public policy these funds for private political campaigns. attackers demand more from us than they should. we already of section 12 in a code which is that public funds during the budget process are being used for political purposes without a loophole now. it's been exploited and we need to close it. i want to go over a few issues raised by some these brokers or the past weeks first parliament in the ordinance was 12 without the input of nonprofits. first of all, which we very clear that private to introducing the legislation did discuss the policy with a number of local developers a formal housing overs twitter this would not harm the production of badly needed affordable housing. i believe the ordinance appropriate dress their spending needs short of allowing direct political contributions which is the core of what the issue is right now. my conversations began very clear we differed philosophically on whether cash out proceeds she retrieves public dollars or not. i, do not believe that public funds should the user private campaigns. period. some people

say privately they should be able to use the mayor's office of housing and community loan dollars for non-04 the housing needs to simply disagree with that. they said second, they need flexibly without burdensome government regulations. again, this ordinance and appreciates brush peskin's comments-well spending to be done in accordance with 501(c)(3) under the federal tax. that is fine. i want to make sure that we included that. these people have incredible missions and we want to support them. they said their broader community-these funds for broader community purposes. i had a provisions again in accordance with 501(c)(3) to approve community services. with the amendment introducing today this extensive uses to all community service just not political campaigns. finally, they said they should not be a ordinance this is what i think is and should get with the sound to be some of the developers were actually be willing to support this policy was not an administrative law that we passed but a policy implemented by her mayor's office of housing and community

development. developers are asking for the not to be a ordinance because they feel unfairly aligns them other asking for the mayor's office of housing a community developed to help a policy instead. welcome i encourage all members of housing committee devoted to develop these policies on anything that they issue. anytime we's public dollars especially for affordable housing should not go go to private political paint again, period. to me, as a legislative body we should be signaling parameters in which public dollars should be spent. i think it's the height of hypocrisy to say we don't want a law will support a policy on this issue. i also want to repeat them i commend the work all these organizers into. we simply very much differ that these organizations were any organization for the matter should be able to leverage public dollars, refinance properties, and use those funds for private political campaigns. that is takemoto not budget process to giving people direct spending either direct or something, use them for private political campaigns it

i don't think which we doing that here in the city of san francisco get i don't believe it's a white user appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. affordable housing built under it, give financing you guys recognize that. late of impending federal cuts to hud or just generic structure i know in the development of affordable housing 21 every single bearable for the housing dollar to go to community development and housing here in the city this event and for the housing? do we want public investment affordable housing to be returned to affordable housing or do we want to use on private clinical campaigns? to meet users clear and colleagues i hope to have your support. >> thank you supervised cardenas. supervisor kim >> thank you president breed. i just want have my thoughts to this ordinance. this proposed ordinance and why i will be opposing it today. now i just want to start by saying there's nothing wrong with raising concerns about anyone spends their money could all of us here in the chamber do it and all of us work hard to expose the source of revenue which funds campaigns that we are

opposed to and there's nothing wrong with making sure that everyone is following the law and that calling for an investigation by the government and this board does not punish entities to spend money on things we disagree with by resetting or printing the first amendment wright's speech. now the board of supervisors has got equally go advice we should be very careful when we crafted ordinances would restrict anyone's first amendment writer that we should also refrain from mentioning that the origins purpose of motivations of a proposal should arise from any concerns that we have about an entity's right to free speech. yet, the very origins of the ordinance came out of press releases, blogs, that specifically targeted one nonprofit affordable housing organization, typo-utilizing the funds for the purposes of political expression. specific ligament the charge was levied

for initiatives that the authors propose legislation opposed to erode, and a quote the dark money supporting proposition c, b, lms, and abusing [inaudible] the authors on the record proposing cdh element s and supporting you and peter did the author goes on to say i will be promptly introduce legislation to close these current loopholes for good. we have called for an investigation. living for the many for the housing project funded with local dollars in san francisco will be restricted from using these proceeds for anything other than capital improvements existing affordable housing or the purchase of additional affordable housing. not bankrolling political campaigns. this proposed ordinance, the lead is dead on arrival. no assistance of the luggage of this wing which is ordinances neutral because it focuses on all, nonprofit organizations versus just talk to. just like the muslim band prohibited immigration from citizens of everyone from the specific

nations, not just the muslims of those nation at war, because we are not discriminating viewpoints [inaudible] in fact just one week ago on wednesday a federal judge derek watson stated quite simply, quote the logic of government referring to the trump administration contentions as possible. the notion that one can demonstrate animus towards any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. he then goes on further to say, the government a.k.a. the trump administration compounds sure, is by suggesting an executive orders [inaudible] is what this court must rely on to evaluating the purpose. only a few weeks ago the ninth circuit commanded otherwise good the supreme court has been even more empathetic courts may not quote blind eye to the contest in which a policy arose. there is nothing quote unquote build about the purpose of this legislative there's press releases blogs which clearly

