the local c dr. your and income are more likely to live reside in the submarket and tenderloin predominately female and the most among likely to be in deep poverty. given what we know our city needs the capacity to adequately provide for services for these populations. that is bring back dignity to aging and let us support the charter amendment astonish the dignity fund. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisor. my name is fiona hensley. the community organizer independent human resource center. i am here to support, strongly support the fund to our organization is here to support the dignity fund. the mission of our organization is to ensure that consumers have the resources available to age with

dignity. in the least restrictive environment as possible. this often means having home care in their homes so that they don't have to go out to nursing homes, which the dignity fund could help support and fund programs such as these. what the fund does is give people with disabilities a seat at the table and a permanent i'm a more permanent source of funding so that we don't have to always worry as much about having to go to the supervisors every budget cycle and worry about if our priorities will be funded. please, again, we urge you to send this through to the

full board with positive recommendation and we urge that you support our seniors and be with disability aging with dignity in the community. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> this is the [inaudible] of justice actually performing good deeds. [inaudible] having a population of that disadvantaged,, seniors and people with disabilities. what a great thing to get there must be supported this amendment. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public that was to comment to the board fees come for. seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> supervisor yee thank you for being patient. >> first of all, i want to thank the public for coming out and supporting this very important piece of legislation but can go forward to the

ballot hopefully. one of the things that i've noticed since coming here on the board of supervisors is the lack of services for seniors and it really started with my own district when i realize, all my god, we have about twentysomething thousand seniors and we have one service provider in the whole district. that was when i started and having more discussions about what is going on in the city. i'm familiar with certain organizations that provide excellent services to seniors and the more i got into it the more i realized a reflection of my own personal life of how i had to see my parents and my relatives go through their lifecycle and me being a

primary caregiver was made everything very real in terms of the needs that are not the same as people go through their lifecycle. whether we are really talking about people that are moving from mobile to being immobile or people living in independent with these situations to assisted living situations there's a range of things so it's more complicated than most people realize. it's not really involved with this and then when you look at the budgeting that we have for the types of services we do have for-it's a limited when the dignity fund advocates came to my office many many moons ago, i jumped

on the same st. seeing, yes, i would be supportive of this notion. i think it is necessary and that this put our heads together to figure out how to move forward. so, in concept very happy that we are at where we are. the advocates seem to be supportive of the final product here. i want to be supportive also because it's so important that we do this. so, i do have a question, though, the supervisor cohen because this is something that-this is the issue we sort of mentioned to each other last night, but i want to make this a public statement that when it comes to sort out the balance of power and i have to say had the same

discussion with the mayor's office with a children's fund two years ago which who was supposed to be making these appointments for whether it's a tack were commission or so forth. i said, welcome i think the mayor's office should have the majority but i think the board of supervisors should also have some authority and some should be able to weigh in . in other words those important thing for me personally as you will see the next item. so my question really supervisor cohen, what was the mayor's thinking in this? in thinking that he had to have all the appointments for the commission? >> actually if i may through the chicken wasn't so much mayor's thinking it's really taking the lead from the community. split up once i

think what you're specifically talking about on the commission just not one of the top priorities of the commission and coalition the top. priority for the coalition is to ensure we get the absolute greatest amount of revenue on the resources available that out there. and keeping the funding levels high. so that is what we focused on. that is what was the driving point of the of the negotiation that brought us to where we are today. one more thing i just want to add is that it actually-it would be my personal preference to see the split commission appointments, actually. gently from a policy perspective i'm very supportive of that. but during the discussion with the many coalition, the mayor's office, the comptroller the mold all the different entities the

biggest i read was that to develop a measure can be supportive and get the best and greatest amount of broad-based support metal we have put forth today. >> i should've let off by saying supervisor cohen, i appreciate your work on this. and taking the lead and was always there to be supportive. i am disappointed with that decision. i just want to-it's something that i don't want to pretend is okay. at the same time, one respect the advocates. if that's the top priority but i think to me, i think they made a mistake. they should never relinquish that because it might be fine for a year or two and then further down the line when things don't

work out the way they think it should work out then they come to us as supervisors and say, well, go do something about it we don't have any appointments. i think in the long run it might come to bite us in the behind. but i'm glad that you were able to get as much as you could for the seniors. i fully support that piece of it. so, >> thank you. i appreciate you and supervisor, supporters in seeing the big picture. as you know, right now this community is zero dollars. and no-i should not say zero. that doesn't really adequately reflected that to fight every year. i think you heard kathy davis in her remarks but they fight every year to get funded what were doing quite honestly is building a movement a momentum we have gained a lot of momentum the work and it continue to bring this measure forward to voters. to stand up

for ourselves and to be acknowledged. this incredible population that needs everyone at the table to be a champion for them. the beautiful thing about legislation is also its fluid and dynamic so much like their split opponents been proposed for mta and its use in the future if that becomes pressing and that's a need we need to address then it is incumbent upon his future body to move in that direction. i think important that we are creating a drafting legislation that is reflective of what we are listening and hearing from the neighborhood and from constituencies. and what i heard was a longing, a strong impassioned desire for a dedicated funding a dedicated phone. also, i want to say this. during the negotiation period, what i heard also those most resounding from a lot of

people with the nervousness around the set-aside. we been really diligent trying to relax people, my colleague steers around another set aside. for several commented about. this tack measures committed about. i really felt it was important that we are aggressive with the set-aside in the baseline level and yes, granted were not able to legislation does not take care of all the wonderful things not a panacea. but frankly you listen to the advocates painlessly with not enough money. they want more. but i believe this is the strongest measure am going to be bringing to voters that allows me to get colleague support. i think it's absolutely critical. not only do members of the board of supervisors supportive of this, but we also the mayor's office and we will see when new view other ballot initiatives they not see that same unanimous support. i think the unanimous support is really important to communicate to voters; porn this measure is. >> can i just finish off >> yes. supervisor yee >> okay. i think i made my

point. i want to move forward and at some of the advocates no authority started this process of supporting the dignity fund month ago when i wrote an editorial around that in a local newspaper. i don't want to be the person that's going to keep this from moving forward, but it is important to express what i did. by the way, supervisor cohen i think several times i've been listening listed as a co-author and in this latest my name got dropped. can you please put me back on as one of the co-authors? so, i am hopefully we will send this out with a positive recommendation today. i am ready to will my sleeves

with advocates to get this passed in november. >> thank you. just to clarify also supervisor yee ui wizard is cosponsoring the agenda. now going to kick it over to our comptroller's office quickly. just to give us an update on the costing letter >> one moment. >> well amended notice supervisor mar, real quick first. >> overthink supervisor yee for raising the issue ensuring the performance which i agree with. i'm deferring to supervisor cohen's effort to build a big tent and basically consensus around a historic piece of legislation that allowed voters to the strong say. but i want to say what others whose name appears as our 11 supervisors on it, it belongs to the grassroots coalition of seniors, the dignity fund coalition. i remember some spell have not spoken today but i think it

