>> >>[gavel] >> good morning everyone. welcome to our speed was committee meeting of thursday, june 30, 2016. i'm katie tang chair of the committee. joined by vice chair supervisor eric martin-milius to my left melia cohen to our clerk is derek evans and from speedy sfgov tv we like to thank jim smith. any

announcements? >> yes. please sounds all electronic devices. items acted upon today will be on the july 12, 2016 board of supervisors board of agenda unless otherwise stated >> thank you please call adam one >> item 1 >>[reading code] >> thank you. i believe we have supervisor peskin's office. >> thank you chairman tang and

supervisors mar and cohen and thank you for consideration of this item this mentor apologizing's supervisor peskin is not able to join the discussion. the charter amendment before you is a simple good government measure that seeks to provide oversight and transparency to 2 acres of the city housing and community development function. a supervisor peskin stated in his local comments the combined budgets of the department are significant. totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars it largely without any public oversight were transparency as to how these dollars are spent. a small example in fiscal year 15-16 a total of 47% of the invested edwards budget was allocated towards general unification public home improvements programming and

capacity building for community based organizations. this is almost $4 million of public monies allocated to proposals go through an internal scoring and vetting process about which consists in a posting on the lew.org website according to a letter of inquiry committee to oewd back confederate. while supervisor peskin does not dispute the functions or roles of the departments in fact both are extremely important to the work of the city and the supervisor's priorities in particular, there is a practical question of appropriate governance of public transparency. the planning department deals with an extraordinary amount of land use policy and projects and that's those projects through the lands of expertise. as guidance and advisement from its commission. why should our office of housing and community development not also the commission that is to draw upon for expertise recommendations in public input? on issues

ranging from how the city of beaches and tracks and later tracks are below market rate units and ensures their not being foreclosed on or otherwise lost to ensuring community stabilization funds are secured and critical funding is allocated to neighborhood infrastructure projects for small site acquisition. the commission can play an important role in centralizing information and ensuring these issues are given space for discussion monitoring and enforcement. commissions are not intended to add more bureaucracy than they are intended to shed a light on existing bureaucracy. as well charter amendment less is more. we have endeavored to create a process that does not undercut the power of our departments but rather glanced further transparency and tool. departments would still have the flexibility to operate as they always have with an oversight body as an additional resource. with that in mind, the supervisor would like to offer several amendment for your consideration today. after consultation with our city administrator with like to remove those functions of the department of real estate from the real estate division from the purview of the commission that do not directly relate to the conveyance or financing of affordable housing and we can clarify with our city attorney

whether or not that extends beyond surplus property. but that is my understanding. in addition, would like to include in the amendment grants the commission the authority to make recommendations to only wcd for the inclusionary ami level under this provision any ordinance at the board of supervisors puts forth setting these ami levels would be considered by the commission and that ordinance was approved by the board of supervisors would supersede any ballot initiative that sought to set the ami level outside of the legislative process where it belongs. i got copies of these amendment for you to review today. i want to affirm that the supervisor is very open to further amendment. he is actually you know, given me some flexibility today to discuss if folks decide they have amendment they like to propose on the floor i am happy to consider those as well and take those back. most today i'm

here to listen and i'll take the feedback and comments back to the supervisor and i want to thank you again for your consideration. thanks so much >> thank you very much for your presentation. i appreciate they said you're here to listen to make it especially to supervisor peskin is not here. i do have a number of questions although i was glad to hear the real estate department was taken out of this particular proposal. i so many questions i don't know where to begin. essentially, we have now to departments that would be subsumed under this particular commission in so, i know that one of the things that you had mentioned was that we are not trying to create more bureaucracy and would actually try to create more transparency. so, one of the things that you touched upon was about grantmaking and lew d but i'm wondering if you can tell me a little bit more about both oewd and the mayors office of housing and community development good what are some of the issues that are actually risen under the current structure that supervisor peskin has found so problematic we integrate this new commission? >> well, i think that like i

said, any time we are doing with very large budgetary issues particularly when there's a public dollars granted to neighborhood organizations based on criteria, that largely the department sets itself internally we had a lot of neighborhood organizations that have been put in somewhat of a position where they are competing against each other and we have been unable to define for them or you elaborate for them why they had in the process is the way it is good how the outreach happens. why certain funding is allocated to certain places and not others. it is problematic in many ways because of course, we want our neighborhoods to be able to drive down on grant opportunities and receive funding for neighborhood infrastructure projects capacity building. it does create a tense political environment and everything becomes highly politicized

because they are basically, trying to find out where they can curry favor and who gets what. it has led to some arguments and some very tense relationships, and a lot of our neighborhoods, they are micro-communities that have their own personalities and politics. i think without a clear process in place that has transparency that is the rules are the same for everybody and there's an understanding of who is actually betting your proposals and giving feedback i think that's important for those community groups to have an understanding that we can also defend our position as of the legislative body. >> so, i guess my question is, how would this commission operate such that yes, there

would be towards transparency in a clear process and actually not result in neighborhood organizations competing against each other. i do know for example, also, even during our ad back process at the board, for example, there are many many requests that go through to oewd from all our districts. right. again i'm wondering how this commission would actually help make that better? >> well it would be a place to actually that those proposals. i mean whether or not without bringing very prescriptive in the charter amendment, i think it would be an appropriate place for those glands to be discussed and offer feedback and to actually have that internal scoring process be public. >> okay. i am just wondering if especially because in the charter amendment, there is language that actually describes what i think supervisor peskin's intent for each of the departments would be. i am just wondering if i can ask department staff to comment on that because i do notice that some of the definitions and

descriptions of what he would want state oewd or mo each cd to be slightly different from what exists in our charter currently. so i am wondering if someone maybe let's are with oewd since were on that topic. if you can comment on what that change would mean to the department? >> thank you supervisor. todd rufo office of economic and workforce development. just to be clear, even competently for the department and not just as a way to the title >> yes, that's correct >> thank you supervisor. as you know oewd's mission is to support small businesses to start our neighborhoods to grow jobs help connect residents to those jobs will build housing a particularly affordable housing. we closely analyze this proposal and shared i think with supervisors interest in transparency and community engagement. however, the proposal as we read it does not accelerate our ability to carry out this mission in the way we sit in fact with slow ability

to get people jobs and help small business. in a given year oewd grants more than $20 million to cd oh per job training and western addition. that help support manufacturers in the bayview and to invest in community projects neighborhood group project in west portal in the excelsior. this proposal would delay our ability to grant these dollars out by at least three months. we estimate this delay would be exacerbated by the fact that multiple agencies out going through a single commission and that would have to be taken to consideration is different items can we work every day to try to accelerate moving quicker i grantmaking process. i feel this would move us in the wrong direction achieving that after. i'll there are, as laid out in the proposal, there are two commissioners that are required to have at least housing or community moment experience

there is no one who is required to expertise in small business assistance-excuse me-workforce development, neighborhood project. these important areas of our work that also deserve expertise and careful guidance from the commission. from this proposed. the proposal focus on a lot of oversight. i am proud of the amount of community engagement and oversight oewd engages in today. the last fiscal year alone, oewd presented more than 56 commission meetings including planning, puc, mta, ocii, that-park and the arts commission could be presented nearly 100 advisory boards and task force meetings. and we've attended more than 500 community and stakeholder meetings. many of those are through invested neighborhoods. many those guided the very-the priorities of which we draft our

solicitations for. to the point that was being made earlier by the supervisor's office. this is in addition to the extensive oversight the board also provides. that includes the approval and review of our budget annually. it'd includes the approval of all the development agreement. which was a focus of this proposal and opportunities that call hearings an increase in the light. this proposal as i said focuses a lot on oewd's agreements. just to be clear, for all das that projects that oewd worked on without grew in close coordination with other agencies and the respective commissions. which oversee real estate entitlement and includes planning, qc, mta wreck-park and the court. we have under the direction of these commissions as well as ultimately the board. we have no independent authority to move approved a ba outside these commissions were the other respective departments. under the city's administrative court the planning commission is a regulator da. we take all

of our da to the planning commission. i think one question that's raised is how would this commission not be duplicate of of the efforts of the planning commission and other? one recent example was the approval 5m which was the development agreement it was approved as you know supervisor earlier this fiscal year and was heard more than 10 times as six different boards and commissions. dozens of community meetings. what additional oversight is missing i think your question supervisor tang what additional oversight is missing this mission can provide? we be interested in hearing that. additionally come i do one appointment that some potential conflicts that what the proposals and focus on housing the development i worry and i'm concerned about what it means for work was the roman programming which is represents more than half of our budget. oewd staff workforce investment board in san francisco which the federally mandated board under the workforce opportunity act, the federal law requires the workforce board revamp program oversight oversee the operations of cities one subsystem and job training

career pathway studies for career and youth. our assessment we cannot transfer power to the another commission overseeing oewd. we are by law appointed by chief elected officer to the mayor and certified by the governor. this is in addition to the fact is that the commission overlapping or similar responsibilities as create inefficiencies and slow the process as well. which would impact the grantmaking work to our workforce cbo's were delivering services to rise the good i want to conclude supervisor with one final point. in the last fiscal year oewd workforce programs that serve 5000 participants more than 3200 jobs. 36% african-american, 26% asian, 26

with keynote 11% of the people public housing resident here we try the assistance more than 230 local manufacturers and this is more than 90 nonprofit organizations at 124 loans for small business and $12 million. and we provided for districts $5000 in grants to cbo's for neighborhood implement project. i don't see how this proposal accelerates these efforts and i'm concerned in that it slows down our ability to continue to do this work and injects uncertainty for cbo's, residents and the businesses we serve. >> so, i just want to summarize the major getting all the pointer. in terms of the deponent agreements again, mostly under the purview of the planning commission as well as several other commissions, potentially such as the port or so forth, in terms of workforce development, in grantmaking, how much is that of the 20 million grants that oewd doles out each year? >> i'm good at walking ways come up here and speak to that process. >> good morning supervisor.

thank you for hearing this and having assisted a walking tour is deputy director investing edwards for the office of economic and workforce development. die just a quick bit of clarification on the question again in terms of the allocation in terms of our grants? >> yes. i'm trying to clear five because i know that some of the comments made earlier when supervisor peskin's office at it with a transparency and grantmaking sounds like you allowed about $20 million in grants each year. there is the workforce development side of things. so, i want to know, of the $20 million in grants that oewd hands out how much of it is consistent workforce the moment. i much is in terms of just? >> seven. speaking for the invested neighborhoods budget, visit which includes both neighborhood influence in the app that process. we simply

mentioned the total about $2.6 million that was for fiscal year 14-15. but a total $3.3 million for fiscal year 15-6 and could i do want to take a moment to talk about the level of transparency that is a core principle of invested neighborhoods. if something we value and pride ourselves on in terms of the level of engagement on the ground person-to-person, business-to-business organization to organization get community group to community group. they would least organizations merchant organizations that all of the staff is directly involved in. the language in terms of collaboration that we choose to pursue collaboratively among interagency partnerships as was community partnerships is listed specifically in the language of all of our rfps a request for proposals, in terms of encouraging collaboration among community and neighborhood groups and merging groups. we asked for letters of support from additional labor groups to make sure folks are working together and actually those proposals that come into our office are viewed in a more favorable manor when there is collaborative support in writing sometimes that includes merging groups, neighborhood groups, neighborhood associations. additional health and service providers that agree with the proposals the community members want to make.

additionally, many of our staff on a if not monthly, and quarterly basis visit all of these organizations that we have direct relationships with to ensure that they are aware of the processes and in addition to the posting of information on the website. it's a commitment we have to make sure that everyone is aware of all the grants we directly have for invested neighborhoods that are available throughout the neighborhoods so everyone can benefit from dollars and the intent for us to support ultimate neighborhood vitality and activity in a collaborative manner. >> supervisor cohen has a question >> thank you very much supervisor tang. actually my question was directed towards todd without and getting a better understanding of this commission would impact with this good i sit and have for many years and i don't sit see the conflict that you are alluding to. maybe you can elaborate a little?