state that these intent of the legislation is not to restrict spending the money on affordable housing purposes but to actually especially prohibit only spending four quote unquote especially political purposes and there's a few think about the motives as newspapers openly write about the author's intent. the san francisco chronicle headlines, nonprofit developers oppose campaign donation ban. next city headline s.f. lawmaker targets affordable housing campaign contributions. there is no question what the intent of this legislation is truly about. in fact the minoans hiding the ball on this one but not the author not the opponents of the legislation and suddenly, not the media. now, even if this board believes they should and can regulate free speech, i think there's a number of other problems with this legislation at one, it only targets affordable housing nonprofits versus allman profits which receive public funding. second, it only targets for the housing nonprofits versus all developers

including market rate developers who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every election year accessing their free-speech bankrolling political candidates and initiative. now i'm often on the other side of that. i don't like it that market we developers and all this money opposing legislation that i offer that i support. by the way, we provide public funding to these market rate developers could either through direct taxpayer contributions, through zoning the value of their land they are providing them money, or, services like department like any department and department of building inspection. i don't like all this money that comes into election. i think that money should be heavily curtailed and severely restricted. we need to overturn citizens united and other harmful decisions which allow money, not voters, to determine the outcome of elections in which candidates and ballot measures when. but we must do this consistently across the board. and not

curtail the political speech of one group and not others. finally, the supervisor peskin pointed out, this is a non-issue because the irs already regulates what nonprofits can spend their money on. they prevent any spending on candidates and place strict limitations on their contributions to other types of political campaigns like ballot measures. so i urge this board to oppose this legislation in any effort to curtail the free-speech of our entities and a residence. >> thank you supervisor kim. supervisor peskin >> thank you mdm. present i like to associate my self with the comments of supervisor kim and also acknowledge i was not in the land-use committee when this came up your processor being interviewed by the senate rules committee for that coastal commission spot and was unable to attend my apology. i would have brought these issues up in committee. i do want to explore a little bit some of the first amendment issues that supervisor kim touched on. but,

in so far as this only applies to hundred percent affordable housing projects, and in so far as virtually every 100% affordable housing project is built by a nonprofit developer because for-profit developers rarely, if ever, go into that market because it is not as lucrative as being in the market rate development business, i think if we want to get money out of politics we should apply something like this as broadly as possible. this should apply to the recipients of the twitter tax break it this should apply not only to when i percent deals but to 80-20 deals by done by for-profit developers should apply to 50-50 deals although there's very few of them in san francisco. and, rather than targeting the free-speech of one class of people. but, i also think-and i say this from

a perspective of somebody who has been the executive director of a nonprofit environmental organization for getting on the over 20 years, that it is entirely appropriate and lawful for a nonprofit to spend money in politics including four ballot measures. in instances when it furthers the goals of that nonprofit. we are-here's a perfect example. supervisor farrell put a measure on the ballot, proposition b to create more money for rec and park. indeed, the organization i used to work for the trust for public land, contributed substantial amounts of money to get opposition v past and

appropriately so. because, it is consistent with their mission. there are internal revenue service guidelines for a nonprofit 501(c)(3) as to how much money they can spend in the business of politics, albeit, never in a candidate race for or oppose. so, for those reasons i can't vote for this bid i do feel that it is designed to chill the lawful free-speech of nonprofit organizations and to that end, would like to, through the president, as deputy city attorney gibner whether or not you think this would survive a first amendment challenge? >> thank you supervisor peskin. mr. gibner? the was deputy city attorney john gibner. as are all familiar, my office is required by the charter to approve ordinances as to form. our policy is that we will approve any ordinance as [inaudible] if there's argument

that we made in defense of that ordinance if it passes at the board and his challenge. we have signed supervisor farrell propose amendment meaning that at a minimum there's arguments to defend it. beyond that, as you're also all familiar, whenever there are significant legal issues or legal questions that are raised at the board, i office has a practice of providing you confidential advice in writing which, we don't discuss in board meetings. >> supervisor peskin >> the only other thing i would just add relative to the comments i made on supervisor farrell propose amendment that we have not voted on yet is that there is the same language that i referenced on page 3 is also on page 4, act line 14.

not that matters but i would respectfully suggest, through the president, to who provides her farrell that the words, candidate be removed on page 4, line 14 in on page 3 the malign 16. again, i concur with supervisor kim and be voting against the ordinance. >> so supervisor peskin just for clarity we are reapproved the amendment. so you would need to make a motion to amend your >> so moved >> supervisor peskin has made a motion. second by supervisor farrell. colleagues would take that without objection get without objection those amendment past. >>[gavel] >> all right. supervisor farrell. >> thank you president breed i won't belabor the point too much but i think a few things need to be very clear about. this, in no way at all is