reflects the amazing humility, leadership, and perhaps empowerment that they are bringing to san francisco by putting this on the ballot i want to say i've never 2015 version of the legislation. it's come a long way and i really appreciate everyone putting their heads together including the mayor's office, steve, kate howard, shoring mcfadden, then rosenfield, our comptroller comptroller, all reports from aj and the long-term care: nadine council, the meetings, the long ones, but i want is him excited from margate but for the revolutionary idea of the set-aside for children and families in the early 90s woman

now extending this is a senior population booms as others have stated, this is about our future. is about moving forward the culture dignity and compassion for people as we age. i'm a baby owner aging into my senior years. so it's not just about the existing seniors with huge needs but it's also about the future from the data i see san francisco by 2050 would be 40% seniors and people disabilities if the projections continue the addition of about 100,000 more seniors made them isolated and many in poverty without housing options. this will be one key piece of dedicated funding that helps but i know we have to do more to create that culture of compassion and dignity. i will just say that i-national domestic workers alliance to have a future where we care for our seniors and people with disabilities it enriches our whole community and lives to people age in place and i think this is a key part of san francisco not only putting a dedicated fund but creating a

different culture of compassion and caring and empathy as people age to see them as valuable numbers of the community that should stay in the community as long as possible. i applaud paris jopling's anymore and all dignity fund coalition and thanks to her building and ramona davies for cochairing a large very diverse grouping of organizations determine the space of members among them and i know we will make history in november like the children's fund that in the early 90s will have a better future for seniors and people with disabilities with dignity and empathy for all. thank you >> thank you very much. now back to our comptroller's office >>'s and comptroller's office that we filed our comptroller's office costing letter for the amendment in the hearing today. the second type. the have been

in the discussion relating to third draft minutes. i prefer to wait until it's this item is continued for the next hearing is to give our costing estimate >> okay. thank you. supervisor cohen >> but go to public comment >> we did that already. >> we did that >> we did i do have closing remarks. >> okay stupid >> i wanted join supervisor mar in thinking the commission. were being and just ashley and those folks i don't have my nose every coalition partner pushes the point been instruments of making this happen. these committee leaders that push all this toolbar sleeves by supervisor yee just alluded. as you get this passed and father be easy. it's can be worked but was on the phone lines that are not tireless advocates my work is nothing but a complement to work you do day in and day out. also think that comptroller's office as well as dos mayor's office of budget for working with us on modeling numerous

many many many many proposals ensuring we are getting the list of eligible services correct and again, supervisor mar and yee activities sponsored. i think this is whether wiping height and responsible for the commute. i think make a motion to adopt the amendment circulated and that we continue this item for one more week to the next rules meeting one final reading. >> okay. i believe that would be july 7 given your offices request >> correct >> supervisor cohen has made the motion to amend and continue. moved and seconded. will take that without objection >>[gavel] >> thank you. if we can call animal five now >> item 5, >>[reading code] >>altered over to the star of the moment supervisor cohen

>> i'm excited about this one because this initiative is more than just changing the name of a department. a few weeks ago proposition d past about and has with over 80% of the voters in favor of a. this measure as we know required the opposite citizens complained to investigate all officer involved shootings. in speaking with residents that proposition d what i heard loudly and clearly was that it didn't go further, far enough to want something with more teeth something with more substance they think that they are put. i believe that people want and deserve there fighting for even greater accountability and transparency practically when you talk about law-enforcement. the police officers claimed responsibility as citizens would paralyze the city in her hands and i have consistently said many great officers that do amazing work however, when a

police officer shoots a community member was accused of violating someone's rights the community deserves to have these claims reviewed open and transparent way. and beyond a review they deserve to know what happened during the review. so, more importantly, the committee also deserves a note on a deeper level how the police department has responded. residents deserve to know the police standards for use of force in officer misconduct to ensure it matches the community values and whether the system to old officers accountable to those standards are working. mostly an oversight mechanism particularly concerns and particularly complaint driven in there against the police. however, what i believe is

that we can hold officers accountable in ways that extend far beyond individual complaints by focusing on sfpd's practices and policies that we are in the process of identifying and addressing now. particular, addressing the underlying systemic problems within sfpd before they arrive to the dysfunctional and systemic levels that we've seen in last year, last year and have. there are some very good examples proactive policing oversight that we have been implemented and embraced but also there are examples that have been neglected. this charter amendment that we are going to be discussing today, i believe, addresses the changes -and addresses changes what we are not doing. it takes the june ballot measure a significant set further at this charter minute we do the following: it removes the apartment from out of the police department budget into its own independent department.

it will give the department a new authority to perform regular auditing the police department and its handling of use of force and officer misconduct. we have learned from the blue ribbon commission that has reviewed sfpd's racist and homophobic text messages and sfpd sector over the last year that there is no regular auditing or review of the priest comment practices and policies. so, what we have done is we are paying attention and we've seen how much can go wrong when sfpd in a very short amount of time is not being with you. so, this ballot measure seeks to correct this error. the measure also allows the public to fall follow the claims of misconduct understand the justification for why claim would be either founded or unfounded that's actually critical piece. finally, though

the name doesn't necessarily derive the function of a department, this charter amendments also changes the name officer of citizens complained to the department of police accountability. it's a small change but in the spirit of being transparent we want to make sure the public is aware that there are recourses claim evidence of police. many people don't know ocii exist because the name of the department is so inconspicuous. so this is the occ from strictly being a complaint driven the permit to something that is more proactive to a department with greater independence and most importantly, auditing authority. i am very happy to welcome to the podium director joyce hicks, who is a current executive director of the office of citizen's complaint. excuse me. she is here to make

a brief presentation but before you do that i work out a number of amendment i'm going to introducing. there are three of them. first, the first one is removing the language pertaining to the creating a new baseline and a set-aside to be in line with other city departments and that is on page 11, section 16.133. 3-20 at the second amendment of added language to ensure the greatest access to police department information on allowable by law. that can be found on page 10, line 2-8 and the third amendment by way of included limits that will allow the public to track the status of the claim and this is on page 10, blind 20-22 of the legislation. mdm. hicks,

welcome and thank you for your leadership and guidance you've given to myself and my office. you been instrumental in guiding this process and also want to acknowledge john alden, new member on your staff for taking time in meeting with us last week. the floor is yours. >> thank you very much. supervisor cohen. chairperson tang. i am joyce hicks, director of the san francisco office of citizen complaints. i would like to thank you in particular supervisor cohen for your leadership on proposition d which received overwhelming support from the voters, but begged for more than this proposition is going to give that additional jurisdiction to the office of citizen complaint that is so sorely needed. as