>> sure. first off, the-as you know, does the apartment the mayor does the appointment of members of the board. the board is charged to federal law. the carmen of labor to oversee the grantmaking process were to the one-stop as you know. if they commission is to sit above oewd presumably we be taking all of our rfps and solicitation as well as the ultimate grants, workforce grants provide would be taken all strategies to the commission should the commission you cs that is to be one way or in contradiction to the way that the sees it that would be a conflict it would not be clear to us if-which way that the conflict would be resolved. the federal oversight

of the dollars that are provided by the federal government which represents half of our workforce dollars, it's clear this bodies one and make that decision. but with this oversight body that would oversee and appoint a dir. it's unclear how the conflict would be resolved. >> okay. this anglo, could you come up by the couple question could just given what mr. without objection rizzo is that something new legislation is able to mitigate or is there perhaps a amendment or desire to obtain a and looks to carve out this particular portion of mo wds is possibilities of their isn't a inherent conflict? >> that is something that i mean i am happy to work with director without and see if there's some language that we could put together that would address the issue. >> all right. in terms of timeline, >> in terms of time i'm >> how quickly do you think we could get this done? the item is here would try to bring it in

voters in november >> we can huddle. >> hello all. thank you. that's it for me supervisor tang >> supervisor mar >> i want to thank supervisor peskin and this is anglo from his office did i think this is a we try to psych about with better transparency and oversight but i know there are some trade-offs and mr. truffaut the pension potential projects for delays for some of the contracts and try to understand if a supervisor cohen just mention, if some of those potential projects can be minimized because i think oversight into and transparency is important. i see ultimately, and sophie millbrook is here and i know there's some potential delays for affordable housing projects so i think are really important for us to consider but i'm wondering if mr. torres or mr. folk can get some example of a hardship on workforce training and those small loans or grants and how

that on the street and in the community how that would impact people if this measure would go to the ballot and to be passed? what would be the hardship? >> so, the delays caused through the fact that this is where the three-month time frame comes from, that the grantmaking of which the number is as i said, millions of dollars in oewd doesn't grants, the fact that we would bring the solicitation and again we follow the process of the city and are solicitation of the grant dollars, we would have to go and the solicitation would have to be brought before the commission presumably for approval. it would be discussion thereof to be on the agenda. it may be sent back the changes and then brought back before the commission again a three-month estimate does not take that into consideration that it assumes we would staff would develop this good the solicitation big before the commission provide ample time for awareness and then the

commission would act on. we would then go in make the solicitation, provide as we do today, we provide them opportunity for outreach meetings. opportunities for questions. then, scoring make a decision have response to this vision make a decision and bring back to the commission for approval of the individual contracts. and grant agreement. so that's what at that time that i like it that also assumes there is no--the that assumes that there is that this commission is able to handle the volume that's coming through oewd as well as the committee to bowman grants the contracts that they have is welcome again, the concern being, multiple departments with multiple streams of work with multiple different grants and

procurements coming on flowing to a single commission-is a little bit unprecedented. >> i just want to say i think the elephant in the room is the change of three departments from mayor's office on housing or mayor's office on community bowman were mayor's office on economic and workforce development with the city administrator over more of a shared oversight and governance but i am at understand some of the potential hardships and delays but i appreciate that answer. thank you >> supervisor then, thanks for the questions and just to clarify that it was a amendment to take out department of real estate under this proposal. okay, thank you for oewd for your answer but actually, i think that what i have more concerns about is really within the happening with all mh cd under this proposal. again just looking at what is now the new description of what the housing department on housing and committee development would be,

you know, again, what is this trying to address? what are we not doing that's not transparent currently? i know a lot of things especially since it is it on budget committee come before us in terms of agreements and so forth. so, i don't know if someone from moh cd is here and i see olson. if you could speak to what this would mean if we were to have this new commission? >> thank you supervisors. awesomely directors of the mayor's office of housing and community development. i think the proposal before us really concerns us in terms of our ability to move quickly and develop the affordable housing that everybody needs in san francisco. you know, the question about need for transparency, i like to talk about that first. much of what we do at the mayor's office of housing and community development comes before the board already. every single

round lease. every single bond issuance. we go before the planning commission to look at the question of height and bulk of the bill. in our budget goes before the board also. so, there is a level of transparency for each and every project that is funded by the mayor's office of housing. what we are really concerned about is the slowing down the process. we have a process right now through the board that this would add to that process because everything that the board would review would also have to be reviewed prior to getting to the board. so, for the question of doing a bond issuance on behalf of an affordable housing or financing for particular affordable housing project, we would have to make sure that was heard at

a commission meeting prior to getting before the subcommittee of the board and then to the full board. that would add time. how much time that would add, a lot of it depends on how quickly we could get to a commission. as some of the heart-as todd mentioned earlier, looking at three departments with three very very different workloads going all into a single commission. as we have inundated the board on some of our bad projects with 14-15 bond issuances and things like that, trying to meet a deadline for leveraging outside funding, that process would have to go through a particular commission and, again, the whole question of whether that commission has the capability and capacity just

physically to address all the actions that would be covered under this particular charter amendment the multiple departments. it would be a question. the other question we really have is the question of the expertise. in terms of the commission appointments could only two out of the five are going to be community development or housing, the work that we do, is very technical and we would really want to make sure that the commissioners really understood what we are trying to propose. then, clearly, in the-in that arena, we would have to do a lot of work to ensure that the materials were digested in such a way that it was very apparent to those non-community development, non-affordable housing commissioners what the actions we were doing and why we were doing them. again, i bought of the goals that we are trying to implement as the

mayor's office of housing and community development, articles of the city have already been expressed by this board and by the mayors as goals of the city. we are just in the process of info mentation. somebody said well, what is the problem a month or two months delay? for a project that needs to go into construction that may mean an increase in cost for that particular project. you know, when you have as many projects as we have going and you increase the cost for all of them, that is a loss of affordable housing units because as we have-we are really challenged in san francisco in terms of being able to keep our costs down. we should not be trying to do things that we know will try to increase those costs. because, again, it's not a question of saving the money to use for salaries or something else. we are just saving up money to use for the next affordable housing. we really would like to be able to do-to create that

affordable housing as quickly and expeditiously as possible. so, we would say that in terms of the question of transparency, clearly the board we go through the board for many many things. we don't feel we need to go through a commission to get to the board for the board to feel that there's some access for public comment on those particular projects and those particular items. clearly, if there was a problem in the process the board has asked for information from the office in the past and we would be happy, obviously, to provide that information to the board whether it's at a particular hearing war or specific reports to the board. we work very hard to try to provide for our annual reports and annual progress report on how we are trying to implement

the will of the board and the mayor. that annual report is readily available on our website. you know, we are at this point probably the busiest we've ever been in the history of the mayor's office of housing. in trying to-i'm being heckled by the audience a little bit-trying to implement that is a struggle. everybody on my staff is working extremely hard in trying to implement that and to be-in this case, to be divergent from the goals of our implementation to the question of trying to provide for-to staff the commission and to add the work of the commission, to ensure

that commission is adequately staffed in terms of that information, when, again we do go through the board for much if not all the work that we do get so, that is i didn't i think important fact to consider as we look at the question of do we really need another commission to again, to look at the question of oversight. the other question, one of the other issues we have is just the question of the structuring of the department overall. there are times when especially when we are doing with the federal government, that the location of this office within the mayor's office is actually beneficial to the city and to the residence overall. one example of this is the question of the rental assistance demonstration program. for those in the audience who don't realize what that is, it's the rebuilding of 29 very distressed public housing developments in san

francisco. overall. that occurred in part because the mayor provided leadership and access to those folks, to those decision-makers in washington dc along with our delegation, along with the support of the board to make that happen. but as a department head reporting to a commission, that is not quite carry the same gravitas as being a part of the mayor's office when negotiating with individuals from dc were negotiating with people from sacramento and so one example of where the organizational structure and the relationship with the mayor's office has greatly benefited the city overall in terms of bringing additional resources to the city that we would not have got

on our own. the mayor's office and the delegation lobbied, educated, the folks in hud specifically about the needs of san francisco and how that would really benefit the residents of san francisco. again, the organizational structure allowed us to take advantage of those resources, those relationships, to bring more resources back to san francisco. >> thanks. supervisor cohen has a question >> yes, a couple comments but mostly standards to director lea. i think you raise some interesting points. the one main one is we need another commission. later on on this agenda will have another issue where dealing with is do we need another elected position. i don't know the answer if it's a yes or no. it's not so easy and not so cut and dry and clean. particularly, when the proponents are saying it's for transparency. i personally am

open and welcome transparency good the measures that i'm going to be introducing today are discussing today also have to do with large component have to do with transparency but is all something very valuable in adding another layer of oversight. personally, it's been difficult working with you a department on a measure that on an issue i've been working on trying to bring affordable housing to the community of color. people who been displaced and pushed out and i wonder if a commission, if the commission had been in place if i would have yielded the same result. i commission would allow me the same flexibility and more oversight into these departments that i don't necessarily have time, energy, to micromanage good i have granted professional courtesy to department heads thinking that we are like-minded and working on the same plane.

critically, talking about specifically for affordable housing that we put commission in place. the commission passes an agenda forward allocating money and resources and a clear directive saying this is how we need to bring affordable market how the new market affordable housing units to san francisco's and people in the greater san francisco bay area. that would require you to honor that commitment. now, i personally exacerbated and try to work with you to do that without a commission could but here i am in this position like media commission is exactly what we need to provide that level of oversight to provide a transparency, to provide accountability more importantly to these department of functions. i agree, the government of real estate should be exempt. thank you supervisor peskin's office for pulling that out. but i do wonder about particular the mayor's office of housing and i do think that a commission would push this department to be aggressive in how the

marketing and talk about affordable housing. push the department to be far more aggressive than outside of their comfort zone when it comes to interacting with communities of color. how we're advertising these units available. we are we are advertising. i've been working two years with your staff trying to get some language to codify how developers even advertise these units. i've got nowhere. it's been incredibly frustrating and yet i sit here and i watch these affordable market units as well as bmr units go through the process, and few people of san francisco i would just say ancestry, commitment the san franciscans are continually being pushed out and there seems to be like no accountability. perhaps, that's a commission would have been a little bit more accountability. i don't know. i don't think i'm hearing on off

to sway me one way or the other, but i definitely don't think we have a problem which is the reason why we are here and entertaining this conversation. so supervisor tang it wasn't really a question is more or less a statement. i apologize to everyone but- >> thank you for your statement. supervisor tamara >> instead of responding to that i want to focus on with the hardship for affordable housing if a measure like this were to be passed. try to find the balance of supporting transparency and better oversight with on the ground impacts. i know your staff worked really hard and ms. middlebrook explained some of the human impacts and i know building affordable housing is to meet one of the most important tasks in your office is really the one tasked with that will be the hardship, that delays and human terms and even

economic terms if our goals to build huge amount of housing by 2020 for example? >> well, were on a very very tight deadline to try to create the 10,000 units that the mayor and the board has supported as a affordable housing goals overall. the issue of a delay in whether it is a question of getting on a calendar because we couldn't get on a calendar because of the number of items that would have to go before this particular commission, which happens very very often, the planning department, as it relates to calendaring, document try not to throw my colleagues at the planning department under the bus but they have such a large work load that they often can't calendar items quickly enough. those commissioners work very very long long hours in trying

to provide a transparency and try to provide that review of all these items that there's just a lot of items. so, one of the concerns we would have is would be have the ability to get to the commission in a timely manner that wouldn't affect our ability to close and fund the loan or provide a letter of commitment so that we can leverage outside funds. so, we don't want to lose the opportunity to look for outside funding good again, if we don't get the outside funding then we have to wait a cycle or two to try to get that particular project back into the queue for additional outside funding or the city would actually have to than cover the gap for that particular project because we missed the opportunity for the

funding overall. so the impact is, we want to delay in the actual creation of that affordable housing, but it's also the diamonds loss of affordable housing when we have to than substitute were scrambled to pay more for project if there's lost access to it or pay more for a project because it has been delayed in getting to construction as construction cost increased overall and is just taking money out of the system that we would like to use specifically for the subsidizing more affordable housing could >> then, i know from brian choose side of the community development that the real impacts of neighborhood stabilization and many development projects will be delayed and i think is a human impacted their but i think the point of the five commissioners, the two from the mayor, two from the board and one from the comptroller how they are defined about expertise these five people would have to have a huge amount of

expertise over many different complex issues. so i definitely see that. i did want to say that i'm try to focus on what the best balance. do you have any suggestions to minimize the conflicts also so todd would vote and to meet workforce investment as a potential conflicts and the committee advisory body on community development and what potential converts are there were redundancies with this commission would oversee? >> well, the cc cd is the public outreach mechanism we use for the community development grants. they make a recommendation to staff and then staff forwards that to the mayor and to the board. again, we would be uncertain inserting another body before it gets to the board as part of our overall budget. so, again, the

question is, is the delay, is the additional time and effort we need to staff that particular commission warranted when we do have a public process there. >> thank you. supervisor cohen >> i just want to say one thing good that emily moh has a. they work with me >> anyone putting >> but the one good thing that comes to mind is the neighborhood preference legislation but i think that's absolutely critical and will in time to be a smart prudent decision for neighborhoods that will be one of it from this legislation. i do want to be uneven handed in his cousin on my frustration and not flatter you but i frustration still out ways that flattering because i still think that oversight

would be very good but tickly for american idol know about oewd. is that like you guys get swept up into. another confirmer was a for nonprofits however, nonprofits and service providers in this goes forward they just need to build it into their timeline as to when and approval process as to when the grants will be issued. >> i would say just in response, we think the supervisor and the president of the board for their leadership on the neighborhood preference legislation. and we are working very very hard to try to work with the other funders, the federal government, the state government, to get that neighborhood preference implement it. i would just remind the public that all of the things that the mayor's office has done with the context of the neighborhoods, again, the demonstration

program, 3500 units of extremely distressed public housing being converted, rehabbed for affordable housing. the whole sf projects. overall, taking on the most dilapidated family developments and creating mixed income neighbors were almost done or not almost on the were substantially through that process at hunters be. it may determine this difference in a process. i went by the construction of the alice griffith project and that's going really really well. i saw the supervisor this saturday at the opening of their dr. davis senior housing and senior development. so, clearly, the benefits of the work that we do are tangible. the question about the delays are real. the question of getting the focus

of the commission to focus on the specific work we do is real and the fact that this board,, you know, even on the supervisors comments, it's clearly oversight on the work that we do as a department. >> supervisor 10 >> i agree a lot of good work is happened but means nothing if people don't know about these opportunities. that was my point of issue. how we are communicating to people, what language, where we advertise, where the standards and requirements we have want developers to share this information. yes, this is all wonderful. to be fair, it was an uphill battle even to get the george c davis building filled to its capacity with certificate of preference holders. it is through cutthroat and frankly, guerrilla warfare that kathy davis was so successful in getting it. was into the help of on the lakes. i think that is a

problem. >> all right. thank you supervisor cohen. but i'd wrap this up your i know there's a lot of people here public comments. i've i will say in terms of one last observation about the proposed charter amendment i noted that the mayor's office of housing, if there are projects with federal or state funding forces the mayor's office of housing were under this new structure would be able to exempt such projects from the competitive bid process. that struck be as a little bit of a strange clause to include in your own because i think the goal really is to improve transparency and so forth, i'm not sure we have this in here. this potential ability for a waiver of competitive bid process. lastly, i will just say overall, again, i don't really know what were trying to solve for

in terms of both oewd and, leach cd under this one umbrella of a commission. in terms of especially when it comes to moh cd, so much i would say probably the majority of the approvals are set to go to the board of supervisors so i waxing courtyard board member to pay attention to what's on the agenda and if there's a issues and maybe we should point those out during those processes instead of potentially having this commission delay so much of what were trying to do to remove barriers to creating affordable housing projects in san francisco which is a huge goal of mine. so, all that to say i do have serious concerns about this particular charter amendment but at this, but open up to public comment because many of you are waiting to speak. a medical sum, the cards. if you could please line up by the window. >>[calling names]these come on up. please, come on up.