printing first amendment speech. at all. that is falsely misleading. this is saying, you cannot use public taxpayer dollars for political campaigns. period. if any organization nonprofit or otherwise, especially nonprofit, ozone by 501(c)(3) of the irs code, seek to have a fundraiser, to raise money for political things they're welcome to do so in private funds conjure to that organization. ira says you can spend more than 10% of your proceeds. not touching that. what what i'm saying is san francisco test their dollars should not be used for those purposes. period. right now, even though during the budget process and was commented during some comments earlier, the budget process nonprofits do get city funds but they are restricted by section 12-g do not spent a political prisoner

guess what, this is a loophole. it leverages and uses public dollars that should be repaid to the city of san francisco were used for a formal housing and build moreover long i can leave this body is considered to date and vote down and ordinance we want spend more money on political approval - excuse me - are formalizing a not on political chemistry we believe taxpayer dollars is more probably views on political campaigns for you to do that than on affordable housing. it's amazing to me. supervisor can you mention me specifically. some speakers for my press release but i know a lot of those funds laster were spent on ballot measures that you propose. so i find it ironic you are the one promoting that. of course, you would. second of all, was section about for-profit housing developers. it's different because they don't take taxpayer dollars. if they did, that we should restrict them as well. supervisor peskin

mentioned it should apply to twitter with we want to do that in the course of any special we should have that vote. we should about bullets and will have it vote today get anderson as people post to this. but by voting, no, we are saying we believe in giving tax for dollars a way to organizations for political campaigns. i simply disagree and i will very much stand by that. >> mdm. pres. >> i'm sorry are you done supervisor farrell? supervisor cohen >> thank you very much supervisor peskin supervisor farrell, want to engage a little bit in the conversation supervisor kim maybe you can just listen because i maybe have a question for you as well. thank you. the way i understand it, the way this conversation is being framed is that these are public dollars being spent in a political major. the way i understand it

the nature to be a little bit more nuance. public dollars are given for nonprofit organizations to make an investment. these nonprofit organizations make a profit and therefore making that public dollars or is that public dollars. so it's not as clear cut for me as-as it sounded and as it's being presented. it is unclear to me if there's anything of legal precedent that says, the profit that is made although the public dollars were the initial use used in the initial investment, the profit that is made generally goes back into the nonprofit organization, which makes it private dollars which means we are restricted from being able to tell nonprofit developers how to spend their money. so i think that is where i am in the gray area where i'm

caught uncomfortable and makes it hard for me to support the legislation. because, the legislation is also, i think, because of this gray area, it is unclear that it's going to be challenging to defend should one bring this case against the city and try to bring it before the court. so, that is where i am should i do know if you can speak to that bring a little bit of clarity? looks like oregon have some conversation mdm. pres. thank you don >> so what question-would you like to address your question? >> thank you i like to hear from the maker of the sponsor of the legislation and again to rephrase my question, how dollars are used as initial investment and a profit is made. units are sold building social property is sold. that profit that is made is then in my mind considered private money. private money in the sense that

it's not taxpayer dollars. although taxpayer dollars were used to grow the investment could see, it's not a clear-cut as it is being presented. >> supervisor farrell >> supervisor cohen i appreciate the question good it's a very therapeutic scenario where the mayor's office of housing contributes of human dollars to a project. the project is refinance. this is payback could we know more funds in the building private funds. [inaudible] some bank wherever you are absolutely, right. i agree with with the speed and size so long as their nasa dollars in affordable housing project on a project moment as long as they continue to be mayor's office of housing a great developer dollars in there, if you repay those alternate url. do not restricted by this but so long as you leverage and use public dollars left on his people refinancing continue to hold the mayor's office and other community dollars and investments in the property could so long as you continue to that you can cash out and then use it in political pays you cash out enough to pay us back first. that's what i'm

saying. look, if we are out of the project no issues. but so long as the mayor's office of housing committee developed a pair taxpayer dollars at a project, the first thing that any financing proceeds to go to is to pay the city. but instead of what's happening is, they are leveraging the city or public dollars cash out and upping his back but using it for political present that to me, is what's wrong and that's what the students restrict specifically >> supervisor cohen is your question complete? thank you. supervisor peskin >> thank you mdm. pres. i actually was going to speak to the issue that supervisor cohen raised and yes, nonprofits can make money. nonprofit profit,

if you will. the internal revenue restrictions, internal revenue code says that those monies cannot be distributed to shareholders, cannot unduly overly compensate the employees of that nonprofit. but, nonprofit corporations are not corporations that can make money to further their charitable purposes. in the case of this city by air through the mayor's office of housing, with affordable housing helpers, we provide them, in most cases, loans. usually low interest loans, that are repaid over time. that is very different than-and i would absolutely agree with supervisor farrell,-if the city were making a grant to a nonprofit in the nonprofit was using that to oppose opposition p or proposition u go at handling moh's ability to get a for the housing developers to bid on projects, that i would agree with. but if we give a