you know, we provide independent civilian oversight of the san francisco police department. the objective of the office of citizen complaint are pursuant to the duties that are set forth in the city charter. and including protecting civil rights, ensuring police accountability to the community. conducting fair thorough and independent investigations. provided the committee with a voice about police department policy within the police commission palsy development process. as the occ has done just most recently in the development of the use of force policy. then, finally giving the public insight into the handling of complaints and behavior of our police force. since our inception in 1983, we have observed some recurring challenges and achieving those objectives. first of all, we

investigate individual claims of misconduct and when we do so we've had difficulty processing information needed to complete those investigations. we believe this strength in language in the proposed proposition[inaudible] indicated supervisor cohen when it has the word citizen in it it gives members of the public the impression they must be a citizen to file a complaint, which could not be further from the truth. third, while we do make policy recommendations pursuant to city charter section 4.127 we cannot audit overall compliance with those policies. that hinders our

ability to assess whether the policies were their enforcement requires more attention, more training, whether they in fact have been implemented properly. other communities to provide their oversight agencies audit power for this purpose and one example of that is the los angeles office of the inspector general. the charter amendment proposed by supervisor cohen strengthen the occ by clarifying and reinforcing our current world, by changing the name to the department of police accountability, improving our access to the information we need to complete that will, strengthening our ability to recommend policy changes by mandating periodic audits of officers use of force and other behaviors, and mandating our agency continue to provide the maximum transparency allowable by state

law. finally, i appreciate your attention to our work at the office of citizen complaints and your efforts to give us the tools we need to successfully complete this extremely critical mission. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. i don't see any questions so far but one could colleagues have an opportunity to address you if they needed. >> supervisor jim, any questions you do want to go to public comments on this one? >> i do want to ignore the folks in the chamber witnessing all this democracy in action. this is actually really critical to your future in san francisco some grateful you're here and you soldier through it and be able to listen to the

long discussion. i know it's been a long day. were almost done with the entire agenda. but definitely one of the land and open to public comment at this time >> have a couple of comment cards here but feel free to come on up if you like to speak on this item. >>[calling names] >> please, come on up. you have to speak in order that i called your name. >> bring the entire crew for moral support. >> for the microphone to your mouth. >> hi. my name is--i'm currently an intern at the

philip randolph institute working with their resilience youth and leadership program. i'm here because i'm in favor of restructuring of the office of citizens complaint. i understand these are small steps being taken into seeing the bigger picture, but i strongly support this cause because it's consideration for our future generation. though work of san francisco citizens must be heard. san francisco does not have an organization to monitor the police activities. as a result many innocent lives are lost. i ask you to-i ask that you should approve the restructuring of the citizens organization complaint not only for the

citizens that exist within san francisco output future citizens as well. thank you. >> great. thank you. >> hi. my name is cameron-internet resulting youth leadership academy. i speak in favor of change of the occ. this legislation gives me and my community more of a say that it would be [inaudible] complaints and office. will be able to ask what's going on. now we can file complaints and get answers we should have the right to know. and given education and understanding where our medicine how other hand. these are just taking little steps by, time in my pin. thank you for your time. >> don't be shy, max. >> there with me. supervisors,

thank you very much for hearing us. my name is kirk bynes and program manager at the randolph [inaudible] in san francisco. supervisor cohen, thank you. thank you very much for caring. caring is important. especially when it comes to lives. this past year we lost lives there no accountability. nothing. gone. it should have to take the forming of a special committee or to discuss persuade and dodge accountability. it should not. we are much much better than this. i would like to think. again supervisor cohen, thank you for caring. accountability, transparency, are just a few of

the building blocks that establish trust. trust. i trust her. i trust the board of supervisors to do the right thing. unfortunately, again, it resulted in loss of life. life to me is very precious and i like to think that the board of supervisors, it is very precious to you as well. i trust that there will be more legislation like this in the future. to establish trust in my community with the police again supervisors, i support this. i hope you do, too. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public who wish to comment on this item before us? seeing none, public comment is closed.

>>[gavel] >> thank you. i was moved by kurt rimes remarks and colleagues, i'm sure you did as well i hope you will feel confident that this charter amendment is the right direction we should be moving in as a city. i want to think director hicks again and her staff the willingness for collaboration also want to recognize public defender's office had a significant hand in helping us shape this legislation. the office of sf bar association criminal justice task force julie truong. has been into mentors was of living commission assembled by dist. atty. gascoigne. breach windows blue-ribbon commission members, their leadership and collaboration is reflected in this legislation. so, the amendment that i introduce will forces that to continue this item to the next board meeting and i think that is on july 7 and i look forward to bringing

this item to voters. thank you >> thank you. thank you for the amendment you provided. i think that this is a huge improvement to summary was already a great start. so thank you supervisor cohen. i just want to correct that i think your office as per july 6 for both items four and five. so we will make that correction but first will continue this item to july 6. so supervisor chairman has made a motion to amend. moved and seconded. will take that without objection >>[gavel] >> will continue item 5 as amended to the july 6 special rules committee meeting. then, now we are mdm. clerk him if we can go back to item 4, at least in the motion there. if we can get a motion to rescind a motion on item for? supervisor

cohen 1 seconds. you can second the motion to rescind a motion on item for? moved and seconded. >>[gavel] >> we will take that without ejection was supervised cohen. moved and seconded. to continue to the july 6 meeting. without objection >>[gavel] >> now, we are on item seven. >> item number seven >>[reading code]. >> thank you. we have our sponsor supervisor yee here. >> thank you chairman tang. in my office to groupings of cause

we frequently get our around trees and the second one being concerns about decisions that mta makes on our streets. so, -and these are coming from my constituents in district 7. this is why i am introducing this legislation to see if there is a way to actually change the dynamics so that maybe we could produce the type of complaints we get good i'm sure my office is not the only one. so i want to say that i do respect the independence of this department. but yet, the decisions are not independent from the city. there is an expectation from the public at

the board of supervisors share the burden of sf mta's decisions when we have very little to do with who sits on the board of directors. now, they are accountable and how they are accountable to the diverse community we all serve good i am proposing that the sf mta board of directors be appointed through a split process between the mayor and the board of supervisors. as we have done with many other board and commissions in the city. we will have four seats, a majority appointments made by the mayor. the three remaining appointments will be made by the board of supervisors. the process as it exists now grants the mayor sole appointing authority over the board of directors. while the charter provides the board of supervisors an opportunity to

approve and reject a mayoral appointee, the process does not provide an engaging process to recruit applicants could i think a split appointment process allows for a broader more diverse level of engagement from the public as we've seen at this very committee. we recently approved a new mayoral appointment. i want to state that this charter amendment, if passed by the voters were not preclude these individuals from being appointed again. if any sitting director has not served not more than half of their current term the term will not count towards your term limits. the other aspect of this charter amendment that i would like to is to revise the budget approval process for sf mta.