>> good morning supervisors. my name is pf i'm here representing spurt. thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this chart amended. we believe this measure is unnecessary and creates duplicate of oversight oh slow down our city government. we've heard from our departments that these offices are not-it's also be doctors are not subject to oversight by city commissions. while they don't have a direct commission of their own page fully present nearly everything that they do to numerous commissions, boards, citizen advisory committees, etc. for input and approval which includes the planning commission and the board of supervisors. the board of supervisors itself directly approves the major development deals of the office of economic and workforce development. we be because she on the city and on major transactions that take place in the department of real estate. this new commission

wouldn't add much more you that other advisory bodies do not. from a good government perspective, it's important to ask this question since there's a cost in both terms of time that it adds to the buses and in terms of direct cost of a commission and staffing to the public. the measure will slow down affordable housing projects that the mayor's office of housing and community development are trying to make happen. it will add additional cost to the public-private partnership that oh ew the work done and is just unnecessary. we have some concerns about this and we urge you not to submit it to the voters. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning supervisor. my name is karen the woods. i been involved in community development as a volunteer for about 25 years now. i have worked with the mayor's office of housing through our mission

bay project. i have worked with oewd on numerous projects and i'm even working with a real estate division peripherally. i really don't know whether it makes sense to have a separate office, department for housing and community development. but i do know i am concerned about several things. under the housing piece, competitive procurement of affordable housing seems to be the wrong way to go. putting together an affordable housing package is so congregated already when you try and put funding together, programs together, affordability levels together, it just seems like a competitive process would be counterproductive. i also feel

strongly that oewd has no business being under a commission that is primarily about affordable housing. whether or not that should be a separate department is a completely different question. oewd does far more than just housing and community development. we have major oversight of their activities on development and other things i see, and i think having him under a housing oriented commission would be a very bad mistake. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning supervised at my name is kevin kell executive director of the hotel council of san francisco. i also the honor of serving as the chair of the workforce investment board of san francisco as well. i been on the board for over four years. i'm here today to discuss this newly proposed commission would likely be in

conflict with the existing workforce board and how we would met negatively impact the ability to carry out its functions pertaining to work for service provision to the san francisco residents and businesses. workforce investment board of san francisco local board. it was established in accordance with the workforce investment act which now has been superseded by the workforce innovation opportunity act which is referred to as-. overseas workforce activities in san francisco. the other federal law that guides and funds local workforce service delivery and creates a system oversight bodies as possible for monitoring implementation and compliance with the workforce act. this tiered system requires the state government work with the chief elected official of a local area in san francisco that would be the mayor and to establish a local workforce board. it appointed board members to the local workforce board, the mayor to

follow strict guidelines regarding member compositions. for example, the majority of the board must consist of representatives from the business community, and another 20% of the members must represent unions and cbo's as well. i workforce investment board members include executives from microsoft salesforce, kaiser, said her health and the hotel council and golden gate restaurant association at exhibit commission overseeing oewd would likely be in conflict with the federally mandated local workforce good at minimum, separate commission will with oakland as similar as possible these would create inefficiencies, duplication of efforts, and increase administrative costs that produce and impede or delay the probe programmatic activities associate with the programs. in closing, i urge you to consider the existing legal obligations and practical implications for san francisco's workforce system. thank you for your time >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning supervised.

good morning members. my name is ivan and i represent -consulting i was to voice my concern regarding the proposed rule. san francisco has an amazing team of dedicated missionaries working hard and empowering communities to thrive under very challenging conditions in a city where disparities can be quite stark. this additional layer of oversight would is not necessary. it would slow down the delivery of projects in what is already a difficult and often cumbersome process. putting this process in place will only make it more difficult to get resources to communities in organizations that benefit from the grants and resources provided by the mayor's office of economic and workforce development. these grants allow services, service providers, to meet the growing needs of disenfranchised communities. many of which would otherwise lose the constant battle to keep their

doors open to provide opportunity to communities that need it the most. was there, it can obliterate this committee organization which often one on tight margins. we need the city of san francisco to speedily process granting request in order to support communities were experiencing continued hardship in the city that they said that the value of the city even as it provides diminished opportunities for others. san francisco must continue to assist this disenfranchised committees who are important to the fabric of the city of san francisco. community organizations will not benefit from the additional cost logistics, processes, meetings, and hearings that this commission as to the process. we believe the additional layers created by the proposed housing and development commission would greatly impair the ability of service providers to efficiently and effectively meet the needs of our communities that need it the most. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. i'm-director of counter pulse we just opened our new venue on the block of turk street. we are the beneficiary of oewd support both financially as well as just being advisors in our move to a new neighborhood in san francisco. we were supported through predevelopment costs as well's recently to review our episodic two more will be coming to our new neighborhood. i will keep this brief. i learned a lot from being here today and i think that oversight is important and i work in a grassroots community way and i think that the priority that i placed on agility and responsiveness to community needs is really where my heart lies in processes. as a matter of process, i think that is a recent grantee it

would have been a good sign to have been gauged in some way around this measure to know that type of responsiveness which i think is a real hallmark about oh ew works now would still be in place. that would be bounds of oversight and responsiveness in this way would be a priority and concern that want to see informed in the process going for. thank you >> thank you very much. before iconic speaker, ipod speaker cards. i have more speaker cards here. >>[calling names] >> thank you randy shaw director of [inaudible] i like to start by addressing supervisor cohen's point about sheila concerns without oh ew's operator programs. i felt that way in the 80s and then either the ballot measure could i think it's the only ballot measure abitibi being on the ballot and pass signatures as opposed to the board to create a building session which one in the 1994 ballot because we cannot get the building department of housing the firemen to do code enforcement only choice and i spent two years surveying all the groups.

we ended up having every major constituency in san francisco except for the downtown inches they used to control the department. the landlords and tenants and the merchants all on board. but in this case, oewd is incredibly well-run agents. you've heard it. i don't know what they're doing in this housing development commission. i think that's what you're hearing from all of us here is don't break what isn't broken. your concerns of-i don't get involved with that and i anderson allotted concerns with units and the like but that's not oewd and they done such an effective job in the tenderloin, we've had no money economic development money prior to the last administration 50 years went by without a dollar academic development money coming to tenderloin businesses. now we have a 26 tenderloin sunday we are tenderloin using. the counter post. p&l fight it all got assistance from a league at ud. what is more grassroots than that? so, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater

here. let's protect oewd under all services. thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm a jewel lightly. i am a white chair of the merchants association. i just want to talk a little bit about our expenses with oewd. >> can you speak into the microphone a little bit you can put down. perfect >> i started going to the merchants association meetings about two years ago. when it was forming. i did six months nothing really happen until oewd came in and started giving us support and guidance and help to keep the merchants association welding and to form more properly formed, and so yes in the last year and half since they been helping us, we have got the organization together and however we are ready to start taking members and they also help us put on the first little market st.,

festival which happened two weeks ago which is also very successful. none of that we would've been able to do without the help of them.. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good morning supervise. dan adams woodbridge housing. i'm here to to express a couple of concerns that we have with the proposed formation of a housing and a moment commission. my comments will leave before to potential investor the production of one of percent afford housing in san francisco. as we all know, were expensing a housing crisis and critical to confronting the crisis is producing as much affordable housing as quickly as possible. adding additional layer 2 oversight interview to what is already very lengthy and quite highly regulated

process seems on its surface to risk slowing down production and impeding the efficient allocation of funds to locally based affordable housing developers. the city is a contest to many others in the beginning is blessed to have a number of highly qualified michigan to developers and it should be our shared goal to exploit those talents and capacities of these crudes to maximize production of this much-needed community asset. we are concerned that adding additional regulatory body is perhaps not the best way to reach that shared goal. second, i encourage this group to consider what if any problem this commission this proposed commission, would be solving. as a former member of our staff i can attest to the care and rigor with which decisions are made regarding funding and program development. loan committees are open to the public and include diverse presentation of city departments that are these for new development and include considerable outreach and diversity and the selection panel and puzzles puzzle the ground lease. those ground

leases are approved by the board of supervisors and public meetings. development agreements for larger projects of you by planning commission and the full board and thus is our opinion the agencies involved in this proposed charter amendment as well as the existing oversight midis to my commissions, and boards, do an exemplary job in ensuring transparency of process and conduct careful deliberation when approving projects. so, we encourage you to consider whether this commission is necessary for the depression of affordable housing >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is--[inaudible] and i work as a committee organizer of san francisco and i want [inaudible] i'm here because we only the last couple of years have been working very closely with oewd staff on improving tenderloin in terms of even small businesses coming in organization like counter post how to integrate into the community, how to the community

can benefit from new businesses coming into the community. we've also participated in larkin street, the first there was organized with the help of oewd. one other concern i want to bring about is what we felt there was very little community input processed before the charter amendment brought in here and we encourage and we basically urge supervisor peskin to move oewd from the start of amendment. thanks >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> scott hockey,--[inaudible] small business advocate. i'm here to speak against the proposal. honestly, i don't have a lot of background with the mayor's office of housing but have worked very closely with mayor's office of economic development. so i speak from that perspective. first of all, i don't think this is necessary . i see it as bureaucratic. an additional expense. i am concerned about the delay as was mentioned. the ladies got

added costs. i am also concerned, as was mentioned by mr. without that small business is not part of the equation and i think that's a real problem and needs to be incorporated although i would like to see this stopped. thank you >> thank you. before next speaker i have more cards. >>[calling names] >> good morning supervise. my name is paul pendergast denied the privilege of serving as the president of the golden gate business association would to the nations first lgbt chamber of commerce am also the president of the san francisco small business network which represents 11 business organizations here in san francisco. i want to

underscore the thoughts are presented by kevin cal as was mr. hockey and i want to add another certain element to this was a bit of irony we were talking about a new level of transparency and engagement and i will say that in the past month the gdb eight sold by public events and there's been no representation, no request for input from supervisor peskin's office to participate and engage in this legislative process. when other supervisors contact us regularly. so, small businesses boys does not appear to be included into this proposal legislation and we are very very serious concerns regarding its merits. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning tom window at executive director of liberal also. there's a lot of intriguing ideas here. providing more oversight to a commission versus functions of city government. however, i don't know i would bundle all these together. i kind of want

to speak to some of the aspects of it. the first is housing. the mayor's office of housing has grown enormously in the past few years could we disbanded redevelopment was a big transfer of cash, land and buildings to mow. there's been a huge amount of fees we've collected in lieu fees for inclusionary process that is gone there and also processing. it's become a really really big enterprise. one of the things that housing-in the city would have a strategy for had one thing i think is a commission to do is say, what is our strategy? who do we want to rouse the one where, when, what levels of affordability? so easy proposal like density proposal which is a law is for logan muttered in here its permit. we don't know how those decisions are made or what the part of a strategy. so, we think a housing commission and maybe even look at adding the housing authority to it since the housing authorities actually holds land and leasing properties to afford housing

developers very similar in its new model in function to what moe has been doing. but a commission that really sets the housing strategy for the city and make sure all the different pieces are implemented i think it really add value in this city. so there's the oversight function but there's also strategy and policy in week this would at some coherence that. as to the economic development office, does many things get one of the things they been doing is putting into the arena of the planning commission we have a commission that was a look at menus in development but increasingly we see the mayor's office cutting development deals negotiated spot rezoning. we think you should ask the user budgetary authority to say we want planning department in the city when planning commission and the subject not the [inaudible] there's a lot of duplication. a lot of lack of transparency there we think you can fix. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i may name is-and the director of the [inaudible]

located bayview hunters point them here to voice concern about the proposal. my spirits working in the community and the government adding additional layers of bureaucracy the with good intentions almost surefire way to slow down the city's ability to leverage resources to the community will greatly impact the work of many nonprofits in the neighborhood specifically small and nonprofits by probable bottlenecking needed funds. i want to say i want to share supervisors the hands concerned about equitability as pertains to resources and access to government resources all around wallace the support of creating mechanisms that encourage fairness and transparency however again my concern is with the selected housing to vomit commissioner present the true interest of the neighborhood particularly grassroots organizations often not on the city's radar. is a newly created commission the answer to support to equity and access? the proposal could siphon by providing clear structure and scope in order to