loan to an affordable housing developer to build affordable housing, that is the charitable intent and purpose and nonprofit discharges that judy and build the 100 unit low income housing development and subsequently pays the city back it's low interest loan, and then choose it to refinance conventionally refinance and take money out. it is not our business. it is between god the internal revenue service and that nonprofit. as to how they use those funds. so here is the interesting figure in the instant case, the tyco case, this law would not apply. because costco paid off all of its loans to the city could it did not owe the city a single penny. so as to the egregious behavior that is alleged here in, it would not apply in the instant case. many many nonprofits actually don't cash out at all. as a matter fact i

checked in with the >> very good. almond center [inaudible] forty-year history building thousands and we having thousands of units of affordable housing. they have cashed out one project at werth plaza. years ago. decades ago. so this is kind of a solution searching for a problem and in the one allegedly egregious case, and it is like political retribution, it would not have covered that particular case. i urge a no bullets and concur with supervisor cohen's nuance and also how the city has relationships with nonprofits to discharge their charitable work and carry out affordable housing mission. >> thank you supervisor peskin supervisor kim >> ashley supervisor peskin covered i think the waterfront on this issue and addressed the

very question that i wanted to answer that supervisor cohen asked how we differentially to public funding, [inaudible] nonprofit organization support of a housing organization of course these cash proceeds good i was also going to say does actually is truly a non-issue. it's ongoing to address i think some of the concerns that supervisor mark farrell brought up. i just want to reiterate again i don't like it when people spend money on campaigns suppose legislation i put forward to the voters either but i'm not here standing before you resenting and introducing legislation to restrict the political speech either. so we can talk about how we don't like how many is spent and we can debate it we can criticize it we can all investigation to it but it's absolutely wrong for the sport to prohibit free speech and to penalize or try to penalize, people who speak against the things we believe in. >> thank you supervisor kim. supervisor ronen

>> i will also be voting, no, on this legislation will repeat the excellent explanation both supervisor kim and peskin. i just wanted to say that supervisor farrell, the way that you speak about these private political campaigns makes it sounds very simplistic and nefarious, but often times when affordable housing developers choose to educate the public about a certain ballot measure it's because that ballot measure will make it easier or harder for them to build the affordable housing that you say that you want them to prioritize the funds to build or, they're giving their opinion about who, what income level should be eligible for that housing. that, to me feels a very appropriate use of funds

of a developer choosing to exercise their political speech. i will also be voting, no, honest. >> thank you supervisor ronen. supervisor farrell >> thank you. i appreciate these comments and i thank you supervisor ronen. i just fundamentally disagree with you. i don't weigh public dollars to be used for political purposes whether i agree with those political purposes are or not. whether supporting some ai support or disagreeing with some nice pork i don't believe in a good unbelieving its appropriate use of taxpayers money on it. if [inaudible] allgood public funds funds we get out mayor's office of housing gives up, and salina. totally inappropriate and appreciative comments good thing supervisor transgression was a great one but very clear, if you have an affordable housing project fund with taxpayer dollars, and you pay the city back, no problem. this ordinance does not apply. under me from the ordinance but this ordinance applies during any permit while a loan grants or other funds provided by most remains outstanding. again,

remains outstanding so you're leveraging private dollars and not paying the city back and said cashing out for the cult political campaigns but i think it's wrong. i know there's affordable housing development that is majority of the votes on this board and that is fine but i'll stand on principle to say i do not believe that we should be funding political campaigns the public taxpayer dollars period. >> thank you supervisor farrell. supervisor cohen speed thank you very much. i just want to jump back in here and make sure >> thank you very much. only sharon following this correctly. you take public dollars you make an investment could you turn a profit. you are able to pull-you make out of the prophet uk that the mayor's office of housing. is that correct? right. if you pay that the mayor's office of housing that this piece of legislation doesn't apply to any nonprofit. so it also seems-it seems like it that is the case, then they nonprofit

is interested in engaging political activity, that is fine. you're just restricted to using public dollars and you must pay that moh first. so i want to make sure-perhaps supervisor kim maybe you can help me a little bit on this one. in terms of-you are not restricting the speech per se because you saw the ability to use the private dollars they made from the initial investment to engage. am i following that right? >> supervisor kim >> is that this ordinance doesn't just restrict the dollar amount of the loan. it restricts the entire cash out proceeds. so it's like supervisor peskin said. there's a number of things. the especially limited the uses of direct grants to nonprofit organizations from political campaign could i would be okay with that. in fact we largely do that. if you want to be consistent, and say that any entity that any type of public

subsidy from the city and county of san francisco companies that move into mid market tax exclusionary, market rate developers, who get subsidies from the city of government of san francisco, then i think we should have that debate. so any entity that gets any type of public support from the city and county of san francisco been restricted from spending those dollars on political campaigning and contribution is fine. >>.mil consistency >> there's two issues. one is the issue of consistency and the second is this restrict all cash out proceeds. not just physically the dollar amount we have loaned to that of former housing organization. so one is zero issue of consistent able to target one group, let's talk about all of them. the second is, we are actually just limiting the spending of the loan dollars. we are looting

the entire cash out proceeds, which at the very it's largely a nonissue because very few nonprofit for the housing developers do this and a wall tell you, they always spend those dollars directly back on the rehabilitation and acquisition anyway. but i think what we are largely talking about is this symbolic nature and the precedent we sent by approving the ordinance before us today >> mdm. chairman ask another question >> supervisor cohen >> i'm also under the impression these nonprofits are engaging and kind of political activity, there also subject to an audit could is that not correct? there's a certain level of scrutiny that is that when he saw profits rise to the level is an audit that they've done go and engage in to ensure that are not in violation of any of the tax laws, any bar disclosure laws, and a bar ethics or anything like that. i just wanted to make sure i'm thinking about this correctly.

