wednesday, march 20, 2000 710 will begin shortly. >> >>[gavel] >> good evening and welcome to march 29 4017 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. presiding officer tonight is board president darrell honda

and he joined by vp frank fong commissioner rick swig we do expect bobby wilson to be here sure. and lazarus will be your absent. to my left is deputy city attorney and it'll provide any needed legal advise advice 10. i'm cynthia goldstein executive director. we wildly joined by representatives that have before before the evening good we expect scott to be here is the city zoning a missed read or and also be representing the planning department and planning commission. the senior building inspector joseph duffy will be here representing the apartment building inspection. will also be joined by rebecca-deputy director cultural fairs representing the arts commission and the board request that you turn off or sought silence all but on devices that so they will not disturb the proceedings and that you carry on conversations and the holy. the board's three rules of presentation are as follows. everyone is given 7 min. to present their case of 3 min. for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include the comments within the seven or 3 min.

permeates. number the public not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 min. each to address the board and no rebuttal. please, speak into the microphone to to assist the board in the accurate hesitation minutes you're asked to not required to submit a speaker card. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions we've customer service action survey forms on the podium as well for your convenience. if you questions bout requesting a hearing the boards rules or schedule please, speak to board staff or after the meeting. or come and visit us at the board's office. we are located at 1650 mission st. in room 304 and that's between du bois st. and south van ness this meeting is broadcast live sfgov tv cable channel 70 and rebroadcast at friday 4 pm on channel 26. dvds of the meeting are available from purchase from sfgov tv. now we will

swear in a firm those all tend to testify could be please, note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the right under the sunshine ordinance and if you wish to the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please, stand if you're able and say i do accurate stand or sworn in. please, stan. >>[oath repeated] >> thank you. president, the measures we one housekeeping items i get this is item number six appeal number 17-021. regarding a site permit at 2330 and 23 4919 data that matter has been withdrawn and will not be heard. if there's some question about that item this is item number six on our calendar. it has been withdrawn.

that means the board i think there's no matter before the board to be decided. the appeal has been withdrawn. having to do with the case on 19th ave. [inaudible/off mic]. >> unfortunately, evidently the permit holder as was the person that filed the appeal have settled their grievances. now we will of public commons and a second cu mike just for the record state the reason why you are here under that public comment since it's no longer being her before this board this evening >> the board doesn't 02 postcards people interested in these cases and guessed that if you want further notification of matters to let us know so we can notify you of any changes. my understanding those letters to go out but perhaps they did not get to you yet unfortunately because we just received the withdrawal late

yesterday. so our apologies for that. if you need to address the board we would ask that you -if you could maybe ask mr. cantero your question is are we until public comment if you want to tell something to the full board. okay? actually our next item is item number one, which is general public comments. this is for people that speak to any thing within the board subject matter jurisdiction that's not on tonight's calendar. if there is anyone here would like to address the board now is the time to step forward >> if you like to speak and address the board under public comment you make it just step up to the podium. >> good evening. thank you for letting me speak.

unfortunately, we all came for that particular reason and all of a sudden it's not on the calendar. that is very sad because we have been waiting for a wild to do this and every time that we tried to talk to the right people, something happens that we are not allowed. i think that is part of the respect that with there is no respect for the community neighbors, interested in this case. the other matter is the security that unfortunately they lack and i'm not sure if i'm allowed to show a picture >> yes, you may put it on the overhead and have it orientated like you're looking at it. >> this is what i'm speaking about. the security, the lack of security. this is the lock that they put on the gates so that nobody could come in and go into the site of

construction. it is just a wire that's been twisted and we had rainstorms and direct neighbors had 18 holes into their garden and homes. the next door to this side, they were not told that their wall was coming down and so what was left of their wall was just hanging in the wind. never told that they should come and that was what was going to happen. so they were very upset and sad because everybody prizes their security, home security. this was not given to them at all. the other thing is, the fact that every time we have had any notice way beyond the time that we can do anything, it is late in coming. and, they seem to get larger and larger and changes and change and we go, where is the board or the planning board that is helping

the community? same, no, your plan was this. this is what it should be. you cannot be changing every year and this has been happening for over 7-10 years. i don't know how long. we don't hear about the changes until it is too late. we cannot do anything. most of the homes in fact on 19th ave. are first and second floor. they want to go to the fourth, fifth level. why? we don't know. they want to go way back into the yards. we 01 some sunshine. we all want some shadow and we will have more shadows because these are much larger than all the homes. the last one is, the security of the wall between 18th and 19th avenue. that boundary is over 100 years old. >> thank you. sorry, your time is up now. >> jody had told me how secure

that while is. >> thank you. >> state your name for the record, mame? >> lizzie jeremy. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is richard jeremy son of lizzie. i currently reside in the home directly behind the project at 2351 18th ave. i have three main concerns. and they're similar to what my mom lizzie has address. one is the safety issue. he came in with no notice closed the place down and lifted unsecured and we have had a wave of burglaries and home invasions in my neighborhood. sure you're all aware of what's going on to parkside community. and with