mentioned aforementioned as i can also attest to many nonprofits in the bayview and relationship with oewd's investment in neighborhoods relationship has been able to grow organically because of representatives from the agency being active on the ground in the neighborhood, building was critical relationships in observing the progress of each progress as they develop. the agencies grant guidelines are already clear occurred transparency is only to the grand process. the addition of independent grant review panels also supports transparency and fairness. this has led to supporting programs that they view that really something communities at will such as third on third and community tuesdays. i have you take my testimony and into consideration and thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is ace washington. the fillmore corridor ambassador. i'm here supporting

legislation that peskin is trying to put forth. he's a progressive. we need to listen to the lessons that this man is telling you all. the deal is, i look at these people that get appearance though good about all these departments and every one of them is in their pockets. every one of them. the ones that are coming up here to speak now are in their pockets. oewd them in the mayor's office of economic development, listen, in my opinion, all these department heads need to be checked. all of them are go around and know what they're doing and anybody that gets appear particularly african-american black folks, say they don't wonder why oversight board, there's something wrong with them because we as african-americans in the state, where in a state of emergency and doggone it, to be your to the my porn and helping asking and bringing more legislation together because there's many department

heads that need oversight. the human rights commission. is one. the planning commission you talk about their the planning commission that the together the urban renewal window isn't negro removal. how in the hell do these people particularly black folks get appearweek don't need no oversight here in san francisco the one the city by the bait. you will all that are here what i've got is a good thing about it is. here people, the same color as me they support manager i can get a sitdown with olson lee. this man is the diamond head of two departments in one. eusebio redevelopment agency. [inaudible] now ed lee olson lee and i would that another lee that's having affirmative action. what the hell is going on in the city by the bay? my name is ace and him on this case. particular, all these spaces and cases are part of my cases. was the people get here see you see them in other form or fashion but i support the bill. we need oversight on more than just them. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. supervisor

tim: on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition and first, i want to in strong unequivocal terms commence directors todd rufo and also lee for the dispassionate fair and accurate remarks of what this proposal means to their agencies. i agree with them. it's concerning. i think that while well-intentioned, this is a proposal, it's a solution in desperate search of a problem. we work closely in our work in housing these two agencies, and it's nothing if not transparent already. there is a risk that this pursuit of somehow we are going to drastically increase transparency comes at a cost of results and accountability. san francisco is gaining attention for himself in ways that are not necessarily good for

instituting processes and systems that impede decision-making to our detriment. i think the one thing i would say, it's not hard to imagine, were concerned about production of more housing and addressing housing affordability. it's not hard to imagine this proposal delaying projects by another six months and the most important thing is, that time is not free. that adds cost to the production of housing and sadly, it adds equally to both affordable housing and market rate housing. all we are doing when we delay processes like this adding more and more process and layers of government to it is where humming our own interests if would try to get our hands around housing affordability. this is a concerning measure and i would recommend that you not moving for. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello supervised. my name is [inaudible] i'm here on

behalf of [inaudible] home was under. i urge the wills commission committee to support this measure on the ballot. we have a time honored tradition in san francisco of encouraging both public participation and oversight of the government agencies. commissions are important and powerful way to facilitate meaningful community participation and they provide an avenue for which the public can make their concerns heard. if a resident or a group for example as a problem with transit were parking or something they can go complain to mta board. similar for school boards if a parent has an issue with the school they can make their points heard. that is not the same case for tenants who live in afford housing and other issues with building developers who are not keeping to it they said they would do. they simply have no

formal channel through which they can make their concerns heard especially around issues of affordability which are extremely pertinent in the city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning samantha higgins with a golden get restaurant assessment thank you for your time today. it seems to us that about of a new commission is just a solution searching for a problem. as it is, the board already has to approve development agreement. the city can codify rules pursuant to bidding process without more bureaucracy which was slow the process in the various next you. additionally, what they close with oewd to train in place people in restaurant jobs and we do not want to slow down or hinder the process with more unnecessary bureaucracy. we also sit on the board and share both mr. carol and mr. with those concerns a. so we ask that we ask what problem this is exactly trying

to solve. thank you for your time >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning supervised. my name is gail gillman. seo community housing in partnership. also on the dbi commissioner. i'm here today because as him and you understand important of the commission that i commission the ran then he shot spoke of that was enacted by the voters come i really think you're the commission can be helpful. how the board of directors can lean into our expertise in our ties to the community really help them problem solve and i was a particularly, on commission i set up problem solve the board that affects that upon. i do want want to caution that i think we should embrace supervisor tim haskin's statement he's open to amendment to this registration. i one concern as a provider of the only homeless housing here in san francisco these i want to have some guarantees that streamline and maybe across commissions if this was passed by the voters. to ensure that housing proponents individuals are not caught up in more delays

and more bureaucracy. as many of you remember, committee housing and partnership took five years to open 24 units of housing in district 2. we were awarded the project i will in 2009 and endorsed not open to that facility until 2015. after an intense entitlement fight in numerous commission meetings. we would hope a new commission performed and approved by the voters were not add to the process to delay housing for homeless individuals. so i really hope we can work to craft this if it moves forward. so that it aligns with providing insight and leadership and being into these departments and also provide a way to streamline the process. thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is cheryl davis. i really am not here to talk about oewd or moh cd. i'm

here to talk about the impact that i think would have on community based organizations and individuals. i don't know how having another commission or another layer for folks to actually have to come and speak to you today, like i thought maybe this would be a little bit quicker than it is. it's going to be two hours probably before it's finished. i do know that ceos and other folks have the time to come and really pander to a commission. i think if you want to do something you should set up a structure where people can be seen as individuals and not have to come stand in line and actually beg people to listen to him. i think you need to think of the way were folks can set up a time to say this my complaint that somebody actually move on the complaint. versus, having a popularity contest who can bring out the most people to sway the commission. so, my concern is people don't have time. in the evening or during the middle of the day to spend we are trying to convince someone to listen to them or

their needs important. there needs to be way to do it were people recognize as individuals and valued and not having to come in and make phone calls and a people to come and speak on their behalf but that individuals count. so my concern is another layer like this where we have to carve out time that we think is can be 30 min. that turns into three hours at turns into dipping enough people out. so, that's my concern with the commission. thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> thank you. arnold townsend. let me just say, i am overwhelmed and that may be an understatement that somebody in this town believes that we don't have enough bureaucracy when we are trying to get things done. so, we need at need to add another layer. two or three commissions of more, a couple of new departments, the money that is going to be spent just to run these two commissions did the issues that we have in our communities with the unparalleled violence among

young people and especially the black and brown communities that this is the best we could come up with. i am just amazed and heartbroken. secondly, i have a real concern that it will further. our communities against each other where everybody tries to go to their commission, rather than trying to work together good i got here 49 years ago this year. this was an amazing place at the way neighborhoods and communities work together and no more. no more. everything is political. everything is a fight. everybody is looking for their people and this will only increase that kind of activity. i think it's a huge mistake. for you all to do this and i would implore you to take another look, take another look, and require the

commissions and department they have now to do the job that they are charged to. thank you >> thank you very much. if any other members are here to speak on item 1, just please line up by the window. thank you. >> hello everybody. my name is brown. president of the san francisco national socialism for batsmen of color people. and senior pastor of the baptist church. you know, mark twain did a little piece on the mississippi river and they mentioned that as a child he often went down to the bank to witness the steamboat come in and he found it very ironic that he would hear the whistle

of a steamboat miles away. in fact, he estimated it to of been 2-3 miles away. one day, he asked the captain when they got to the bank, why does it take you all all of that time to come that short distance. i heard the whistle. the captain said, well, boy, it took too much steam to blow the whistle that we didn't have enough energy and steam to move the boat. my friends, somebody is trying to toot their whistles. we don't need this commission. we need to do is use a structure that we now have and deliver the goods to the people

of this city. we don't need any more bureaucracy. we don't need anymore stalemated haply learn anything from this u.s. congress? that is doing nothing. we don't need more whistleblowing. what we need is to just to do what we need to do to provide housing, resources, and services for everybody in the city and county of san francisco. send this measure back and don't let it get anywhere. we don't need anymore whistle tooting. we need some doing. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good morning. don talk seo in tenderloin neighborhood development corporation did not here to speak for or against the legislation. only two requested that as you shape it you think of ways to expedite its work. i want to offer just one recent example from

-expense. in a hot market it's very difficult to acquire property and often sellers are requiring of us fast decisions. our most recent agreement gave 30 days to commit and 30 days to close. we would want if there were a commission it to be able to act in such a way to accommodate that situation. thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> supervisor, jim lazarus san francisco chamber of commerce. i think it's clear what with the lack of transparency is the drafting of this charter amendment. we don't need to a three city departments. i see no evidence of a need for new commission and hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost that come with commission forms of government. the commission secretaries two additional staff to the process of holding the meetings televised in. i assume you for some reports from the budget analyst with

the controller's office what the cost of the rotation in management this new of two new departments and a new commission will be. if there is a lack of transparency, and there have been questions raised by members of the board of supervisors here, the 1995 charter gives this board authority to enact ordinance affecting the operation to city departments that use your authority to create advisory bodies. use your authority to create an outreach and transparency set of laws. if you're concerned that the current board of supervisors planning commissions with all the steps on budget, sale property, upon issuance, zoning issues, were virtually everything in these apartments do now when these offices do now, are given transparency through the rest of city government. you have over 40 ballot measures pending for the november ballot. either here at the board introduced before supervisors or a few through the initial process through

signature. you got to come some of it now and i recommend you start by tabling this measure. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is lee. consider this from the navy. i was in the navy for years and years. i been living in san francisco for 50 years. i've been to every neighborhood and imagine that i'm green. the people that run this city are corporations that got the money to do whatever they want to do. that's why they own san francisco. they have not done that since the super bowl when the super bowl showed up that's when big money get this town. when big money. this down everything went to pot. that's when the super bowl corporation you build that big skyscraper for the super bowl and just displaced everyone down by the embarcadero. now, i go every. it's not just the color of your skin that matters. i can go into chinatown way way down in

the 38 and see people are displaced that is not the color of your skin that matters at all. they could be latino. what about native americans? >> i'm sorry would you mean peak into the housing and obama commission. thank you >> yes this is about house. how do you do this. how do you do housing for everyone in the city when you don't have the money to do it because you spent it all on all these frivolous little committees? that's what i'm up here to talk about. it should've been done a long time ago. there should have never been a crisis of homelessness in the first place but you let corporations take over the city. that is what i'm here to speak about. you've got to get a better handle on what you are doing with all the money that is you. i hear there's $9 billion that's been assessed 41amount of commission

is. come on. you guys have got to do a better job in the event. i love this city. i been here a very long time. just, please, get a better handle on. because you can do this. it's not that happen from washington is that to happen from here. that's all and speaking about. don't let corporations take over san francisco. have a good day. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning supervise. john elk president of [inaudible] bigger government is that government when we give him an agency for many years and most of the affordable housing at every step of the way programming of sight, drafting the rfp, picking a developer, approving the financing plan, all that was done at a commission hearing. although some with staff memos. all that was done in public in the brown act down. today, the most staff does every step of that process. alone. behind

closed doors. then, by the time it may finally come to this board of supervisors for gratification, it's far too late to go back and change anything that has been done. a secret government is bad government. i noted in number of grantees of these agencies came today to talk about it. i know some of them are phoned up by staff ages. how can they say nope? when the fatal flaws of secret government is the potential for retaliation or favoritism. when everything is done behind closed doors staff only, that's very easy to do. at least a commission provides independent body, independently pointed in this case not controlled by any one branch of government. that would be a real safeguard against misuse of that authority. the same problem is occurring in a different way at oewd.. the development agreements often worked out with developers in the back room behind closed doors by the time he gets to the planning commission the

planning commission doesn't have independent staff. they can you independent economic analysis. it's a done deal. by the time it comes to you may choose this board to fight it but you would rather not have to have a political fight on every development agreement in the city. you would like to have that's all before it got keep it secret government is bad government. is charlie brown acted jolly sunshine open to the public since its beta and the public is then why they voted the way they do. please move this measure four. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. and again any members of the public who wish to speak on item 1 please come for. >> i would like to support estrada minutes. i like to support supervisor cohen's comments on this. also the previous speaker. put it on the ballot and let the voters decide. >> thank you any other members of the public to comment on item 1 seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> i also at the summit to go to the comptroller's office

have you read into the record the cost letter you provided >> controllers as we like me read the whole letter >> no. just the cost >> i know we are estimating this would cost the city bustling $190,000 every year. this only includes the cost of a commission secretary,, the second for the commissioners. they are offered health benefits so some of them will take that all. as well as materials cost, funding for membership in training for the commissioners. that's our estimate at this time >> thank you very much. supervisor avalos has joined us. >> thank you. thank you everyone for being here to discuss this charter amendment. this was actually very interesting to see that this charter amendment was moving forward. i actually was considering some oversight over

moh moh cd. to me, that's been really important because i see that we have a department of mayor's office of housing that is more singularly focused but it has a range of activities that's responsible over in that singler focus of developing affordable housing construction is what i think deteriorates all the other missions it does have. so, to me, injecting some strategic planning is really important over the department. i also have worked very closely with the community development side of the mayor's office of housing and community development and i think the city could benefit from a more robust office of community development that actually has a real program that can be strengthened and sped across san francisco. in the history of district 11, the community

development work has been gradual and consistent and built really great efforts that have led to affordable housing and workforce centers and ways that the public and the residents of district 11 arbitrator engaged in public life. that has led to new assets , beautification, park improvements, really great stuff that is been under the mayor's office of community development. and it's a great model for other places all over san francisco but because there is limited resources within that department, for community development mark levitt is geared towards doing with the hud money that comes in for the block grants, it is not easy to move to greater vision of what that office could be. so, to me what was needed was some public strategic planning for those departments to be able to take in the whole inventory of what they could possibly do and how they can actually make sure

they're meeting all their mission goals and guidelines. so, i'm intrigued about having a commission or these departments. i have some concern about how office of academic workforce development works in the city as well. i think that there's a greater focus in terms of resources and attention that goes to supporting the biggest businesses in the development agreement that are coming to san francisco at the expense of neighborhoods like the excelsior, and i was a maybe ted about and other places in the city. to me, i think there is a need for having some kind of oversight function to make sure that there's a real strategy involved in other words is not being reactive to constituents that have a lot of power and connection to city hall but really assessing how

to remove economic element in a consistent way across the city. what is our plan for downtown? with our plan for neighborhoods even how do we make sure they would get better served and rehashed their progress in our efforts? is there's any real discussion about that. certainly not in a public way as rather see a greater amount of transparency about what decisions we make in these departments. i'm not sure if it makes sense to have the same body that would oversee the mayor's office of housing oversee community development, oversee the office of economic and workforce development to me. makes more sense that there's another place where that oversight could happen. perhaps there is a reconfiguration of the small business commission that can take on that function reconstituting that. to me it makes a lot more sense to having this department involved in the same oversight body as moh and a mellow cd. i think there is a need to make sure that there's some public process that can be part of how development agreements to happen