supervisor farrell spews you of your question directed at supervisor farrell >> allow for supervisor kim and farrell to answer it if possible. >> supervisor cars >> sure. every organization is subject to a 501(c)(3) tax code. so iris can come in and saw it audit somebody they fire tax returns have no [inaudible] they're subject to only 10% of the revenues 501(c)(3) can you contribute to political spending. that's one kind of category and threshold. with the ordinance does and says, it says on top of that, you can't use san francisco taxpayer dollars for political purposes. it's more recidivism with the irs says, absolutely. on the subject of audit buyer may stuff as of housing a great moment or anybody who controllers office as relates to organize you there was a public dollars, absolutely. but we don't have a login screen out it's a loophole about these

cash out posted we talk about consistency. first of all, we do have section 12-liturgy of the ministry to come to be consistent that's all public taxpayer dollars. it can be used for political purposes. but we are making a convoluted argument here the because you leverage taxpayer dollars originally and continued of taxpayer dollars in your project, that all those proceeds are subject to your you could go on a cruise in the caribbean. i don't agree with that. specifically though my concern is that what we've seen in san francisco is that they are used for private political convention i think it is wrong. to the comments about all cash out proceeds versus not, look, i was not a finance major but it would seem to me that if 10% of a project was the mayor's office of housing community to bowman funds as soon as that 10% was raised from a

refinancing the mayor's office of housing may develop should be paid back first. pay the city back. get us out of the financing can. get yourself out of the public taxpayer game. that is great. no problem. have no issues here. the only issue this addresses the ordinance addresses very specifically, is can you continue to loans or funds of sinning from the mayor's office of housing and community moment when you refinance project with supervisor cohen mentioned he don't pay us back in but instead use-the money off using for what you want to use it for this case in particular political campaigns. i believe that is wrong. >> thank you. it looks like there are still continued discussion but we have three commendations and we are way past 2:30 pm. so i'm going to break from this discussion so that we can acknowledge some honorees we have here today. so, with that >> i'm happy to call >> call the vote. >> okay. supervisor yee. >> i really do appreciate everybody's discussion

>> so i'm sorry supervisor yee. if organic continue to the discussion i want us to respect the people that we have. the honorees here today it is almost 3 pm i really want to break from this discussion to honor them so that we can continue with our business at a later time. so i apologize supervisor chinese. i'm sorry and you will be the first person up for your commendation. >> in a case i will let you do that >> okay. supervisor yee, you are up. [laughing] >> wow. okay. give me a second here.colleagues, many of you have already read or heard of about the president's budget the prince and heard about how the proposal propose federal funding cuts would greatly

impact critical new programs for seniors and adults with disabilities. such as meals on wheels. on march 22 1972 pres. nixon signed into law the older americans act nutrition program. which amended the older americans act of 1965 and established a national attrition program for seniors 60 years and older. san francisco seniors and what you have-seniors make up about 25% of our city's population in the number will grow to over 30% by 2030. last year i was proud to cosponsor the historic [inaudible] fund with other supervisors. associate a baseline funding of 3000 dedicating supporting certain visit services for seniors and adults with disabilities. the

need of seniors range from affordable housing, protection, healthcare nutrition and more. earlier this month i sponsored a hearing on the wide and growing needs of seniors and aging adults with disabilities. in our city. dozens of seniors in our community based organizations showed up to make public comments. currently, 104 san franciscans the tickly low income residents and seniors, suffer disproportionately from food insecurity and hunger. seniors and adults with disabilities particularly vulnerable given many of them live on sticks to incomes and are homebound. isolated and live alone. there are many seniors on the waitlist. the city where we have vast amounts of wealth and access to agricultural which regions, we should not have people suffering from hunger. with the

growing cost living in san francisco, and those seniors living on fixed incomes, the need for access to healthy and nutritious and affordable meals is especially critical to the health and well-being of seniors. seniors should not have to choose between spending for food, or for medical needs, pure. for over 40 years, meals on wheels san francisco has delivered over 1.6 million meals each year. over 60% of these i can of the people that are served of the seniors actually live alone. 20% of them have no food sources between the meals meals on wheels provide each date and the meals are prepared in their own kitchen in the bayview. the drivers, the drivers deliver meals and safety checks

