirt that said, black rifles of matter. so this really shows the extent to which this urban shield is a vehicle and a engine for the militarize asian of police broken actual tools and technology as well as

mentality. one of the things that we've been highlighted as my colleagues spoke earlier, is the alternatives that could be funded with this kind of money. because, urban shield-funding is billed as disaster preparedness and emergency response. what is been used for now when a ghost will urban shield is the military a police what can be used for is actual disaster and emergency preparedness for the things mentioned such as fire, aquatic disasters, floods, earthquakes etc. these are the things were being told its use for when actually the money is being used to pay for trainings that involve painting people as terrorists, and first what trainings as we've seen swat raids are rising in oakland against people of color, particularly black and latino communities, so we urge you to use this money in scrolling

widget here that urges that this money goes for disaster and emergency response and not the militarize asian a policing that we seen the effects of one we have crises around police involved incidents. thank you. >> supervisor farrell: thank you. many of the members of the public wish to comment right now? seeing none, public comment is closed >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: >> supervisor campos: thank you for having me here today could i've asked deputy city attorney john gibner is there a way that we can amend this resolution and prioritize disaster and emergency response versus militarize asian and do urban shield type programs. when it comes before to the bowl full board will work out some ways we can amend account language we can add. >> supervisor farrell: okay. thank you supervisor avalos. i look forward to that discussion. and language good with that, colleagues from data motion to send this item to the full board?

>> supervisor kim: all make a motion with the understanding there's more discussion >> supervisor farrell: without objection we can take it. >>[gavel] >> clerk: item number five the office of contract administration to enter into a contract not to exceed $12 per initial to commence following board of will. i number six resolution authorizing the office of contract administration to enter into a contract agreement for an amount not to exceed $12 per initial three-year term to commence following board approval. on that item number seven resolution authorizing the opposite contract administration to into a contract agreement between the city and softnet solutions for an amount not to exceed 12 a dollars per initial three-year term to commence following board approval. item number eight resolution authorizing the opposite contract administration to enter into a

contract agreement between the city and united layer burn amount not to exceed $12 per initial three-year term to commence following board approval. item number nine, resolution authorizing the officer contacted the station to enter into second amendment to the contract agreement between the city and county computer land of silicon valley. not to exceed 44 min dollars through september 30. item number 10 resolution authorizing the opposite of contract admission she went into the second amendment city contract agreement between the city and endpoint technology sales to increase the contract with its two $50 million further. period of october 1 -september 30 27. item number 11 the first amendment to the

contract agreement between the city and innovation system technologies to increase the contract limit two $59 for the pure period october 1 through september 30, 2017. item number 12, resolution authorizing the opposite contract administration to enter into the second amendment to the contract agreement between the city and county of extech jv to increase the contract to increase $6 million for the october 1, 2014 through september 30, 2017. >> supervisor farrell: thank you. mdm. clerk appreciate. with that data volunteer, contact administration office? >> staff: good afternoon supervisors. jackie found with the opposite contract administration. i'm here today to request approval of eight resolutions relating to the technology marketplace contracts good i'm requesting 4 min. to increase the contract amounts of four tier 1 generalist contract that are approaching their contract cap did i am also requesting that the board approved for new specials contracts that were identified

through an additional competitive process. i like to briefly provide you some context for these request. the initial rfp was issued on september 27 2013 for multiple as needed contracts in various contract tears. proposals were demonstrating their qualifications. vendors selected to this competitive process were approved by board resolution number 362-114. all contract started on october 1, 2014 with an initial term of three years. the contracts established a prequalified coworker of vendors which requisitions of the it products and services could be bid. as a as of march 31 2016, the city has spent over $93 million with a 29 contract vendors. the

initial rfp provides additional vendors could be added later based on subsequent competitive process. our goals were to increase vendor diversity in opportunities for participation for lv vendors. we wanted to broaden vendor outreach and competition, increase service levels and provide greater access to specialized it expertise. finally, to achieve best value for the city's investment in technology. the first four items before you offer contract amendment to increase the contract cap for on point technologies, good the present contract is $25 million and the proposed contract cap is $50 million. so, if you'll

note all these numbers are based on the fact that in march we were halfway through the contract term, and through bidding within the store we had spent that much amount. so, the proposed amount is based on the average spent. for computer land of silicon valley, we are proposing that the contract cap be increased to $44 million, and for extech joint venture, we are proposing that a contract cap be raised to $56 million and four inner vision systems, we are proposing the contract cap be raised to $15 million. these are capped. i like to remind the supervisors in that they will be subject to bidding within the store as well as appropriation as you approve the budgets going

forward. >> supervisor farrell: thank you very much. colleagues from any questions before budget analyst speak with mr. rose, continue with your reports, please. the staff mr. chairman and members of the committee regarding items five, six, seven and eight on page 4 of our report, we note under the proposed for contracts city department can purchase technology products and services through the technology marketplace and an as needed basis of two and not to exceed the amount of $12 for each contract and is a department just stated, all monies to purchase technology products and services are subject to appropriation approval by the board of supervisors. we recommend you approve the proposed resident resolutions. regarding items nine, 10, 11 and 12 on page 7 of our reports