. often those happens behind closed doors and we've seen that without major projects of the office of economic and workforce the roman has made in san francisco and i'm thinking about the warriors arena where it was first being planned [inaudible] and prior to that america's cup, and even looking at the cmpc development in the there was a lot of behind closed-door efforts that later were taken apart in a public weight we start doing public hearings. so i think that transparency is super critical to make sure we are not just satisfying the need and desires of big corporations looking for a break to do business in san francisco, were actually making sure the public is being taken care of in more decision-making on these big projects coming forward. we actually make sure there's consistency in our neighborhoods. to me, i like the idea behind these charter amendment. i want to see it be great to move some into the ballot but i think there's a lot of ways to go before we have some something that's really solid to be able to move

four. so i like the idea of a separate commission for both reconstituting the small business commission to take on responsibilities of oewd and provide a public guidance around public agreements and strategic planning economic element around the city. >> thank you supervisor avalos. i would just say of course are as always improvements we can make an harbor i feel like this particular commission lending and oewd and all my weight under this umbrella is a bit strange to me. so, at this time than colleagues, i do not miss ms. anglo 11 tended this committee to try to adopt the amendment striking out the real estate department >> yes that was the quest the supervisor hat of the amendment before you. specifically with respect to setting the ami levels and exempting the real estate division from purview to the commission except for the surplus property function. >> okay. supervisor mar

>> i will move those amendment. do they need to sit for a week as subset of the amendment >> we would come back whenever i think that there's a rules committee meeting on thursday. supervisor tang's office has reached out to try and schedule the next hearing for this charter amendment. i think thursday would be fine. if the schedule allows that. supervisor cohen >> thank you very much. i want to see if there was any movement with, discussion with todd those. i think in all the suggestions that both you and the public about for today is something that i would take back and discuss with our city attorney. then also course with the supervisor and so we will continue to try and work through that. >> thank you. so supervisor mar you made a motion and good okay. second by supervisor

cohen. >> yes >> with that without objection >>[gavel] >> a motion to continue this item to the july 7 the rules committee meeting moved and seconded. we will take that without objection >>[gavel] >> thank you. they do everyone for showing up. note this time we have been asked to call items six, so mr. crook if you cannot call adam six >> item number six >>[reading code] >> thank you. we have the author of this chart of amendment supervisor campos >> thank you very much mdm. chairman and college. members of the committee, thank you for your courtesy in hearing item number six right after number one. i have a family matter that i need to attend to so i appreciate that and apologize for any inconvenience. i will be very brief. because i want

to just note that we've had a conversation about this measure for quite some time with a number people in this a number of parties that we are still in discussions with and uphold an expectation is that there'll be amendment that will be made to this measure at the next was committee meeting and so my request would be that at some point the item be continued so that it can be heard again in the rules committee at the next meeting which i think is 7 july. with that said, i think it's important nevertheless to begin to have a general discussion about what we are talking about when were talking about the creation of a public advocate office. look, i think the fact is given everything that's been happening in san francisco we are living in a time when many residents of san francisco

don't feel that government is responsive to their needs. they are fed up about so many different issues with its homelessness, street cleaning, allegations of corruption in city hall, there is a lack of trust that many people in many residents have in government. perhaps the illustration of that is a relationship that certain communities of color have with our police department and some of the incidents involving officer involved shootings. from my perspective, and those of us who been working on this the creation of this office now more than ever san francisco needs an office of public advocate. what is a public advocate a public advocate is an independently elected official in some parts of the country or the world them is an ombudsman person who is more or less the title but it's elected official

whose responsibility is to make sure that people get fair treatment and effective treatment by their local government. it is a complaint and whistleblowing department, but with teeth. people say, well, we actually do we really need more government bureaucracy? well, this would be an agency elected by the people whose job would be to actually provide oversight, independence, and transparency to the existing bureaucracy. do we need another government agency to do that? i believe we do. i will give you the example of the mayor's office that in the last couple of years has created a number of departments without any oversight being provided. we are actually talking about giving that oversight. this concept is not new. it's a concept that other jurisdictions have followed. i will give the example of new york city, which has had a public advocate since 1993. other jurisdictions include a public advocate include king

county washington, toronto, canada, montréal, detroit, anchorage, dayton county ohio, good here in san francisco, a number of elected officials have over the years the need of a public advocate cured former supervisor tom biondo and assembly honor assembly member has discussed that before. supervisor jake-actually traded office and the jews a charter metrics that would do that. for this initiative, we have taken what we believe are the best attributes of the city of new york and its public advocate, portland and its public advocate, toronto and its public advocate and try to incorporate those activates to the needs of san francisco. and here's some of the almonds we are talking about with the understanding that, again, it would be amendment there will be introduced at the next meeting. one, the public

advocate would assist members of the public would complaint involving government services and regulations. for instance, if the san francisco mta monthly tickets you on a non-street sweeping day you may actually find it challenging to contest the ticket and the very department that is actually issuing the ticket. the barrier, that's making money from that ticket. even if you go to your supervisor, those of us know the board, that there are certain limits in terms of how far you as a supervisor can go in terms of questioning and challenging that ticket. we are talking about giving the power and authority to an office to actually look into the substance of that kind of a complaint. the other thing is that as a public advocate that individual, she will have also the responsibility of seeing trends and complaint not only in individual districts,

supervisory districts, but actually citywide. she can begin identifying the departmental practices and policies that perhaps we need tweaking investigation, press the reform that in this ties into the second point, the second will of the public advocate. the public advocate would have the power to subpoena, perform audits, and investigate city departments to improve transparency and weed weed out corruption or fraud, address inefficiencies and local government. to make sure that public government is effective as a candy. the public advocate can then publish policy reports and provide policy recommendations and ensure accountability from city agencies. when legislative solutions are called for the public advocate could introduce legislation to be voted upon and decided by this board of supervisors. new york has actually shown many examples of how this function can be something very positive for the public and let's take the example in 2015 us public

advocate-james looked into one of the issues of that was raised by a complaint, reckless spending by the new york city department of education on a 1.2 5 billion technology contract. an investigation proceeded. following her call for information became clear that the firm in question was previously involved in corruption and scandals in public advocate james immediately called for the contract to be pulled back. the administration changed course as a result the city of newark saved $170 million. because of that one investigation alone. third, this initiative is considering moving three existing departments into the office of public advocate and want to note, this is in state

of flux. we are still under discussions and depending on those discussions that will be metrics that will be made next week. one is looking at the whistleblower program is currently run by the office of the comptroller comptroller can only think the comptroller's office for engaging with our office to make sure that any concerns are addressed. also, considering the placement of the office of citizen complaints under the public advocate, i want to thank our director of office of citizens complaint for her feedback as well as the feedback of other community members and people have actually provided very valuable expertise in the area of police reform based on those discussions, we are in the process of making changes.. then, also the office of labor standards and enforcement which we want to thank labor and community advocates for all their feedback on that specific piece and we continue to work with you to make sure that any concerns are addressed and we

will have, based on those discussions specific amendment next week. in terms of whistleblower, the whistleblower program right now response to specific allegations of administrative wrongdoing by city employees and we believe that there are some limitations in terms of how far the program can go given the current structure where you have the current comptroller were reports of the mayor and board of supervisors and has a relationship with some of these agencies, and we are right now in discussions with october and was fields to make sure what tweaks to the structure would expedite the process and make the process more robust. budget. given its role in mandate it's essential the public advocate maintain sufficient independence to constitute a credible office. we actually have had many conversations over the last few months with offices throughout

the country and one of the things that they point out is that you want to make sure there is sufficient funding in the budget to make sure that the authors actually has the resources to do its job. at the same time, there are concerns and issues that have been raised in terms of what that funding looks like it not to structure the budget. so, we are in the process with discussions with a number of people to address that concern. i also want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the board are currently cosponsoring this measure and i look forward to more members of the board cosponsoring this measure. to the vice chair of this committee, supervisor eric mar supervisor avalos and jane kim. again, with a call to community stakeholders who share their thoughts and continue provider ideas and share their enthusiasm for public advocate.

since introducing this measure, we have met with good government advocates must oh billion oversight experts, worker rights advocates, labor leaders, neighborhood leaders, people from all walks of life who have ideas about how to do this, how to do it right and have expressed their support and a doozy as and. again, i will look for to look back to come into this committee next week to begin actually make the changes that we leave our appropriate design ongoing conversation and with that, i know that you have a pretty full agenda. i would like to ask to open unless there's comments by my colleagues, to open it to public comment so we can hear from numbers of the public within waiting. i know there are a number of members of the public who are here before let's to leave and you know i want to thank them and i'm sorry you cannot speak but hopefully you'll have an opportunity in the future was committee meeting >> all right. so do a number

of questions that i'll save it for after public comments. i've a few cards here. >>[calling names]. >> if there's any other members of the public who wish to comment on items six, these, come on up. >>supervisors jim rogers san francisco chamber of commerce. the city fortunately many many decades ago set up a system of governance that is the checks and balances that we need in san francisco. i don't believe we need $30 million new department to do with the comptroller has done for decades that when an independently elected city attorney and independent terms city administrator do in their offices. this charter amendment, which is three to the length of the charter language that creates the

office of the mayor guarantees a budget that other department don't have it takes over a function the office of labor standards enforcement at least in this version, which i think raises numerous conflicts of elected office overseeing that department. it allows this department had to be elected from what i gather, and even your cycle. not with all the other consolidated citywide elections, which i gather is done so that this position can be incumbent and run perhaps for other city offices. the power to contract without oversight by the comptroller. the human rights commission whether city departments. this charter amendment is really not ready for prime time. it creates an office that the city doesn't need under our current structure of government that goes back to the charter reforms of 1931 and again in 1995 that protects the citizens

of san francisco from corruption and from overspending , and has created whistleblower programs and other agencies of government there, wishes a fraction of the cost with this unnecessary elected department would do. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i get on mike jaycee with united local to good also with the labor councils and i'm not speaking on behalf of the labor counselor labor council itself is not taken a position but arguing and is supportive of this initiative here because quite frankly, the system is broken. we don't believe that if it is that comptroller's job that either the comptroller has the time, resources and focus or whenever it was but the system is broken. tenants over the last 10 years have been on the short end of the stick. we've seen hundreds if not

thousands of affordable housing units taken off the market by short-term rentals get legislation passed a couple years ago that was never enforced. there is often unenforced laws that would be funded fully by this such as the short-term rentals. in addition, the office of labor standards enforcement is when the makes a big difference to working people whether they happen to be organized or whether their unorganized, but still need their rights held up and in fact, we've seen over the years that certain mayors have tried to defund that office and given us a lot of resistance on enforcing these laws. we need somebody who's 20 standup whose focus is about advocating for the public. by the public, i mean the public who don't have a voice in government and don't have the

money to get the mayor elected or whatever. we think that an office the public advocate would be an office whose sole focus to get up in the morning and they think about working people and tenants and they go to bed at night think about working people and tenants. there's a lot of people in government who think about a lot of other things that are really important including the interest of the chamber of commerce but there's not anybody in the top level of government will really think about working people and tenants and we think this would be a great opportunity to start focusing on that. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. if pete 2121. we represent the counselors liberians and instructors at city college of san francisco. our executive board is very much in favor of a public advocacy establishment of a public advocate position. many of us, not myself, i grew up here in san francisco, but many of us have been in cities that public advocates and seen the benefits there. so, we like the transparency that it would