to 3500 seniors and adults with disabilities across san francisco. but meals on wheels goes beyond just delivering the meals. they have a team of drivers do safety checks on seniors. dietitians provide nutrition counseling. social workers and volunteers that contact seniors and connect seniors to buy the resources. the fact is, funding programs like meals on wheels actually helps save precious tax dollars because it gives seniors out of the nursing homes and prevents unnecessary hospitalization that often is paid for by medicare and medicaid. however, unfortunately funding for the older american act is not kept up with inflation and rapidly growing senior population. meals on wheels america is already serving 23 million meals edited in 2005. meals on

wheels has a successful public-private partnership where every federal dollar is matched by about three dollars from other sources. so, i want to say that many of us in the chamber including the mayor, this past month has delivered a meal to a senior tunnel or a person with a disability. i had an opportunity to deliver a meal to cover lena and her partner said that i was actually able to deliver a meal last year, two, and what i found was that she was not mobile. she was sitting there and i could see from her walker, she tried to get up once and she could not. how valuable these meals are for her because it's very difficult for her living alone to have a meal that's warm and cook. not

only that, the people-and she says this. last year was the same thing over at the other seniors i delivered a meal to. she said that it's really important for me to see somebody come in here because that often is the only person i see all day long and that's the person that went to check on me. in fact, she so is trustworthy, trusting, that she gave her house key, her dorky, to the person that's going to deliver the meal every day to her. so that the person could just coming because it's too hard for to get to the door. that's what we see out there. those are the people who are served on meals on wheels. so, before i call up view represented for meals on wheels are really want to urge all of you to contact congress and urge them to protect funding for programs such as meals on wheels, which helps keep millions of seniors across

america safe healthy and cared for within the comfort of their own homes and it is these millions also includes so many of those seniors and people with disabilities in san francisco. recognizing the critical work of meals on wheels, what it does to provide in terms of the social connection and nutritious meals prevent isolation and premature institutionalization. today i'm in choosing a proclamation to proclaim march 2017 as march 4 meals month. i am proud to present a proclamation to in --achieve government affairs business development officers for meals on wheels san francisco. pam. thank you so much supervisor jenny thank you for the words you just identity draw the board of supervisors really supports a meals on wheels. i think as we know, last thursday we saw the proposed budget which did include nearly 80% million cut

to healthy human services percent budget to healthy newsrooms of the 83 billion-dollar budget of which includes older american act. the outpouring of support that we have felt from the city both privately from individuals from our elected officials, is outstanding. i think the coverage we are getting will ensure that you agree to receive that part, i think we will look at our city and our state into private individuals to up us backfill those funds. it is the service we provide as we all know in van nuys 3600 seniors rely on us. they rely on the friendly visit and the cd check. as to their neighbors, their caregivers, their sons, their daughters. that is what makes meals on wheels so special. is that we are really there for the client really needs us and really brings the community together. actually what makes kind of a win-win. between the private and public funding and the leveraging bringing our community and engaging those

two really value our seniors, is what it's all about. this proclamation is something that really drives that home, gives us an average and remind all of us how important it is good we do receive 15-20% of federal funding to run our programs in san francisco. so this proclamation in so much. we are so grateful supervisor yee and to all of you and for those of you that will be going out soon to see klein in your district i look for to and we can't wait. so thank you so much >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you for your get we

appreciate your service to our senior community. thank you very much. with that, supervisor cohen. spears latest agenda i know you came four-i do know you come for that long debate about public funds and dollars in tax money and that will lead to continued if you want to stick around for some more action. but in the meantime, i want you guys to put your hands together and welcome ms. edit jones, to come on down here [applause] this is such an incredible woman. i'm so excited to be able to present to her this humble commendation that will come and humbling memorialize the work that she has done for a very long time. now, on a personal note you need to know this lady i went to elementary school with her kids. her sons are living younger than me. but

more in line with my younger sisters but this was a woman that was like eight room parent. she was always on the field trips. she was always volunteering her time. so it is extra special to stand here to celebrate her. i want to recognize this edit jones and her service to hold sf and alice griffith public housing to me as the education liaison. as i mentioned, she has lived education from very early on in her career and has had an impact on my personal life. so it is a special privilege to stand before her to recognize work with hold sf because this is coming. if you start with main elementary school and now here we are it i like to share a little more about her. she's recently risen from sanitary taxes are graduate of [inaudible] called prairie view agriculture mechanical university. it is there that

she earned her degree in sociology and education in 1977. shortly thereafter, in 1979, she and her family relocated to the san francisco bay area. this is jones has worked in urban communities providing educational support for over three decades. she is with many different constituencies over the years including people living with hiv and aids, young mothers in the western addition, special education students. we are very lucky to have ms. jones in which is brought in the wealth of knowledge she is brought and experience to urban strategy team as well as to the alice griffith community. for those of you that don't know house griffith is a small public housing developer in the southeast corner of san francisco what we call the flatlands in bayview-hunters pointed >> also known as double rock >> supervisor jimmy likes to point that out you natives you know what that is. [inaudible/off mic] yes. yes,