currently, the board of supervisors is unable to alter the sf mta's budget and requires seven votes for rejection. i want to bring the approval of the rejection process to be uniform with other departments, which only requires a simple majority for rejection. if the board of supervisors rejected the budget board would be required to make a set of findings that the sf mta board of directors would respond to when a revised budget is submitted. again, this is not unaccustomed and will allow for the sf mta to be held to the same level of scrutiny as other departments to come before the board during the budget season. i have to remind myself sometimes maybe my colleagues

and the public reminds me that one of the roles of the board of supervisors is fiduciary responsibility. if were going to take it seriously, we need have a little more say so. the board of directors will continue to retain the charter duties and powers to oversee the mta's and to establish this budget. i acknowledge the public's desire to have a transportation department that's independent and apolitical but i associated the city-i also hear the crying for a need for further accountability and oversight. there have been attempts in the past to change the way your points were made to alter the foreign process or add additional layers of oversight that were burdensome. i believe that this proposal before you today is not overarching, or not overreaching or irrational but it brings a fair approach

by increasing the board of supervisors engagement with the sf mta board of directors. i hope that i can count on your support to get i also want to note there some-there's a typo that we would like to correct today on page 3, line 1 third the spelling for november needs to be corrected. okay? so that's the guy finish with my comments >> okay, thank you very much. i know that there is minimal impact if any but maybe go to the comptrollers really quick on the cost letter. >> the tosha meet all controllers office. the bozos written does have a minimal impact on the cost of government. >> okay. all right, then. i think what we'll do is at this point i do have a couple of

comments i did want to make on this particular item. i don't have it continued giving your amendment. i would just say that for me personally, generally speaking there are times when i don't see anything wrong in fact it's great to have board appointments uncertain of commissions. having that ability for board members as well as the mayor's office to select members for certain commissions. i do know that in terms of our mta board of directors it can be a very politicized environment, i'm not saying we don't have other commissions that have lyrical points that are not politicized but i think that certainly something i personally would like to see avoided. i do know that we did have voter decision several years ago that ensure that we as the members of the board of supervisors would not be interfering with decisions by the mta board of directors and probably because voters recognize and certain

decision-making processes that could lead to a bad outcome for our community. so, in any case, i want to ask us my concern around this particular proposal. but i do understand in terms of the optics of having eight board appointment why you want to move this forward. at this time we have supervisor mar on the roster >> i just want to thank supervisor yee for bring this for. i know it's been a discussion for many transit improvements advocates over the years and k for mayor appointees with three board of supervisors appointees still allows the mayor to ensure systemic kind of overall approach to support mr. risk and and the staff leadership. i think by having three board of supervisors appointees it also addresses a lot of the concerns that doctors come to supervisor yee's office but our office and others. it's a good way to having checks and balances that

it's a reasonable effort to move forward so that it's a shared response organizers from the mayor's office in our mta director and his staff, but also the board of supervisors supporting that broader vision for the city is. one supporter supportive of supervisor yee's advocate under weaver bunch of other things that could potentially placed the charter measures and other measures on the ballot and michael is looking all these different things as they move forward as well but am supportive of trent supervisor yee's leadership honest >> thank you. i don't know. if director peskin wants to say anything, if you did i want to argue that opportunity? >> thank you chairman tang. members of the committee, supervisor yee, ed w and director of cancer did. i came and partly for item 8 good i know you had a long day already

today. but i guess i would've given the opportunity just make a few observations. the first, just purely the putting the substance and the merits aside for a minute, item 8 which will be hearing next week on in another charter amendment that would impact the transportation system has been developed as a consensus measure. i hope it will be moving to the full board and to the ballot as a consensus measure. whereas, this one based on what i understand, based on the voters previous rejection of a measure that i think was less far-reaching done this in 2005 but along the same lines, by nearly a two thirds margin suggests that this should not move to the ballot would be somewhat of a divisive measure. my biggest fear, the merits of this aside, is the presence of this on what looks to be a very crowded ballot alongside what i hope will be a consensus measure on transportation funding will

compromise the likelihood of the latter succeeding. so, purely from a timing and process standpoint i would urge you to consider that as you deliberate on this measure. in terms of the substance of the measure, what i would say is for my standpoint first of all we already have split appointments and that the board nominates but the mayor nominates and the board confirms and nobody can get to the mta board without being confirmed by the board of supervisors never leave those confirmations come through this very committee. with regard to the impact when the influence of the board of supervisors on the mta board and the decisions of the mta, i would say first of all, i don't believe that i've ever heard in my nearly five-year tenure of the time

when an mta board member was not responsive to a member of the board of supervisors were actions of the board of supervisors as a whole regardless of who nominated them to sit on the mta board.. i don't think that i have brought to my board for a decision any major project that has been opposed by a member of the board of supervisors in his district that project resided. it's been a principal of mine that us members of the board of supervisors are the elected representatives the people in your district and it would be not responsible of me to bring something to my board for their consideration that you oppose. so we worked very hard to work with your offices, even on objects that are very controversial and about that what i will say is that as we are striving to implement your-this bodies transit first

policy, this bodies climate change policy and other policies of the city were to come from the board of supervisors, it will require change in the way we design and manage and operate our transportation system. some and that change will bring controversy regardless of who appoints people to the mta board . in terms of fiduciary responsibility i think we been extraordinarily responsible. i believe that our reserves are higher than the cities. unlike the city general fund, we don't use them for ongoing expenses when we have excess reserves only for one time uses so i think in terms of fiscal responsibility, which i am a big the border of, and i think it is important response ability, i think we do that. with regard to the fix going from seven votes to an

objective six and i think is the chair said, that was something that think was very deliberately done by the voters so that in times like these, as we often have, where we have a board of supervisors is split 6-5 on many issues, it takes working across the board of supervisors to actually reject it budget, which is a pretty significant step. i think the voters intended for the mta budget to be very much treated differently than the other city budgets. i think it was good reason for that and i think a lot of what we been able to accomplish in the last five years if not before has been reflective of that. so, i certainly respect the concerns of supervisor yee indicate. i

know that mta issues like tree issues and some others in your district are very prominent issues. just our schools. was the board of supervisors doesn't control, but still, the people who live in your districts and i live in your district, are very much concerned about all these issues whether regardless of whether who appoints whom. that's all to say regardless of what the board decides will continue to work with the board in the way i always have. i believe my board will do the same but back to the process come i would strongly urge your consideration about the timing and potential impact of placing this measure on the same ballot when we might be asking voters to make a pretty big step with regard to the next item we will be discussed to appreciate the opportunity to address you. >> thank you. do you want to open up to public comment supervisor yee >> sure. >> all right. i decide to speaker cards but if you like