create good we think it would create cost savings. we think would help with some other bureaucracy. as someone who is worth four and institution which over the last couple of years entirely lost all of its transparency and was taken over by the state at city college of san francisco, i think i can say that did not do any good for city college of city san francisco. less transparency is not the way to go and more transparency is very important to the people san francisco. so we can have a much better government and much more access to government. ultimately, having just that through some of the comments and conversations over the last item, one of the things that people were talking about with the bureaucracy. we do need a place where working people in san francisco, were regular people in san francisco who are citizens who don't have health navigating the government were navigating these meetings were being able to sit here for two hours at a time can go to get

help. so, ultimately, the public advocate position will be about decreasing bureaucracy and moving towards democracy. that something that we desperately need in san francisco. thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> bemoaning supermarket, o'connor president of the san francisco firefighters. we speak in favor of the new public advocacy position. it's our belief that having independent and public policy driven positioned in the city and county san francisco would serve not only the citizens but also the city workers incredibly well and having represented the apartment is been through very difficult times in the past few years, we could have used an independent

voice one had excessive overtime we could've used an independent voice when we won our response times for ambulances. we could've used an independent voice way 20 our old fire engines breaking in. so we welcome an independent voice, a strong public advocate to focus on implementation of effective and efficient balls policy with on behalf of the citizens, the city workers, the visitors wherever. we need this voice that supports and we back supervisor avalos excuse me, supervisor campos and this measure. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. and any other members of the public that one to speak on this item speak please, not >> on death on board with this item. i want to give campos avalos peskin the progressives, showing the city about the lesson and i'm appalled that anyone has said we don't need no oversight on this corrupt, this most the city's most of city in the united states. i thought we are most popular in people really know what's going on here the city by the bay. almond goat www.wow. i'm here

to support it begin advocate and some summer what i'm doing in the community by community reform. we need to. it and drop it. we've got so many which you call corrupt leaders in our community that they put their fingers in city hall now. initially western addition to the last 10 years you've got community workers that turned to politics running things and that. who watches over them? who's watching over this mayor who really really don't care. my name is ace and i'm going to let you know i'm with this all the way. i look at anybody that's against it you if they are spewing undermining the community. there's three principles in the western addition no more undermining the community. no more failed efforts. the most egregious thing, can tolerate my community is undermine the community. why'd you stop that? you need someone to always have it you need a public advocate. i'm very much supportive of public advocate.

whoever is not against it or whoever is against it, there undermining the community and the fabric of these youngsters that are sitting on. we tell you all, pay attention to city politics. it'll turn into a limit. that at city hall by call it silly. you ain't seen nothing yet get into it to make things change we need an advocate to appease youngsters know they can make a change here at solihull. my name is ace, you all and i'm on the case. these youngsters need to know any to come and find out what's going on down here. at city hall. i called solihull. >> thank you. any other members of the public there was to comment on items six yuan seeing none, public comment is closed. speakos visit also rode over to the controllers will click the cost estimate on this proposal >> i get natasha-controllers of the additional cost to government will be approximately $2.4 million per year the additional 3/100 of

the city's budget could it would also take in the office of labor standards and enforcement as was the office of citizens complaint and the whistleblower program which would total proximally $15.2 million annually for the budget. for this department. >> thank you very much. supervisor mar >> my understanding supervisor campos will be listening to lots of comments and introducing the revised version or amendment next week but i want to ask what the process is and then i would commit a few comments. >> sure. if i may, i think that that amount of the total budget could potentially be substantially different and i want to note that the $50 million includes about $12.5 million that's already included in the current budget because these are departments that already have that budget. it

would be simply a question under the current proposal to them under the public advocate. but, we are in the process of making amendment that will i think potentially change that amount, but we certainly agree with the 2.5 is a currently structured. >> thank you. any other further questions? supervisor mar >> i would think supervisor campos and avalos and former supervisor tom on the on oprah moving this forward. i think the spirits of new york city from 1993 to the present supervisor campos has captured the creation of a watchdog agency the better checks and balances, better oversight in real independent agency is a good thing for new york city. i would just say to the teacher james example finding. craddock were cutting through bureaucratic issues and find more funds for the city's a great example of the benefits not only the whistleblower program being independent and other things as well. i just want to read from law school

new york law school with you that kim bettman, and one of his postings the public advocate cited. it's from lucas anderson we did an analysis of new york's what is it 23 years of experience where he said, that the public advocate plays as an arbiter of citizens complaint an independent monitor government services and a check on the mayor's sweeping administrative powers unlike appointed officials with similar ombudsman type duties the public advocate is able to review, river and resolve individual service, if the primary purpose of achieving citizen satisfaction without regard to the interests of a particular government agency or program. i just wanted to say i knew we received some input

about the opposite citizens complaint the office of labor standards enforcement and i'm really looking for to supervisor campos is think about some of the recognitions but i just want to give him tremendous props and really looking at the work that letitia james is doing out and build the glossy of the former public advocate and now the mayor have achieved a high level checks and balance position that we can move forth in san francisco. thank you >> thank you. colleagues and many of the questions or comments? as a state i do have numerous questions but since supervisor campos is going to be amending them i will women in the charter amendment i will reserve it for next meeting. i see our controllers have something to add >> natasha-controllers of is one other item i can imagine this would require a special election next fall. the cost for that would be approximately $4 million for one-time cost. >> okay thank you very much for that. all right. seeing no the questions and we can entertain a motion to continue item 61 july 7 was committee meeting? moved and seconded. we will take that without objection >>[gavel] >> now, if we can call up item to, please picture we call up

item 3 at the same time? two and three together, please >> item number two >>[reading code]. item number three >>[reading code] >> thank you bemis two we've supervisor weiner here. >> thank you very much adamant chairman. i know that last week there was a full presentation on this measure can appreciate the committee making the amendment we requested and then continuing the item for us for final hearing today. mdm. chairman, colleagues, this measure is probably the most believe that it out measure

i've ever been associated with. it addressing a problem that is been vexing our city for nearly 40 years. for the past almost 40 years this city from our city government has systematically he funded our urban forest and systematically dumped response ability for caring for our street trees for fixing tree related sidewalk damage and reliability as well dumped all of that response ability on property owners. it is the worst system we could have in terms of ensuring a robust urban forest. it is unfair to property owners. property owners are required, mandated, to discharge this expensive sensibility whether

or not they planted the tree, whether not they want the tree, whether or not they know how to take care of the tree. whether the tree is 10 feet tall were 50 feet tall. whether they have one adjacent tree were 50 adjacent trees. whether they have the financial or physical ability to take care of the tree. people are forced to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars to take care of these trees. there are owners who do a great job. there are others who either below water sponsor though the entirely worldwide the cheapest possible arborist and who therefore you like the tree. as a result, we avoided climbing urban forest in san francisco. trees matter. trees matter for our environment could trees matter for our quality of life. you can tell when you are doing a neighborhood that has a healthy and robust urban forest. it makes a huge difference and we have inequities in our city in terms of where the of trees.

this is a unique opportunity, colleagues, breast to actually fix a problem,, a significant problem once and for all. for decades, this city we have been fighting about this poem, expressing frustration about this poem, saying we have to do something about it and nothing ever happens. instead, the city's investment in trees simply goes down and down and down. what we have learned over many years is trees do not do well in the budget. just saying the city should take back the trees in the sidewalks and the liability requiring the city take them back without funding just won't work unfortunately because we would just continue to see a decaying urban forest. the measure before us today, colleagues and will fix the problem once and for all. by requiring the city to take back the trees country related sidewalk damage as well

as liability and by actually creating dedicated outbox funding to make sure that we have the resources we need to do the job and to do the job right. this measure, in addition to mandating the city take back the trees creates that lockbox of funding. it does so in two ways. it first sets as a baseline the average of what the city has spent on street trees over the last 10 years, which is approximately $8 million a year and then it creates a modest parcel tax that will generate alluded more than $10 million a year to create an urban forest the fund of a little bit more than $18 million a year. with this will allow us to do first of all by setting the baseline in the city budget what we don't want to have and as of the parcel tax simply replace existing funding. we want to make sure that we are putting that the

city has skin in the game in terms of keeping the general fund investment in tact. in addition to the parcel tax. the measure in terms of the parcel tax, is a progressive parcel tax. it is not a flat tax on all parcels. it basically, large buildings particularly large commercial buildings will pay more than single-family homes and small apartment buildings and condos. thus, subsidizing a small property owners. a condo owners will pay $29. the vast majority of single-family homes and small apartment buildings will pay approximately $35 but larger buildings will pay more and larger downtown office buildings will pay several thousand dollars. so, we were able to keep the cost to small homeowners low by having that

progressive structure. this measure has been, as i mentioned, incredibly well vetted. with a friends of the urban forest for doing yeoman's work but i think dan flanagan is probably attended 50 were 100 community meetings to discuss this measure. we did outreach to our entire property owner community including the apartment association and small property owners and bouma and realtors and we work collaboratively with these organizations. we held multiple broadly-based stakeholder meetings with notches property owners but neighborhood groups, product groups environmental groups, and so forth. we have worked closely with other city departments including the planning department and the

department of public works, as well as our comptroller's office and tax collectors office to make sure we get it right in a particularly thank john slay, from the planning department entirely sure from public works for their participation. finally, i want to thank under this power in my office is currently on paternity glaive get huge role in moving this forward and any feynman, who is picked up while under his is a weight and done great work getting us to the finish line. so colleagues, i ask for your support and i ask you send item number two to the full board of supervisors and finally i want to thank supervisor mar for his cosponsorship and collaboration. i'm deeply appreciative of your support supervisor mar >> thank you. supervisor avalos >> thank you. i do one appreciate the work that supervisor weiner and staff have done including the charter amendment. i supported in concert. i also have my own version of this as well. i am

also concerned that overall, we are stacking our ballot with too many measures, especially revenue measures could i have a revenue measure that last year i had submitted that i wanted to use to create a strain of funds that could support growing the urban forest and taking care of the urgency for similar although measures going forward i think that committee difficult to move. so, what i would like to see is if we can decide how to at the full board how to move forward on whether we do these charter amendment were not worried either one of them. my charter amendment i do want to create i didn't want to create another set decided i didn't want to tie up city funds but i did want to link it to revenue that can come in and potentially, there's other sources of revenue that could cover the whole damn without doing another revenue measure

by group parcel tax which can be challenging to win at the ballot. overall, i think vitally important that the city takes on can't expect the responsibility for street trees and sidewalk repairs. that was very terrible decision that was made in 2009 that we would do either were languishing program and i believe it's disproportionately affected homeowners of single-family homes in parts of san francisco but the southern part of the city where i lived. so, i'm interested in seeing some resolution happened cannot much of the ballot is the best place for it to happen, but am open to consider that. i would like to see if we can forward these two measures without recommendation to the full board for us to consider with all the other ballots measures that will be considering and to me, it makes no sense to consider them all at once and we don't move particular revenue and ballot measures

connected to those revenues streams piecemeal but we consider with the overall ballot looks like. to me, if we are allowing some revenue measures to go forward and they get an advantage even though there could be other revenue measures that are worthy of consideration, otherwise i think it's important to decide what we can really put on the ballot that is going to work. i am very concerned that we have moving forward right now a tax that i am likely to support, but i think that tax is going to be tearing down other taxes. to me, we're not thinking strategically about what the ballot can really bear and with the voters can bear when i see all these measures that are before us. what i would like to see if we can do after public comments, is movies measures to the full board for consideration

but yet don't move at the full board until we have all of the revenue measures that are before us that are beating committees we can make a decision altogether about what makes the most sense for allowing the voters to weigh in on because we can't approve any thing that comes up. i'm worried that we might reject every tax that would put four. so that's my concern. >> thank you very much. i just want to also announced we now the core motherboard here present it i will reckon i supervisor mar next >> thank you. i want to say i'm in agreement with an approach that is not looking piecemeal at individual measures but unfortunately introduced items at different times. i like the idea there's similar measures that could be potential emerged were ways to have broader consideration and i support that. moving items forward without recommendation allows the 11 member board to make decisions based on the

bigger picture i believe. i did want to thank supervisor weiner and friends of the urban forest for bringing forward the progress of parcel tax that would help us address many year problem of conflicts among homeowners and others on the street trees, 105,000 somewhat belonging to private sensibility others the department of public works. i think the measure as crafted puts the focus on the bigger property owners especially large commercial buildings as supervisor weiner engineered the figure will increase better maintenance is dan flanagan and friends of the urban forest met cited because experience arborists and others would be the ones that take care of the trees. not leaving up to

sometimes lower incomes, smaller property owners to deal with it without an expertise as our department of public works has. i also want to say supervisor avalos is ever to try to find other funding to resolve it in a very complex november ballot make sense to me so i like to see both measured move forward. but to add my name also want to supervisor avalos is charter amendment per city responsibility for maintaining street cheese as well. look for to the public comment >> thank you. supervisor cohen >> thank you. my question is for supervisor avalos. one of the things i find interesting about your measure is there's really no revenue source. i hear that you have a some general tax or you're working on a carving carbon tax. is that so moving forward? >> supervisor avalos is no longer here. how convenient it >> is gone for the question at all like it also my questions for later.