double rock. the government name is alice griffith. [laughing] in her role as urban strategy education liaison mrs. jones has been a summons on commencing committee benefits commencing the community building and parent engagement strategy that quite frankly has led to a tremendous improvement in our young scholars, young students attendance and as was their academic achievement. she has played a terminus role in the building the community based on education partnerships and documenting the personal accounts of the lives of the families of the children that are living in public housing. sometimes they even go undocumented and unacknowledged. she also is a fantastic artist did she created for me a beautiful memory book of two years ago. she's very talented photographer as well. be please coupled your hands together and welcome ms. edit jones. [applause]

>> first of all i like to say i'm really humbled and i'm really appreciative of this acknowledgment. i'm just so reminded of marian wright ald. who is the former president of the children's defense fund of washington dc, and she says that, service is the rent we pay for living. so it is truly been a service to be a part of a team of urban strategy youth entered into a community that had been so left out a month and so far forgotten and especially for the children to be able to work and provide educational services and opportunities and then to knowledge the children and to knowledge their families. what has been most significant for me has been working with the partners in the school districts. san francisco unified school district. sushi

foundation san francisco police department. it's just been a pleasure to work with the ymca. it is important that the work is accomplished. but we can't do it alone. you must have the partners involved with austin so once again, thank you also much and i really appreciate this honor in this acknowledgment. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> congratulations ms. johnson thank you so much for your service. >> all the educators that are here, would you please, stand up. thank you. [applause] thank you to all the educators have

dedicated their lives to educating young minds. we are grateful. >> thank you thank you for being here today. okay our final commendation for today is going to be given by supervisor kim. thank you president breed and i knew at some words as well for the group about to bring up. i want to bring up san francisco interfaith council. the school committee servers and our department of homelessness and supportive housing to the podium.this past winter and each winter that apartment of homelessness and supportive housing in partnership with the san francisco interfaith council episcopal community services and many other part local churches, partner to provide

emergency shelter during our winter months from november 20-february 25 when we know our streets get a little bit colder and in particular, this winter much more wet. i want to take the time to acknowledge and appreciate all the churches and organizations participated to spanish out of capacity this past winter could without you, 100-200 additional people would have spent each night on the streets for the last few months in a cold and rainy weather. one of the top concerns of the constituents i represent and certainly here in the city, are how we address homelessness and encampments. the reality is both the house and on house degree that no one should be on the streets. no one wants to see the encampment with the neglect brought on by years of federal estate divestment from public housing and affordable housing in mental institutions. and no one wants to see anyone suffer. i want to thank and

acknowledge that part of homelessness who is represent by jeff kosinski director here today, for always working to practically seek out most of our natural allies resolving that crisis is of homelessness and that committee. i'm particularly rifle for our religious institutions that take on-take on-take this on by answering the moral mandate to care for most destitute, in this case are homeless management st. barnabas, st. mark's lutheran singers cathedral, the first unitarian church, thank you for doing god's work here in san francisco. i agreed to participate in san francisco winter shelter program, you are holding true to the values of a validity of religious beliefs, but also the values of the city and county of san francisco. having visited some your churches, that open the door i mean it's really just it's a beautiful gesture to those on the nice when nights we have the most need and provides a

tremendous amount of relief in our city. so, thank you for this work it also helping to coordinate meals to those that have opened their doors at night for hundreds of homeless individuals in our streets. i want to particularly appreciate episcopal community services for taking on the role of managing and staffing this over the last three months. from the department of homelessness, imagine jeff kosinski but also want to recognize kathy purdue, scott walton, sam dodge, emily cohen and homeless outreach team. so, thank you again so much and pres. breed i think you want to add a few words >> thank you. yes, i will start by thanking each and every one of you for being here. thank you two beta-and michael-for being here and leading the way in being an incredible example that not only have you were to help coordinate the faith

community for this particular purpose, we know also the work that you did to get our first navigation center up and running during the support that you provided. the work that you continue to do. make such a difference the lives of the people we know are most abominable, and i want to say that i'm really proud that the majority of these locations are actually in district 5. when the call came, the churches then in our district stood up and basically open their doors and just so proud to see each and every one of you here today. first unitarian church sf night ministry st. mary's cathedral, st. mark's lutheran church in st. vincent depaul society of san francisco. this is not to ignore st. boniface and the episcopal community services. you all, together, create an opportunity for so

many people do we know need it the most, especially when we have conditions outside that are just really difficult for anyone to surviving in. so your work and what you do by opening your doors is truly god's work and it is saving lives and on behalf of the city,, we applaud you but we thank you for your service. so, with that, we will ask jeff to come up and say a few words. >> thank you pres. breed and i would like to echo my thanks to the interfaith council to lovely congregations who participated to the school community services but especially to the hundreds of volunteers came out every morning to help serve meals. i had the honor being able to serve some of those meals with congregants from the unitarian universalist church good was a great honor to stand with them and just to see the atmosphere that they helped create, the love, and the openness that they shared with and the food, with the homeless men were staying at that shelter. it was