to speak on items seven, please come on up. >>[calling names] >> george haslett. >> thank you supervisor yee. i'm here in strong strength in support of the charter amendment. the mta is out of control as evidenced in ongoing issues on mission and potential issues on van ness, jerry, geneva masonic related to its immunity for positive eyes lingered to the sponsors letter provision to assume whatever authority the mta board has to pass ordinance and resolution of ordinance and resolutions are better reserved for elected bodies other than unelected bodies. i like to follow up on a comment made by dir. luskin about 2005. 2005, between 2005 and now, is different. thank you >> thank you limited any other

members of the public was to comment on items seven? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> supervisor yee >> thank you. i do appreciate director redskins luskin's perspective could have taken it into consideration. in regards to annuity on tuesdays that in regards to the voters desires, were always connected respect that. we should be respecting that. but things change. that's what we conflict with things on the ballot, to see if nothing else, to see if the attitudes have changed or not. so, because it was voted on before doesn't mean it should not be that voters should not have an opportunity to look at it again. and, in regards to the current

am not pointing this forward because of current directors did i don't want anybody in the public to think that some issue that i'm having with particular directors or so forth for me it's more of if people are concerned that certain things in the department this is constantly happening. so what do we do to change the dynamics may change the results. i'm always searching for answers. maybe this is not for me. this is one way to change it. but certainly not the only way to more than happy to sit down with the director or any mr. ruskin or any of the board of directors to continue that discussion. >> thank you supervisor cohen has a question >> i have a question to you supervisor yee about the

legislation and the second clause. of the legislation. the sfmta eight-i guess it's the changing from seven votes to six votes in order to reject the sfmta is proposed budget. can you talk to me talking to a little bit of your rationale? >> again, i been here long enough to realize the majority most all the time of the departments whether not they have a way to have a say so. has been consistently for six votes. to me, it has worked. for me, i'm just looking at this issue, well, if it's working for our budget process for the other departments it should work for this department. just trying to keep it consistent >> you know were understand why was it put at seven like a higher threshold? >> i don't because the dynamics didn't need. [inaudible]

discussions people were wanted to make this a apolitical body of some sort. to be truthful, there's no such thing as an apolitical body in the city. either way you do it it's going to be political. we have to minimize it, of course and i think seven was, again, not knowing what actually was the discussion at the time-i was not here-was to make it more difficult for a this body to have influence on it. >> i see. i'm to propose the same question the deputy city attorney. perhaps, there is some insight that you might be able to offer as to why open the legislation was originally written it was seven votes as opposed to when six is what we are consistent employee? >> deputy city attorney john gibner. i wasn't advising the

board at the time the minor standing essentially is what supervisor yee said. the charter amendment was designed to take power from the board of supervisors and give it to the mta with some independent authority and exclusive powers. and to give the board minimal ability to meddle with the budget. >> all right. so supervisor yee you're looking to empower the board to metal? is that which are looking to do, buddy? >> maybe my words would be a little too bit different but, yes >>[laughing] >> all right. i'm all for meddling. >> part of me is responding to my constituents and saying, well what even a do about it. why do you change it. so, this

is one way to look at it. certainly, i don't think the relationship to myself and mr. ruskin would change. i was availability to over he's been very good about responding when i do ask for a meeting. >> i agree. director ruskin is incredibly responsive and so was dylan on his staff. one more question about the sfmta is budget. the way it stands right now, we don't have the board of supervisors doesn't have the authority to reject certain line items of the mtas budget, correct? is just another down vote >> right. i actually had considered be changing that and my thought process-i would keep this as simple as possible, to complicate things. i'm just going after two things, which is

believed to change the-to have a split appointment process and that we keep the budget vote consistent with the other departments. >> certainly, i can understand that and respect that. i know there's certainly been moments when i reviewed the mta budget whether certain things i believe should not be in there or should be reevaluated -content and ruskin i do know he's in the air but there some change could i wish we did have that authority. perhaps it is better so that we are not meddling and so, thank you. >> i think it was for me to have some semblance of what the voters had desired when they voted on it and so this is this gives us not to the complete of 40 out would like to see, but

if there are line items in there that many of us, six of us would not like that we vote the budget down and explained that's what it is and then come back with the new budget they would have to change it or explain why they're doing it the way they are doing it. >> okay. i would just say that this is a general comment along the lines of some of the other measures we have seen today in this committee. just wondering kind of what is this more of a rhetorical question, but what is the problem that were seeking to address with some of these changes. within that we do especially in this committee at the full board has the ability to reject appointments i just have not seen us do that. of these in my time maybe it is happening the past. i don't know but certainly i know this will committee and even this board of supervisors is

actually rejected were swapped out appointments that were made by the mayor for example sin committees so if there was a problem i would've liked to seen us address it through our current channels. with that said, i believe we ought he did public comment and maybe we want to take a motion on your amendment you're proposing? would like to suggest or anyone supervisor tang >> motion to accept the amendment >> moved and seconded. we will take that without objection >>[gavel] >> we have to continue items seven to a believe you would like the july 6 meeting >> correct. >> i make a motion to accept the amendment and move it to continue to july 6 >> thank you. we will take that without objection >>[gavel] >> thank you. our last item in was committee is item 8. >> item number eight >>[reading code]

>> >> thank you. thank you patiently waiting for this last item. almond wafer supervisor weiner to come into the chamber could elect make some opening remarks but first supervisor yee needs to [inaudible] on the committee. >>[pause] >>