before existing technology market context of a combined total not to exceed the amount of $107 million for the three-year term. that's from october 1, 2014 through december 30, 2014-2017 and that shown in table 1 on page 7 of our report. going the first 18 months of the contracts from october 14 through march 2016 city departments encumbered approximate 77% were about $82.8 million of the total combined contracts not to exceed the amount of $107 million. they project the seven spending over the main 18 months of the project of the contract, resulting in total contract expenditures approximately $165 or in increased total increase of $50 million that shown in table 2 on page 7 of our report. again, we would note all expenditures under these contractors is subject to appropriation approval of the board of supervisors. we recommend that you approve the proposed resolutions. speak out thank you very much mr. rose. colleagues to many questions?

we will move onto public, could anybody wish to comment on items five through 12? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: colleagues, questions or comments motion by supervisor tang. >> moved and seconded. we can take that without objective >>[gavel] >> clerk: item number 13, charter amendment to amend the charter of the city to transfer responsibility for the maintenance of street trees to the city and establish a special front primary two papers or to maintenance the minutes of trees on san francisco unified school district property. >> supervisor farrell: thank you. this item was sponsored by supervisor weiner so we will turn it over to them >> supervisor wiener: thank you. thank you for scheduling this important item today. colleagues, four years

certainly since i've been on the board, i know for years before that, we have had many discussions in the body about the absolutely terrible approach that san francisco takes to the maintenance of our 105,000 street trees. we think it our of our districts have constituents are just shocked and appalled that the city takes the irrational approach that you are a property were and are responsible for the tree adjacent to your property, whether or not you planted the tree, whether not you want the tree, whether or not you any idea how to take care of that tree, whether or not you have any money, whether not you have the physical ability to take care of the tree, whether the tree is 5 feet tall or 50 feet tall. whether it's one tree or whether it's 30 trees. that you did not plant and do not own. you are responsible to the tree. you are responsible to the sidewalk that the tree breaks. you are responsible for any liability that results from anyone entering themselves.

it's absolutely a horrible policy. for a long time, the city had gradually turned over responsibility to street trees to property owners, about 70% of the street trees were the responsibility of property owners could 30% were maintained by the city. about six years ago the city begin the process of relinquishing were turning over responsibility for the remaining 30%. that process has been ongoing and caused considerable concern in the community and we been working for a number of years out with friends of the urban forest to come up with a solution with the city would take responsibly for all of the street trees. and, where we would establish dedicated lockbox funding to make sure the city has the resources it needs to actually take care of those trees. what we have learned over probably almost 40 years is that trees do not fare well in the budget.

so, simply having the city take back trees would probably result in dramatic underfunding, of street tree maintenance and we would simply see our urban forest continued to deteriorate as the number of trees decline as trees die. we know that our urban forest please are critical role in our city on the environment, quality of life in our neighborhoods and on so many other things, so many other aspects of living in a great urban environments. we need more trees in san francisco, not less. we need healthier trees, not more sick trees when he to have a rational approach to take care of the trees. after years of work with friends of the urban forest and numerous other stakeholders as well as our planning department, on the urban before us mastered the plan and department of public works, we introduce the item before us today could this item will fix the problem. once and for all.

it's not a half solution it it will fix the problem and do so by doing two things. first, the legislation requires the city to take back all 105,000 street trees for maintenance, for fixing of the sidewalk, and also to assume liability. the only exception being if a property owner explicitly requests and enters an agreement to care for the tree because there are some property owners that you want to continue to take care of the trees. then, in order to make sure that we have the funding the legislation creates a dedicated fund to--that will be sufficient for the city to take care of not just the 105,000 street trees that we have today, but to take care of up to 150,000 trees which would then give us an opportunity to expand our streetscape scape population by 50% over a period of years and to have the resources to take care of those

trees and the sidewalks and assume liability. the funds will be funded in two ways. first, it sets a baseline in place, which is the average of what of the inadequate amount san francisco has spent over the last 10 years. we have-the city spending on street trees has ranged over last 10 years from about $6 million to about $10 million so that this sets aside the average. about $8 million a year. then, creates a modest and progressive parcel tax where overwhelmingly property owners will pay about $35 a year, the condo owner will pay 29.50. a single typical single-family home or small permanent building will pay about $35. larger buildings will pay more and large commercial buildings will pay significantly more good so it is a progressive parcel tax. the parcel tax is conditioned

on the city of assuming responsibility for the trees, the sidewalks and liability. if the city once again start stumping street tree responsibility on property owners in the future the parcel tax will be canceled. so, this legislation by having this two-part approach, using what were already spending in general funds for the parcel tax doesn't just become replacement money, and then augmenting the amount with this modest parcel tax we can actually fix this problem. so, colleagues, i ask for your support. i do have a amendment today where we would cap the parcel tax at $5000 and that's for large, larger properties, and i typically some of the large commercial buildings are paying 1000-$3000 range. we thought it was appropriate to