really a beautiful thing. i think this is a wonderful example of how the community can come together to address the needs that we have good as you all know there's over 3000 individuals on any given night there's sleeping on our streets in san francisco. we need to do more and we need to do better and i think that this a great model of how the community can come together to serve the most vulnerable san franciscans. than k you from the bottom of my heart. on behalf of the department and all the people that we serve. it's very deeply grateful for all you've done for the community. thank you. [applause] >> i know michael-from the interfaith council is also going to say a few words as well. >> we are humbled to be here today and we are grateful. these are the heroes and the 45 congregations that have served meals. if these are the heroes, this is our superhero. vita-is here from the beginning i like to to say just a few words.

>> thank you very much but i want to remind michael and all of you that nobody does these things alone. it is because we are working as a community that we can do this. so i echo mayor lee's words. if we stand together there's nothing we can't accomplish. thank you very much for this commendation we treasure it and we thank you so much. [applause]

>> congratulations to all our hono today and think everyone for your patience. with that we will return to our agenda. it is past 3 pm and we have a 3 pm special order. mdm. clerk, please call the item >> the special order of 3 pm

is public hearing for items 17-20 continued open from january 10, 2017. public hearing persons interested in the determination of exemptions from environment to review under the california environment oh quality act issued as a community plan and simpson approved by the planning commission on september 22, 2015. for a proposed project located at 2675 fulsome st. to allow the demolition of three two-story warehouse and storage structures get the construction of a four story 40 foot tall residential building. item 18 is a motion to affirm that this project is exempt from further environmental review the community plan exemption. items 19 and 20 are the motions to

reverse the planning to permits exemption determination. >> supervisor ronen ps thank you college. like to make a motion to continue item 17, 18, 19, and 20 two the april 18 board of supervisors meeting. while i have concerns about the project is been raised by this appeal i continue to remain open and hopeful parties can come to an agreement that would remove the need for this appeal. as you saw this morning in the san francisco chronicle, the [inaudible] committee counsel [inaudible] came to an agreement with lennar multifamily communities project that also sits in the latino cultural district. i am hopeful that the parties can reach a similar agreement here and believe given some more time to sit down with one another would help with that process good so colleagues whom i would ask that you would support this continuous. >> supervisor ronen has made a motion to continue as to the meeting of april 18 27 and it was seconded by supervisor cohen. colleagues, before we

vote on this continuous, we do need to take public comment specifically on the continuance. so if there's a members of the public would like to speak as a relates to the continuance, please, come forward. first speaker, you have 2 min. >> hello. laura clark with [inaudible] action. i knew you couldn't continue this but this is why we don't have the housing we need. it's because we play games with it. if you want to get developers out of politics, it's time to take the politics out of developments. if you want to get rid of a page play system, we need to stop playing games. we need less discretion in these processing. we need to say, there is housing that we need, housing the leg is housing denied. it is time to get moving. i understand that you are going to wait on this project a little bit more and

have a lot more feel about it and see what more we can squeeze out of various developers and there's nothing we can do about that here today but i want to encourage you to get some urgency about the crisis that we are in and how much housing we so desperately need. so i want you to take this in context pass on as accurate as fast as possible. if you really want to take the pressure off of the mission, it is time to build housing in the outlying neighborhoods. that is urgent and i need to be passed immediately. thank you. >> thank you. could i remind members of the public and those speaking, can we please did to the subject matter of the continuance. they can. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors did i miss eric-president for [inaudible] cultural district and we are in support of the continuance that i think are important that we meet with the developers to make sure that we come to an agreement and that

everything that we talk about benefits everyone and most importantly, to protect latino cultural district and its cultural assets. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>hello. vicfrom an environmental review perspective i think we pass this out many many times.entited. in this a perfectly fine development. the build affordable housing there a lot with nothing in it exists now.a continuance is another updating for delay and delay after that. we have at this discussion many times and i'm not sure what additional benefit there is to allowing more private negotiation practices between this developer and the community at large. it seems kevin i do know it seems like we got into this mess to begin with and i would urge the board of supervisors to consider whether i'd like laura said [inaudible] weathers measures in place to prevent

this situation from happening again and again. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is kevin burke rent. in san francisco residence in district. i like you to please deny the continuance. the more delays the monsanto we have in the house and process the harder it is to build the harder it is to build the more expensive it is to build in the city you have to keep lawyers on staff you've got permits open keep renewing him continued contracts open. the most sense of it is to build in the city the higher income requirements of the voters need to target. the harder it is to build affordable and middle-class housing when there's larger discover disease between affordable and what the market rate rent is for the building. so we should try to make it a certain and as predictable as possible whether a project will get through the process were not. secondly, i