>> welcome supervisor weiner. >> opening remarks. let's go >> great. thank you very much mdm. chairman can i know the was a presentation last week and amendment were made and here we are again today could thank you for again i seen this critically important measure were to measures that will allow us to help fund our chance rotation needs and our needs are on homelessness. two

of the most significant issues facing our city. as our city grows our roads have become more congested, our transit system have become more packed and have aged and deteriorated. our streets have become more congested. we see more deaths and injuries on our streets. but the two bicyclists who been killed in the last several weeks. we have honestly, allowed our transportation system to slide back. we did amazing visionary things in the 1970s by creating the art system and market st., subway and then fast-forward was 40 years as our city has grown by 200,000 people as the region has grown by several million people and in san francisco is not open up one additional subway capacity we've not only not expanded our transit

capacity in this region, if allowed to atrophy. bart's challenges are the most visible sign of that. so, we are finally as a city and the region getting it together to understand that as we grow we need more transit capacity. we need safer streets. we need better roads. we can have another million cars on the roads of the bay area. yet that's exactly where we are heading but as we go by 2 million people five years if we don't get it together. so, the mayor convened his transportation working group. the 2030 working group and we plotted out a gro past budgets additionally we passed a bond a year and a half ago. now, we are going to pass a sales tax. in addition to funding transportation it's really important that we address the crisis that we see on her streets in terms of homelessness. we have worked so

hard in the city. we try to house people and get people off the streets but we've not done enough and we need to do more. creating the department of homelessness and supportive services under the leadership of jeff kaczynski was an incredibly important step now if to put our money where our mouth is. this measure will help us to do that so we can methodically get people off the streets, stable, shelter and ultimately into housing and services and allow people to be stable and healthy and safe and make our streets a better. so, this measure will help us to do this. do that. this went through an extensive and collaborative process. it is a wonderful measure. it will help provide funding to support muni. it will provide funding to increment vision zero. it will provide regional funding to support but and caltrain and

the city we've not done what we needed to do for parts in particular for many years and part is part of a lifeblood of our region and i'm thrilled were able to support bart in its quest to expand its vehicle fleet through this measure. this measure will create dedicated funding for roads to make sure that we are continued to do what we done for the last few years and that is to rehabilitate our streets and to safe and usable street whether for cars per cyclist for pedestrians or for buses. so colleagues, we do have amendment jeb and distributed. these are in general, amendment that try to create conformity and consistency is one of the significant amendment is just providing clarifying language that the transportation authority can engage in bonding around the portion of the funds that goes to the transportation authority. this is a well vetted and overdue measure

colleagues, and ask for your support. today at the conclusion of public comment committee adopt the minutes and adopted to the next will committee >> thank you very much. i believe we want to go to our department to speak on this. >> thank you supervisor. i have a powerpoint presentation which will put up on the screen that handed out hard copies as well. as you know, there's currently six he 700 people expensive homelessness in san francisco. proximally 3500 of those are currently living on the streets. however, we have done good extraordinary job i

would argue of housing over 22,000 people since 2004 providing them exits two things that permanent supportive housing, public housing affordable housing rent subsidies, rapid we hasn't been a homeward bound program. the new sales tax revenue and expenditure measure would provide dedicated funding to expand the successful services and give the new department the financial support necessary to create and expand on some of the programs which we believe will be key towards addressing homelessness. some of the outreach and interventions will be focused on the various populations of homeless people in san francisco including veterans, single adults, transition use and families. as you can as you can see on this slide during the fiscal year 16-17, the new revenue we

generate $12.1 million this oh sex generate $12.1 million in fiscal year 17-18 $50 million and growing after that, talk little bit about how some of this funding will be used. under the sales tax expenditure plan will be baselining existing services and backfilling federal cuts i should point out many of these battles are baselining of services our request that came from the homeless emergency services provider association or-as well as request from individual organizations the financial concerns which we were trying to address it would also fund programs that were limited during the hud mckinney application process. we have prioritized and have proposed to backfill boston funding that would protect existing housing programs only. as well as employment programs for individuals who are homeless or

living living in supportive housing. without the sales tax measure we would be unable to backfill these hud cuts as well as some of the baselining of the has the requested i should also add some of this funding will be used to finance the existing to excessive existing navigation centers. a significant portion of the fund was used to expand successful programs including new navigation centers including the new centers that will be opened up in accordance the legislation that was proposed by supervisor campos as well as 300 new supportive housing units in the pipeline and expanding our family need a subsidy program towards our goal of ending family homelessness by 2020. however, the most significant amount of money will be used to create new services including applying

the navigation centers system model to the entire shelter system. i think the navigation centers is the most important thing they done in addition to serving so many homeless individuals is show us the way towards improving our filter system and sales tax would allow us to have the funding to be able to make over the shoulders act like navigation centers. we also will use this funding primarily to expand housing exits. without additional housing exits in the system we will be unable to make really significant progress when he to make towards addressing homelessness . currently, we're approximately 6000 supportive housing units in the system. the turnover rates of those units is less than 5% a year. by giving us the capacity we need to fully house high-priority individuals were currently on our streets. in addition, we plan to use this funding to address growing problem of homeless next is between homelessness and mental health we see plane it's about

honor streets every day as well as significant investments to finally end family homelessness in the city of san francisco. that's the presentation it up we happy to take any questions you might have. >> thank you. seeing no questions, comments thank you for your present it. now, we'll go to the transportation side. >> good afternoon. philly chain executive director of the san francisco county transportation authority. ib co-presenting with ed w and director of transportation with it san francisco municipal transportation agency. so supervisor weiner said it would participation sector has been unfortunately in decline and we we really need to step up and muster our voter support once again to help bolster our

infrastructure and services oh critical to the city both for all the existing use the neighborhoods use basic and new and emerging growth we are seeing here in san francisco and at the regional level. of course, half of our commute workforce ashley comes in from other parts of the city so we very much function as part of this regional bay area network. the needs for transportation are in the billions of dollars as supervisor weiner mention the mayor convene stakeholders and the general public process was quite robust two years ago to identify ways to address a $10 billion need for all transportation components through 2030 and are countywide transportation plan which was completed in that same time, we identified $19 billion if you look up to 2040. this encompasses our basic need for state of repair investment in

roads, as well's transit system locally and regionally can as well, we are seeing more and more folks record folks on transit. so we see the rise of severe crowding and parts on caltrans and muni. more and more folks as well are walking and bicycling in our streets and so we see the need for that it did dedicated facilities provision zero initiative ashley passed after the bond measure passed in 2014. so, we want to redouble our commitment there and provide resources. we are not the only committee facing the need revenue sources at the local level. the federal and state shares the interceptor funding transportation funding having him to climb. first i didn't believe for decades. the lesson we raise the federal gas tax bill clinton was in office. the state we just had to cancel hundreds of projects because state gas tax receipts are so low and so we do struggle along with other communities. like

other communities, we've been fortunate to be supported by voters in the past. we currently manage a half cent sales tax of the transportation authority. 25 years. we been doing this ensuring a successful record of project delivery as has the city when we bonded for punishers of streets bond as was the transportation bond proposition went off in 2014 and proposition b also in 2014 to keep committee funding levels proportionate publishing growth. in this ideal see somebody just a few of the handful of major projects and initiatives the completion and opening of doyle tried last your central subway is also well underway. on-time and on budget. we've seen the entire replacement of beauty sleep. call the vehicle and hybrid vehicles and the like all happening the first order of light rail vehicles is also being built right now. we are seeing hundreds of miles of street resurfacing and that benefits everyone. motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, as much other as voters because everyone uses the streets we do have a coordination program called followed paving that