put an upper cap and then we will continue it in committee today. we do have to go through the rules committee as well so after to budget hearings will go tools for more amendment. so we'll probably end up having three or four hearings on this due to some quirks in our board of supervisors committee rules. so, i see supervisor avalos wants to make remarks. when he's done we do of several departmental presentations will call them up after supervisor avalos speak out thank you. supervisor avalos >> supervisor avalos: i just want to thank supervisor weiner for coming forward with this idea. relinquishment, which i can i believe in 2009-2010, those years where we had a $500 million budget deficit two years in a row, was a terrible idea. terrible terrible idea. it disproportionately affected

single-family homeowners who had less income than other people in san francisco. if you look at the southern part of san francisco, that's the area that really felt it hard on especially on the pocketbooks. if you look in parts of district 11 we've had a real struggle with growing her been forest it's one of our climate action plans to grow our urban forest. about 40%. and we are actually be planted with the support of friends of the urban forest we planted hundreds and hundreds of trees in district 11 and especially in the-we also lost a lot of trees because of property owners no longer want to be in the tree carrying business and a lot of that happens in the darkness of night. trees are removed and so we have a lot of streets that look pretty denuded. any kind of foliage that is unfortunate

to see. so, looking forward to seeing,-having a take back responsibility to the city of maintenance of trees so we can actually have the ability to grow our urban forest. i look at this chart of amendment as a step in the right direction. i also have a charter amendment as well. very similarly, that is associated with a tax on non-renewable sources of energy. electricity and natural gas. that measure was introduced last year and yesterday i submitted a amendment as a whole which makes that a general tax. that carbon tax will bring in $18 million a year that could go down as well as people are moving from nonrenewable to renewable energy sources. so,

it's very different from the parcel tax. but for me, it's really important to look at we look at a carbon tax moving forward so the carbon tax will also create that incentive for people to move to our clean power as a program, to move to renewable sources of energy. you combine a carbon tax that has that incentive with trees that actually help to remove carbon out of the atmosphere to work great in a holistic program of doing our part in moving carbon out of our atmosphere. in san francisco. so, i am open to this measure.. i also want to make sure that we are very responsive or responsible on how we move revenue measures to the ballot. there's a number of measures that are coming forward this is sales tax. there's a parcel tax on the board of trustees of city college. i believe i'm hearing words of a bond for the school district. there's a mansion

tax. there's other things that are happening that i think we should consider altogether so we as a board can decide what's the best way to move forward on how we are going to apply taxes to shore up our city responsibilities. so, look for to the conversation and i just want to make sure having a discussion not just in one particular tax, but all them together to find out what's the best assortment of measures that will go on about. >> supervisor farrell: thank you supervisor avalos. supervisor tang >> supervisor tang: i appreciate supervisor avalos comments and i also know this parcel tax has been but for many many years now. either way, i agree with the comments made that was horrible for the city to plant all these trees, palms were not going to relinquish them and we did just that. so, whatever form this eventually takes i am very interested in seeing something happen so that our property

owners can no longer have to accept the responsibility of all the trees that they were, again once promised would not be the responsibility. supervisor weiner had mentioned a amendment regarding a cap for the parcel tax of $5000 for large buildings. what you mean exactly by large buildings >> supervisor wiener: thank you. the reason-i should as we talked about why this is a progressive parcel tax. the parcel tax is calculated using linear frontage on the street. so the more frontage you have within certain categories, the higher your tax. again, the vast majority of single-family homes small apartment buildings that the standard i think 25 foot frontage_debate typically 35 dollars. for commercial printing large building with its residential or commercial, event a really big frontage, they're going to pay more. so, that's how-and that's why today commercial buildings, for

example were like eight [inaudible] were some big big properties, and the pain significantly more. you could say the sky is the limit but we thought it was appropriate to put a pretty-i don't know be liberal or conservative but whatever the right word is, a cap that captures the world warming majority. even the big commercial buildings from i think don't even-it's very rare properties file in there but there are a few that do and i think there should be a cap. >> supervisor tang: thank you. okay. lastly, i just want to really think friends of the urban forest through all the work throughout our city is an amazing part is what i think the city has been lacking terms of whether it's growing our city's urban canopy where maintenance. advocacy, getting

people engaged and educated about how it is we care for our trees. i just want to thank you for that. the visor yee >> supervisor yee: thank you. i want to thank-actually i want to thank both supervisors weiner and avalos for coming forward with these ideas on how we would be able to find the caring of trees by the city. one of the things that i agree with supervisor tang about is that we really needed to keep our word and have the city secure these trees that we had promise and we know things were happening while i was coming, almost coming into to be a member of the board four years ago. i thought was a bad idea at the time. especially, when i was able to talk to so many people on the streets and in particular, those that are on fixed me