>> okay. why don't we supervisor weiner >> yes. so i want to first of all appreciate supervisor avalos is an advocacy. i think i start to refer to supervisor avalos as my tree body because the two of us i think it really been passionate about this issue and we both in particular supervisor avalos is this chick where you have a lot of homeowners were not wealthy and were treated very very unfairly by having this responsibility. so i think supervisor avalos, and i have the same exact goal. just about how we get there. the supervisor mar, i would say would love to one islamic forward with united front but just to be very clear in terms of the differences here, supervisor avalos is charter amendment is really the charter amendment itself is does what are charter amendment does witches require the city to take back all the responsibility with supervisor

avalos amendment does not do is attach funding to it. instead, there's a separate general tax, carbon tax which goes into the general fund which the board and may or can allocate however we and future boards want. my concern with not having dedicated funding is that we have seen over and over and over and over again that in this building trees do not do well. i think that even if for a year or to the board and they are honored this would've nonbinding intent that the carbon tax the used exclusively for trees because the carbon tax generates is understand about $18 million a year, 100% of the carbon tax would have to be dedicated to the trees to make this work. even if that were to happen for a few years, no confidence that once we hit a downturn and a deficit were once we-or just with all the other pushes and pulls on the budget, no confidence whatsoever that funding would be kept

intact for the trees. my measure will in enforceable way create a fund that can only use for this purpose were the specific provision that if the city ever starts dumping the trees again on property owners the parcel taxes cancel. so, i just think it's a better way to proceed but i look forward to continuing conversations. >> supervisor cohen had a question >> yes, thank you. so the one thing i love about this were all in agreement and that agreement is that it was not a good idea to transfer these trees to property owners. i am personally connected to the story because i felt many constituents i merrily seniors, both the bayview and visitation valley neighborhood applied to a program come apply for a hardship. many seniors who love their trees but are unable to maintain the large trees. my

question is directed towards you, supervisor avalos. supervisor weiner measure has a progressive tax. it will generate $11 million. i've heard that you have a general tax. the carbon tax. i've not seen the language you get is it still going forward? is as though coming to us? >> yes, it is. i submitted it last march. at that time it was a dedicated tax. was going to cover things that are funded by cap and trade programs to augment dollars and since then i've been made into a general tax that could work to give flexibility in the budget for funding the tree program. i

plan to move it forward to the full board to consider all the other revenue measures we have a the full board. i don't want to just say this is the measure that we must do i think we have to consider all these measures together before deciding what the ballot looks like. so, i want to keep it in motion we could decide to pull back. the carbon measure, the carbon tax measure will be a users tax. it will provide exemptions for people who are in the clean power sf program. it would tax as well not just electricity is generated from nonrenewable sources, but also natural gas. that we get in our home so the actual most stable part of the tax will be natural gas. in a way, it set up to create an incentive for the clean power program and then to provide some funds to be used for growing the urban forest but since the

general tax is not dedicated specifically for the purpose of tree >> i understand. how much is it projected to generate >> $18 million, which would diminish as people are moving to renewable sources.. so, i figure probably stabilize around $10 million is what an estimate. when it's fully looking at natural gas is still being used in people's businesses and homes >> thank you. i'm glad to see supervisor yee is doing this because he introduced a ordinance that would take back trees immediately and i would love for him to walk through what he's thinking. >> that would be great. supervisor yee >> thank you. jared tang and also supervisor cohen. this is exactly why i'm here. i want to the supportive of both of these measures. i'm also in agreement that the policy that we made several years before i even got on the board to basically

relinquish the trees was funds ability to property owners was a bad decision. we need to reverse it. to we are [inaudible] one of the biggest issues, i mean i'm sure is had been mentioned before i got into chambers is that there's a lot of people with fixed income that cannot afford to be the cost to actually to take care of these trees. so, the net result is that many of our trees are actually being killed. one of the things that i wanted to do, the measure that i introduced this week, i believe, on tuesday was to get ahead of the curve a little bit. i felt like i was basically reinforcing the sentiment of almost everybody on the board of supervisors to go and change

the-or reverse the decision that was made several years ago, but we would have to wait until november. my feeling is that why are we waiting for november in terms of that particular decision. for the city to actually take back those trees. so, that's what it does is to say, in the meantime, while were waiting around, whether for voters to decide in november and to wait for any particular revenue source to come in, that can fund it, we should really start looking at taking back the trees immediately after my legislation passes hopefully and next month or so. so, that is-i think what i have done is try to not to interfere with the current discussion of where this funding is going to come from. i would love it-i support supervisors avalos is recommendation to just pass this out of committee for the

full board to have a further discussion and in the meantime i am really hoping that we could have further discussion between supervisor weiner's approach and supervisor avalos his approach and see if we can come up with something that would fit all get behind because i think this is, to me too important of an issue to fight over. we need to join forces to make sure we have the revenue sources. so that is where i'm coming from. i just want to be here to state that on record that i'm a supporter of these measures to move forward and for us to eventually, hopefully come up with a compromise measure. if you have any questions about my piece i can- >> supervisor cohen >> thanks for the clarification he i just want to know how do you plan to fund your proposal?

>> the thing i am looking at is there's one time only rainy day fund that we could borrow against. in the assumption that we will eventually pass a measure, one of the measures, to fund the trees. that measure could actually pay back the rainy fund when we actually get it. the thing is, people have a price tag for annual cost of this. there's no way between let's say august and january that cost would be the true figure get the cost would be much less, probably in my estimate, probably less than $4 million because it takes time. regardless if you have the money were not, as you know, we see it over and over on the budget committee, that when

departments just start something new it takes time to ramp up and so forth. i don't anticipate that the price tag -several people already identified would be the real cost for the next six months. that's where i was hoping to-that's where i am exploring where to get the temporary funding. >> thank you supervisor weiner >> thank you very much. i want to appreciate supervisor yee's recognition his measure it for tuesday summoned to be a replacement for whatever goes to the bow. he's looking to have a stopgap. i agree that the current program is terrible. images were not companies trees on property owners. i want to appreciate the motivation just want to stop to the ridiculousness. so, thank you for that. i will say one challenges that if we are able to pass something in november, it will kick in for

probably next fiscal year. so we do have this gap. but, there is a challenge we will have to figure out terms of funding because we just have passed the budget out of the committee last friday and was no funding put in by any of us for expanding dpw's urban forestry division. it just creates a real budget challenge. i also i just want to emphasize that the carbon tax as i mentioned, generates i think supervisor avalos confirmed, generates about $80 million a. if that full $18 million were then fully dedicated not just for a year or two but forever, to trees than it would-that could replace the parcel tax in the baseline we are creating in the measure that supervisor mar and i sponsor. the problem is that there is in there's a general tax and absolutely it just goes into the general fund and every year the board and the mayor

have to make a decision much money do we put towards trees. they can do it or not do it. we know from history they won't do it. in addition, i know that was converted from a special tax to a general tax, but my understanding from supervisor avalos this has always been intended for various really important uses including trees, including other cap and trade eligible uses. so, my concern is that the money would be used, it would be some subset of that money that would end up being used for trees and would not be enough so the city would take back the trees and the sidewalks and the liability and not have enough money to do it to exit discharge the responsibilities and we would continue to have these problems. supervisor avalos and i bet many many conversations we've really i think are united

in our goal here. our offices have been working together and will continue for the next few weeks to talk because i think we need to all be united around this, but in terms of a fusing the two, i'm open to ideas. but in the end, there is there is dedicated funding or there isn't. that's would've a big deal in one of the fundamental premises of the legislation that we put forward with supervisor mar is that lockstep dedicated hunter so we don't just take back the trees but permanently fix the problem completely fix it. not just do sort of a half measure that doesn't really fix the problem. that's always been our goal. >> thank you supervisor. supervisor avalos >> again i'd like to make sure these things go forward to the full board for full consideration. the-i actually have been working on the carbon tax for a very long time over a

year. i introduced it and at that time i did want it to be available for whenever because policies we want people create in the ensuing year and i was looking to actually either move it four to november of last of the right-of-way decided to move it to november of this year knowing there would be a great number of other measures coming forward we can amend and tinker with. i also saw that the dedicated threshold, of two thirds, would be very challenging to pass. that's why i made it into a general tax. i do understand it's hard to decide that were going to every year commit a certain amount of money for trees, but that's also something that happens with a lot of things. i mean, there's a lot of priorities we have as a city that don't get full attention but we also never really had a way to say that we were actually can make a commitment to trees. would we

do it through a charter amendment or supervisor yee ordinance antonie coaching significantly what we have to go through in terms of crafting a budget where we would anticipate that general fund revenue can be then used to be moved towards taking care of this important priority. so, again, i don't know if it's the right decision to make at this point to move the carbon tax to the ballot, but i think we get to it one move to the full board and considerate next to these measures. >> all right. any other questions or comments colleagues? seeing none, bergen open up items two and three to public comment. the couple speaker cards here. >>[calling names] please, come on up. any mess why cannot call, please come forward as well. >> you have to speak in order.

if you want to come up and speak real quick that would be great. thank you >> good morning. i think there's a possibility [inaudible] should be split between government and the landlord. the property owner. 40% from the government is responsibly and 60% of the property owners responsibility. because the government is a public place. the city people but for the public owner is a better living standard for the property. so, i think for the government funds should come from the team [inaudible] professional by the property on. they hire somebody less professional to take care of the trees. the funds still come from the parking division department because it's a public upon. i'm not sure if this would work or not. the

transportation department. and for the property owners would be for the tax money also. as a split responsibility. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon jim lazarus chamber of commerce. we honestly support the concept b on both of these charter amendment. we think it's high time the city pics of responsibility that over the decades has been divided it sometimes unknowingly between property owners and the city as to who's responsible for the tree on the public right-of-way in front of their business or their home. the problem is, there are six or seven tax measures pending within the over 40 measures pending for the november ballot. i do know it's possible to divide the file supervisor weiner's measure and move it to the budget committee as well. i think the city is going to have to deal with over $400 million of new taxes annually that are

pending in all the measures before the board of supervisors for action by the first week of august. the chamber does not support the measure at this time. i recognizes this should be a revenue stream and by like supervisor avalos concerned the summary tax measures including the bond measures from bart and the school districts actions for their bond measure, which add in some cases thousands of dollars a year in additional property taxes are worthy goals, but we got to deal with this as a community as to what we think is reasonable to go forward as new taxes or bonds in the november ballot and i'll think were at that point yet. thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is

dan flanagan friends of the urban forest. i have to say does my heart good to hear so many supervisors identified that we have a very long-standing problem that you want to fix. we all are right now in the process of trying to fix it and i think that's a great situation. i want to thank all of you for trying to fix a problem that's been outstanding for years. i do have a couple of concerns i want to-the first one let's start with supervisor yee's opposition. i'm a little concerned if it was passed it would be incentivize folks to try and come and solve the problem in november because as such we would take back responsibly of the city and put us in a situation where gasoline oh money. so i don't think that is a really positive thing. i think it's a great idea to take up every thing that we dedicated funding sources absolutely is vital. i hate the idea of a tax. i don't like it. i don't like 66.6%. i do think this is the only way to fix this problem. i do recognize this could be a tremendous amount of issues ahead of us in november to try

to be voted on a we are polling between 69-71% of folks saying, this has to happen to those people truly believe they should be and most people do think this is the responsibility of the sid. that's why whether trees are not being taken care of. so i want to hope that supervisor avalos and supervisor weiner were closely. we will do anything to make this a solution that works for everybody. it's absolutely vital for us to work on this. i'm very excited that the conversations happening and i have to say, i want to emphasize the point that trees do not compete. so we don't have a dedicated funding source is just not going to work. it hasn't worked for 40 years. i believe it scored work for the next 40 years? because those are other issues that trees shouldn't compete against. i don't they should. please, remember this is not just trees. it's the will as well. sidewalk accessibility issues are paramount. >> thank you mr. flanagan. next speaker, please. >> thank u supervisor. gin and

new san francisco apartment association of personnel thank you supervisor weiner for conducting the task force over a period of months. we met and discussed trade street trees and sidewalk issues and came up with this parcel tax so thank you for that. thank you supervisor avalos and supervisor yee for wayne in. we blew the street trees are important. we also believe this importance in taking care of our sidewalks. we are tentatively supportive of the parcel tax. we are couple of concerns about looking at a cap may be on we leave large parcels of property. we talked about this a bit in the task force. not sure this has been addressed or not. we also would like to echo the concerns

of a lot of previous speakers including you, supervisors, there's a lot of taxes headed for the november ballot and there are some that are not going to be supported in the more taxes that are on the ballot the easier days for all the taxes to go down. so, just want you to take that into consideration moving forward as you way through all this process but we are supportive of street trees and supportive of the nina responsibility and the sidewalks back to the city. thank you so much >> next speaker, please. >> hello supers. i speak for before you about. now were headed towards the july 4 weekend. i remember a lot of fireworks fired off in the city during the super bowl. they set off so many fireworks in the bay it's polluted. as it's hard to get yourself together about what to do for july 4 weekend. but i can tell you this. san francisco is a beautiful city to live in and i just want to say to every board of supervisors thank you for doing

the best that you can to make it a beautiful circuit i know it's difficult, you have a great july 4 weekend. that's what i'm saying it's an american holiday and you have a good day. i have a minute left. this is what i want to say. when you go into this weekend, really think about >> focus on the items on street trees >> about trees. i am. there are trees that are actually in the bait. talk and stuff. these trees feed fish. believe it or not that's part of the ecosystem not just-trees that live in the ocean, to be when

you pollute the bait you mess with fish and trees ecology of with two trees on the ship. when i speak of trees, i love beautiful trees. but you see, when you pollute the bait you eliminate other trees, two. trees in an ocean and the ecology system. san francisco is a beautiful place but you've got to look at the entire ecology of san francisco when you think about any trees at all. so, you have a good weekend. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. supervisor tom would do a which is echo the second deliverable figure 1 thank you for bringing this forward to the trees are incredibly important to the livability of our city. somerville massachusetts 07 trees they were looking at putting people on happiness and health and whether street had a lot of trees were not and they

found some really amazing things. in terms of happiness having trees on your street is like getting a $10,000 your raise. that's the difference between living on a treeless street did you can offer everyone a $10,000 raise. producing that would make people happier you can offer them a boost and happiness that only comes with a. the other thing they found health affects the trees produce fruit public health and reduce hypertension and so on. they calculated the difference about seven years of age. you can't take seven years of everybody's age, but by cleaning their street you can make them healthier and happier as though they were younger. so despite all these amazing benefits city in southern california for every dollar invested injuries the city realized 7-8 dollars in direct benefit. trees always been an afterthought in san francisco. we've had a very inconsistent approach. it's love you, hate you. gavin newsom vented above trees. ed yee them or things. you can't do that. trees are living things you need to maintain them into plan, the standard when it somewhere like on valencia street in our neighborhood have a mature canopy of trees because the streetscape project. it's incredible. so is the city get spencer gets greener that commercial districts are public won't get lusher more walkable.