ensures all the different modes and needs are in considered when we repaid our streets. but it's not enough. so, i would just note here again, we have billions of dollars in need and what of the biggest advantages of having local funds is that we can prepare our projects to further idealism to plan with the community to put them forward for funding opportunities at the state and federal level they do come along. along with providing matching funds for those projects and in that way we make a projects more competitive. so, together with other counties are bay area region including contra costa and santa clara, alameda already passed another have sent in 2014. we are seeking support from the voters for additional have sent as part of the larger three quarter cent sales tax measure that as a separate item on the ballot with the proposed charter amendment and alternate over to edit the skin to describe the expenditures proposed for this

investment. >> thanks tillie. i do want to emphasize the point that we have got to this point with this measure and this expenditure plan as a result of a collaborative effort. thanks to tillie's leadership at the transportation authority, working with the mayor's budget office, the mta, supervisors weiner and avalos and their offices and numerous stakeholders and in part of the discussion to get to this what i hope will be a consensus measure. there was a lot of work that was done of two introduction and the number is up on the screen. they represent the percentages that were agreed upon at the time of introduction. there have been some changes that of, since i just want to walk through some of those for you. to kind of dimensions of the change to one

is that the controller's office has revised the revenue forecast up by $7.5 million on an annualized basis. without additional funding and then subsequent discussions with some of the stakeholders that were involved in this process there was a discussion about allocating those to two of the categories, allocating essentially the excess over what was previously understood to two of the categories and the affordability and the complete streets. so, that is created a cascade of adjustment. just to walk through the substantive changes, the amounts the fundamental amounts that would be in the first two fiscal years have gone up for homeless services from 11.5 and 12.5 in the first year and from 47.7 5 million to $50 million in the

second. on the transportation side, from 23 million to $25.4 million and 95.52 101.6 the second fiscal year. the dollars were allocated roughly the same proportion two thirds, one third . supervisor weiner already mentioned another change the ticket i just as mr. risk and to read two of those numbers of changes a little bit more slowly once you just want to >> sure. i thought folks have these in front of you could i apologize. so the 11 million goes to the advent 11.5 million in the first year for homeless goes to $12.5 million. the $47.75 million in the second year, homeless services goes to $50 million. then, on the transportation side, what was $23 million in the first year goes to $25.4 million. what was

95.5 in the second year goes to 101 $.6 million. those are the numbers as i nursed and him based on the comptrollers change in reallocating around the same to 21 split. supervisor weiner mention it authorizes the board and the ta to issue bonds against these funds to it can capitalize to advance the funding to current needs. then, the expenditure categories within the transportation part, there are at least six categories of funds and different from how it was introduced, there's a little bit more definitions, expanded definitions of what i read in those categories and a few things i will highlight beyond just the fleshing out of the example. so the transit service

in affordability is really meant to ensure the continuation of the free muni and other low income discount programs. ensure the funding of any equity strategy recommendations, but what was that it also was to supplement, to be used to supplement my agencies reserve to protect against service cuts in future years. the percentage allocation for that category changed as a result of the new revenues in reallocating from 10% to 12.4%. the second category essentially got an extended definition, but it includes paratransit vehicles, notably into the fleet facilities and infrastructure. it also there's been a clause added that in a year where we might otherwise be required to reduce service because of budgetary

considerations, that we can flex up to 25% of the dollars in this category to the first category in other words, to preserve the low income programs with the free programs among the funding of equity strategy recommendations did so, it provides some flexibility to move from these primarily capital needs to operating needs and difficult budget times and that category adjusts from 20% to 18.8%, and i guess i should've said at the outset, the dollar amounts set for the first two years, the transportation part would be allocated by these percentages. however the board and of finalizing them. then, all the dollar amounts are adjusted each year by the controller comptroller based on corresponding to discretionary revenue of the city. the third

category is transit optimize nation and expansion. this could be for muni. it could be for other service providers. so the administered by the transportation authority and his percentage changes from 10% to 9.4%. the fourth category is for regional transit and regional system management. they could bring for highway system as well. it's from this pot that we would be able to meet our desire to fund the part will cart extension of supervisor weiner mention. on the order of $300 million, which is what bart is seeking from each of the parts counties. it would also provide for funding potentially for caltrain and other regional uses. that percentage is introduced was 50% now been close for members to 14.1%.

then, the final category is vision zero and complete streets. that category i think is fairly cervix premature. that would be proposed to the amended from 10% to 12.4% and sorry, the final final category street resurfacing which would be modified from 35% to 32.9%. there is a another change that's been incorporated to provide flex ability, is that should the voters adopt increase of vehicle license fee is the mayors transportation task force also recommended in addition to a sales tax, then

rather than continuing to fund paving programs from this source, because we got would have a vehicle license fee would you be a natural source upon the paving program that portion of this expenditure plan would be be allocated proportionally to the other categories. it also has a provision hear that beginning 15 years out the board of supervisors by ordinance with a two thirds vote and approval of american change the percentages. that are included here. i mentioned already the revenue bond authority could i guess the last thing i would just engine is that-i do know anyone from the mayor's office would want to speak to it, but the mayor's proposed budget did assume these revenues both transportation and housing in some cases these are would be brand-new revenues but in other cases these are pulling things out of the general fund such as $35 million were the street resurfacing that had been freed up to address other needs in

the budget and i think there's some of that on the homeless services side as well. so, that's a summary of this legislation which is just a charter amendment to allocate this owes taxes on a separate legislative track and we'd all be happy to answer any questions any of you have >> thank you. thank you for the management i would just say when we take a motion to adopt the amendment on page 8, line 16, just to add the word into so that we are depositing money into the fund just a slight typo. i know how crazy typos can be perturbed amendment schedule. so at this time then we want to open up item 8 to public comment >> yes >> i've a couple speaker cards. sorry right before we go to public comment are comptrollers avenue q and not revenue b cost estimate. >> sure. comptrollers office. as director justin just mention we have adjusted our revenue assessment up by seven $.5

million. as mentioned, in year one for the homelessness program it would be $12.5 million. in year two would be 50 million the transportation program. it would be $25.4 million going to wonder 1.6 million in year two >> thank you very much. now, for public comment on this item 8 i have a speaker cards. >>[calling names] >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is george foreman. president of the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods. first, we have to look at the big picture. $9.6 billion project. in 2010-2011 budget has increased

41%. you are going to be running a deficit this year. you are about to suffer the hangover of proposition b. many people now realize what happened . remember, this was for children. they are realizing on the 50+ fund bond-i'm sorry-tax, this was a mistake. that this money was not dedicated. what we are seeing here now is anything that [inaudible] is now going to have a very hard time as is no longer thought to be dedicated to the purpose of local neighborhoods. so, i think you're going you taken on way too much. as jim lazarus said, you have over $400 million that you're seeking in this budget.

you can even balance your budget without taxing us further. so, i think you are headed for a big problem here as voters try to fall off because they're paying too much and being asked to pay too much. your causes are worthy. there's no problem with them. it's just you're asking for too much and you ask for too much in proposition b and you just keep piling and piling it on and it's too much. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i been broken. this is a resident district for resident to combine homeless housing and transportation funding in the same charter amendment makes absolutely no sense. the two are different issues. while constituents might support

funding for homeless housing the mighty adamantly opposed funding mta and projects such as new being for. combining these two set-asides under similar charter amendment could have a negative outcome. i would urge the sponsors to sever the two issues into two separate charter amendment. also, at the small business commission commissioner riley asked why so long. that is, it was 21st. 25 years not 24. the jeopardy chief of staff the mayor responded was part of the negotiation process. the city was willing to consider another timeframe. i would urge the sponsors to amend the timeframe from 24 years to 10. as has been stated, there was a 2014 bond approval. it is also been stated back again, yes, indeed, back again. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm tom

radulovich. president of the bart board of directors. i just want to thank you for including funding for but in other regional transit in this measure. but is an important part of the city transportation system. when the main carrier of trips into and out of san francisco. we also carry huge number of trips within the second week carried out over 70,000 people a day. within stephen. so we were a mutiny on the we would be mutiny's most heavily used line. since i've been on the board bart ridership has doubled. the real growth in ridership in the region has been on regional road. spambots and caltrain. the city support and the regional support for capacity and four state of good repair

means bart and caltrain has not. in fact it's not exhibit we are now closing on investments that the people made in the 1970s. the original fleet of railcars the original part infrastructure. without those investments with seymour what we see today which of the overcrowding on bart, the delays, the breakdowns in service and all that. so, this regional funding is very very important to us. we will help us match analog and i will go to the next increment of real cock here we paid for the first computer we actually do more than any of the transit agency taking money out of the fair about it we will replace all the existing cars in the part of fleet did however, we need more cars. it going to serve growth in san francisco and elsewhere in the region. so, this will match the money in this measure will match funds will be provided by alameda and contra costa county so you be leveraging for every dollar that you put out be leveraging another to at least from the other counties. in allows to

buy that new and commensal rilke did it so critical to serving the growth were forecasting in san francisco. the growth to and from the east bay with a bridge hazards automobile capacity on the trips and have to, transit also the growth were seen between san francisco and the peninsula. sobieski not make this smaller. but that you keep intact if we go much lower than this but and caltrans needs we will be able to make these matches the funding diminished further. thank you very much >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon members of the board. peter cohen council committee housing organizer. honesty today to the transportation side of this joint measure specifically could of easily, we have a lot

of interest in homeless services and homeless housing site as well. for the last two or more years, our organization is been part of what we call transportation justice coalition working with the bike coalition, walk san francisco, human services network as a rising alliance, chinatown cc, cu disability transit riders union, and we been very focused on trying to make sure transportation investments are seen to an equity loans. it led to among other things community equity study which was just adopted very enthusiastically by the mta board just a couple of months ago. we been in a series of conversations about this particular measure. we do have a couple of additional if you will propose amendment were strengthening to this. we have to continue to work with the mayor's office, the mta, and the board leadership on this. what we had been initially talking about is a larger share of the funds if you will for baseline funding for transit services which is how folks actually get around, and for their affordability and for so-called active transportation which is bike and pedestrian. was baseline funding allocations are there but the quite modest. so instead we start moving towards a couple of triggers which are points in time of which of funds can be reallocated from one category to another. there's two

triggers in there but we feel they need to be strengthened to ensure either on annual basis to avoid service reductions on ongoing basis to shift money from say street to services and active transportation. it's very clear if and when and under what circumstances that shall happen. we think it's close we like to see more work on it roughly those numbers can be considered at the next meeting. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is silly johnson. [inaudible]they have a higher income housing that has not been [inaudible] people

have been kicked out [inaudible] the transit station is very important. i do think that there is some issues on the solar economics that has the program also. [inaudible] because as already explained already written and already detailed. [inaudible] in the budget [inaudible] any issue or any [inaudible] on this budget. that is totally left out in our housing and maintenance of our

streets. it's like, oh yes, we [inaudible] get rid of all the children in the world. i don't think it's going to work because [inaudible] our lives and that there is no [inaudible] on this situation that has been issued on this planning code. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> welcome to our parks director >> thank you very much art director. i'm here to speak in support of this measure. i want to thank supervisor weiner avalos, the rest of the board of the mayor's office did the cta, the mta. i think from a regional perspective from bart's perspective, we are collaborating so much better the city that i think we have in a very long time. we also love it a bond measure which is

been a be on the ballot in november which has significant investments in our infrastructure in san francisco. specifically, in station escalators as well as other stations and is also making significant upgrades to allow better service in san francisco and higher capacity into san francisco. we are incredibly heartened by the having of three and $75 million part in this measure going to be zero priorities. on the point of view with director padula which talked about but additional real cards are incredibly important for us. every dollar invested in san francisco frogs will unlock three dollars invested from the other counties in the region. we are such capacity that every single nuclear car is worried to be full. can be the difference between having eight car trains at peak hour and 10

car trains at peak hour. i also want to speak on the equity side of things because that's incredibly important to all of us. especially, parts. there's a misconception that but doesn't cater to the whole region. in fact, part writers are disproportionately low income compared to the population of the region and more likely to come from disadvantaged communities and communities of color. so investments in speed but are not just critical for a reason economy but their investments in e transit. so thank you very much and look for to supporting this measure. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. chairman and committee members, friends of caltrain. friends of caltrain is a nonprofit with over 5000 participants on the pendant sword corridor from san francisco through san jose including a good number here. in san francisco. we support

stable funding and successful modernization for caltrain is part of a well integrated and equitable transit system in the region and you are familiar with the caltrain electrification. i also want to talk a little bit about a project that you may have been following this closely. as you know, caltrain is the has had the fastest when ridership while the regional transit agencies has been having real capacity problems. caltrain electrification will provide some extra capacity going from five to six trains per hour and there is a follow one project to lengthen the platforms and allow longer trains that will deliver more capacity and more speed increase than basic electrification insult. this process project for the longer platforms and trains the san

francisco county bta has put it share that project i is about measure in november and like our cars will require contribution from three counties in order to be delivered good so, we are glad to hear this being mentioned as an eligible project for this ballot measure and look forward to supporting the caltrain and bart and muni and active transportation and also speaking as an individual who will be bicycling on the streets today and on other days thank you for the awesome transportation investments >> thank you very. any other members of the public was to comment on item 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. speedo >> college reavis that amendment because the supervisor mar >> i want to thank