more livable it's very very important. you can only do that with the city program. the city program is funded consistently. to relate. give the city taking over this program. we like the idea of a consistent fund source.net ballot box budgeting is always the greatest. it just street trees we debated long and sad record of cycles of boom and bust and you can't [inaudible] they need to be maintained consistent. >> think. any other members of the public was to comment on items two or three? seibert public comment is closed. >>[gavel] beta colleagues, deliver recommended motion? supervisor omotalde >> i like to recommend that we move both measures forward without the condition. >> do we have a second for that? moved and seconded. will take that without objection to move items two and three

without trepidation >>[gavel] >> before i call item for i get a motion to rescind what we did on items six because we actually needed to continue items six to the july 6 special b was committee meeting not july 7? moved and seconded. we will take that without objection >>[gavel] >> no motion to continue items six to our july 6 meeting? moved and seconded. we will take that without objection >>[gavel] >> item 4, please >> item number four, >>[reading code] >> thank you. supervisor cohen is the author of this chart a minute >> thank you limited colleagues, we've had an extensive presentation and discussion on this item rsp's

committee. in a repeat everything we said prior. i just want to reiterate the incredible importance of this measure. in san francisco our senior population is growing rapidly. by 2030, we expect to see population grow to over 100,000 people. this increase in our senior population coupled with the generations living in additional 34 years longer and the rising cost of living in san francisco will continue to make it harder to age with dignity in our city. so this charter amendment would establish a dedicated fund and work on it the dignity fund, that will be fine spending and guarantee investments in critical services for some of our cities also vulnerable residents which include seniors and people with disabilities and those living with hiv aids. this proposal is, long way from what we first introduced. i

want to thank the coalition members for working with me every step of the way. as was the mayor's office is been an incredible source of information as well as the comptroller's office. we've made a number of key ways changes last week about rules committee on that repeat all them but i just have a few more i want to discuss. more clarifying amendment to propose today. so, these amendment include the following changes. first, i would like to update and clarify the language of the annual contribution to the fund. so, as of today the amendment added in the fiscal year 16-17 baseline number and updated to reflect the add backs that the budget committee approved last week. what this means is that it will bring the baseline number of two $30 million where last week it was previously at $35 million. the amended version from last week

we used only the annual key motive number to reflect the yearly contribution and also in the minutes before you today we are clarifying or attempting to better clarify the difference between the baseline contribution of $39 and the annual growth of the fund. the second key point is a clarification to the oversight and advisory committee. the language that i'm going to distribute to you if you don't have it in front of you have a copy for you-advise the board has 30 days to request a hearing on the mayor's appointments to the oversight advisory committee. it clarifies the addition of growth in the fund that's above the baseline amount is a subject of the planning process and the advisory committee. it also makes one technical change to the will of the oversight committee to make sure it is consistent with the children's fund for providing for the committee provided for the committee will have input but not final approval on the release of the supplemental

solicitation. the final amendment is simple update to the budget trigger and these minutes also keep the budget deficit trigger language to be consistent with the language is included in the rec and park measure is passed by voters this past june i said an official date of fiscal year 17-18. i know there are several member's of the community here that have taken time to wait and to speak with us today. mdm. chairman, i'd love to take the opportunity moved to public comments. >> all right. would it be okay if our colleague held their questions or comments that? supervisor yee or would you like to speak first? okay. thank you much. at this number to call a couple of spiegel cards. speaker cards. >>[calling names].. if anyone

else is here for item for, please come on up. >> hello supervisor. my name isn't michael blecker, executive director of plowshares and vegan rights organization in san francisco. we serve about 3000 veterans typically very very low income veterans. each year we have a drop in center to weave of various housing and legal services employment trend i didn't there since 1970, vietnam veteran we started those are population. those vietnam veteran era veterans are seeing. not just that they're seniors but have not said well in the social economic round. they've sort of advancing accelerated aging issues so they may be in their mid-60s but are probably 10-15 years older healthwise. that stress-related issues. as you know the work and especially the vietnam war caused produced agent orange issues around

herbicide poisoning and just various stress-related conditions from our war. following that were, took 15-20 years before the public and the government ashley recognized they were unique medical needs driven by that were. ptsd was not recognized until 15 years after i got back from vietnam. this is to for agent orange and these other issues. that veterans tend to suffer. so, that's an emerging senior population that i think were fully aware of megawatts. there lots of needs. there misrepresented them overrepresented in the homeless population of some very concerned about their needs for the obvious things about eight and attendant care and supportive housing needs for skilled nursing. the need for just as you would as all aging adults have. yet, our department of adult aging either identifies your targets the need of veterans. so we don't even have the information

that we need so we can provide good services and good policy. i would really encourage that department actually identified and targets that turns as well. i want to support that can support >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon john kathy davis executive director bayview senior services guys want to acknowledge supervisor cohen taking the lead on this and really understanding that 25% of the city's population are seniors or disabled people.

the colleagues that stood by her and work with us to quite a labor this process to get where we are now but i really appreciate that. just to it knowledge that this fund is really about prevention. we need to start recognizing people need to age in place when he to put the support systems around the people don't age and gets sick or more frail just because we don't have the sports of his around him. in the long, dissident help the city save money help seniors live a better lifestyle. i also want of knowledge the fact that we been begging for crumbs for many many years. there to go to the board of supervisors every year and it's time for us to really put some teeth behind services for older people. were all about libraries, trees and kids. we need to be about the seniors and people are disabled, people with hiv and people are veterans. they deserve our attention to. i know it's difficult sometimes to earmark these funds but we've got to have the support for what we are trying to do long-term for the city and for this ever-growing population that really needs us. i just want to say thank you for stepping up supervisor cohen in making it happen and community stands behind this. we will go out there and get the votes that are needed to pass this fund. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. mdm.

chairman and members. my name is grace olga [sp?] and i lived in this great city for all but three years of my life. i lived all my life as a person with disability. now that i am a member of the senior committee also, which i been for quite a number of years, one of the things i want to say is i'm here to speak in support of the dignity fund. because first of all, i'm tired of being thought

of as we will take care of you after we take care of [inaudible] i don't want to be second to anybody or anything in the city. we as disabled individuals and seniors matter. i guarantee you, as long as i live, i will be an advocate for people with disability and seniors. one of the first thing i want to see happen is that the sidewalks are safe to use wheelchairs on because i tell you, i've seen many many many seniors fall on our sidewalks because they are cracked and all different kinds of things. besides that, i intend to live

another number of years. who knows how many years. but i want to enjoy those as an active member of this community. thank you very much >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisor. my name is luis antonio. executive director of the veterans equity center. i'm here to support a minute of the city charter for the astonishment of the dignity fund to support seniors and adults with disabilities. i would like to thank supervisor cohen taking the lead and the support of supervisors mar yee campos for joining her efforts. the fund will put the city for the older adult population. it's expected to increase

according to the department of aging and adult services. by 2030 26% of san francisco will be individuals 60 years and older. in addition, 4% of the city's population are veterans, 10% of whom are 85 years and older and another 4% are adults with disabilities. here are some facts about older adult population. they tend to be low income. 60% of those below the property line. san francisco has significantly higher supplemental security income recipients, which is higher than statewide figures. san francisco has 239 individuals out of 1000 court ssi we scythians and recipients and 220,000 individual statewide. 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 >> e 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 i think 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 m 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 and risk and jeff kaczynski making this presentation. i am pleased that there's only been a shift towards the get the equity lens the transportation justice

coalition and the mta have been looking. i'm pleased already with some of that movement but as peter cohen mention on behalf of the coalition my hope in the next week there's more looking at services and affordability and ways to really strengthen those parts of the expenditure plan. i also want to say i'm pleased about the bart vehicle part of the regional transit regional portion of the six pockets and lastly, i think that as this moves forward there's still a concern about the connecting of transportation with homeless services that i have and i know that i totally support jeff kaczynski's and the new office of homeless support because i think it addresses root causes

in really holistic way look at mental health and the exits out of shelters and into real homes. i have some concerns about other ballot measures that may create more of a crackdown approach that i think it's counter to i think the approach our office of homelessness is taking. so i'm a little bit of a concern that we are connecting a half cent transportation charter amendment with a quarter cent homelessness one with all the competing other things on about. i'm just expensing out loud my concerns. i know a supervisor weiner mentioned, as the region as a city gasoline need to move forward united on transportation and transportation justice and equity approaches second br but still have some questions about the homelessness part of this. my hope is that in the next week as we have out the triggers in the equity issue that also is a little more clarity on our city's approach to homelessness that's based on the causes and supporting people and not cracking down on him for example. >> all right. thank you

supervisor mar. do we have someone on this committee would like to motion than to actually set the medics proposed today we can take that without objection so the amendment are adopted >>[gavel] >> we will continue item 8 to our july, i believe seventh meeting. is that correct what everyone wants july 7 as amended by can get a motion on that moved and seconded. will take that without objection >>[gavel] >> mr. clerk any other items before us today one >> number items before us today. >> thank you. we are adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> the maus coney center

project is transformation of the convention center and it is not only addition and increased space but also a transformation of the urban neighbor around it in a positive way. >> 25th largest convention center in the country but the conventions are getting bigger so with this extension it is 13 largest >> we have been under construction a year and a half and set to complete the construction in 2018. it generated over $9 billion in san francisco >> 35 percent of viz #2rs coming to san francisco are coming to maus coney. >> 2500 jobs will be created. >> if we didn't do the expansion we

would luce $200 million in taxes a year. the conventions they are talking about going other cities with ample [inaudible] and exhibit space and not come to san francisco. >> there is a lot of [inaudible] we are at a point now where our [inaudible] two halve oz the mos connie and think what we desire is one space. >> we are adding space about 200,000 space. we are connecting the two existing north and south exhibition halls that excavate under howard street to increase the largest exhibition space to 1 contig ws space over 500,000 square feet. >> the spot i'm standing in will be inside the lobby. the building will be pushed out to howard street and

connected north and south above and under ground. >> when you go on the north our south side you enter into a hall that is divided into major ways >> this is public private partnership. the hotel industry [inaudible] splitting it up of the building. >> since we have a north and south howard street it [inaudible] to make [inaudible] >> improving the bridges to make them more accessible so go over howard street >> [inaudible] developed to look at several different proposals for a light [inaudible] to work with that bridge and the selection of the [inaudible] he is on what i think is a beautiful piece that is very animated. you will be able to see it as [inaudible]

cross the bridge and can see it as a resident of san francisco looking up. there is a second bridge and this bridge replacing an existing bridge over howard street that links yerba buena gardens to a childrens playground. make a much larger public space as well as aplaza space that brings you up to that in a visible way. >> we worked on the playground to make it safe and invited and added more open space >> the area will be connected with the neighborhood. [inaudible] much better space for everyone. >> why is such a fundamental part [inaudible] could be thought of as columns and beams [inaudible]

the areas that you walk to check in prior to [inaudible] all those activities [inaudible] opposed to [inaudible] we thought of ways to bring light into these occupied spaces including skylights and [inaudible] highest level of [inaudible] recycled steel. the concrete is [inaudible] >> we will be harvesting all the rain water and storm water and reusing it. >> in [inaudible] they extend down into the aquifer level of the water level which means water is being pumped out to remove the pressure and there are

over 15 million gallons of water per year that maus coney center pumps out so the water is wasted. our idea is disconnect the ground water system from the [inaudible] and reuse the water and save and preserve and use it for [inaudible] and use it for other irrigation uses. we have excess water to fill up [inaudible] >> there will be limited traffic impact during construction >> there is a 8 month period where we have to take a lane of traffic out from howard street so we can expand the tunnel. >> we anticipate the construction to be minimal. >> [inaudible] >> make the center statef the art and much more competitive.

[inaudible] >> having the space. [inaudible] underneath howard. having [inaudible] >> this is a [inaudible] worked with the residential, the merchants in the neighborhood, the non profits to make sure this is a vibrant area. >> even if you don't come to the convention and enjoy the public space, it is something that helps revitalize the neighborhood and bring energy to the neighborhood and more people to the neighborhood and shops and retail and shocase san francisco around the world. >> just a little pack of pad located at the bottom of russian hill, the secret garden with an intimate and captivating appeal.