very little-the second part is the communication. there's been zero to very little communication and as she also mentioned the moly find out about hearings or when it's our chance to voice our concerns about this project, it's often too late and we are not able to do that. my third item i want to also bring up your is the scope of the project. it seems that, believe in 2007 or, 2008, the property one from a commercial two and r-two. they had approved some plans but it didn't go to the community. we were not allowed to voice our concerns about the project. then the plans changed once, once, three, i think this is about the ninth revision of these plans. this is one of the first opportunities we've had a chance to speak to you and address our concerns. so i looked at the code for our-two genome hearing that are-three and now i really don't know what is going on with this project. i'm very concerned because i raise three daughters at the property and to have the security now compromised with

just a very light gauge with a bungee cord holding it together, it's allowing access. right now, she showed an old picture but right now, the entire wall is covered in graffiti so it's blighted as well. the whole entire while there's no room. in fact they ran out of room to write graffiti on our. they moved to the neighbors while civil now the neighbors wall has quite a bit of graffiti on it. again my concerns are the security. my concerns are the communication and my concern is also the scope of the project not research the r-two loving code and the specs and it seems to me this project is grossly out of proportion to what the building code allows for. again my name is richard jeremy. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> both of you you want to call me in the morning i'll be happy to speak to you about

ways you can get some other concerns addressed to other city departments. [inaudible/off mic] >> just as a side note we have someone representative from the planning department actually hear you can never chat with. >> any other general public comment? >> hello. my name is frank-i'm also residing right next to the project that rachel was talking about. we are concerned about security and we are concerned about the parking situation that is going to impact the neighborhood area and, yes also, the communication between the construction company in costs because we want to know

if they are all these bulldozers or big trucks coming in and what is their construction schedule. all that. it's good to impact us. definitely, the security. thank you. >> are you finished, sir. i have a question it were you given notification regarding this property? >> we were given some of the notification. but by the time that we could respond it's either like with strong or when we show up or we just don't have enough time. in one week, please complain or by the time we receive these revocations, be period for receiving comments on to the website or public hearings is already past. >> as in the prior speaker, my director will probably give you her card and again the representative from the planning department is at the front they could probably have a word with him as well. thank you very much.

>> any other general public comment under item 1? seeing none, we will move to item to which is commissioner, 10 questions. anything commissioners? >> i was going to embarrass my daughter but she left already so i guess that's out of the question. >> item 3 is the board's consideration of the minutes of march 22, 2017. >> any changes, deletions deletions or additions? if not a motion? >> i moved to adopt >> thank you is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, gave a motion for the vice president to adopt the minutes. honda aye wilson aye swig aye. that motion carries without vote 04-0. we will then

move to item number four which is appeal number 17-012. appealing the denial on july 24 2017 of the st. artist certificate and we will start with the appellants. you have 7 min. >> good evening and welcome again. >> thank you so much. that really helps. it really does. this is a long time that says this is been going on. i want to start out by saying that less than 1% of pro se litigants beat a state in california state of appeal. i did and was against barbara-i think i just part of it in my brief to you and i would think that would've been a wake-up call to the arts commission to stop allegations of stalking, harassment, hearsay and verbal abuse. since the san francisco city attorney's office never investigated the-affidavit, my

estimate is that it costs the taxpayers of san francisco over $30,000. the city attorney's office never bothered to notify sclera. i noticed this because i went to a full commission meeting in this room. her the outcome and the [inaudible] is still not on file with the war memorial management. the issue or why i'm here today is that i was never asked by the arts commission for a home address. i sent-they've done this many times before. i send applications and they just kind of dye in it take somebody from the outside to kind of revival is. in the past, it was kathy barnes city attorney. in this case, it was cynthia goldstein. when she contacted rebecca --after a year and three applications, the response came

back that i do not provide a home address. why did they just asked me? i sent e-mails. i never got one response for them they did the same thing in 2010 and 2012, and by day, i'm talking about [inaudible] since i think he's responsible for this. he refused to accept new street artist applications after the passage of proposition j that's documented. william clark a longtime street artist had to go into federal court over street artist denial in 2005. so i kind of wondered who wrote the response from the arts

commission, because they're confusing a few things. there's an application process and then there's a permitting process. so it's pretty clear to me that it was someone in the city attorney's office who wrote it and there are grossly misinformed. in april 4, 2016 howard lazard show me on market and spear street. i filed a police report. and notified via e-mail margaret baumgartner. never once got a response. may 16, back of the ferry building i was waiting to take a ferry. another police report and a long-winded false account >> are you hoping right now, there's nothing on the overhead you are you addressing-there we go. >> he went on to a long-winded tirade falsifying information to the was no security there. i did not do anything to him. if he had been so fearful of his life he the would've in a police report. instead i filed a police report and contacted margaret baumgartner. so at

november 22 public meeting, howard lazard public documents on the floor. he would not allow me to audiotape and refused to allow me public comments. why is this going on? i don't know. he also has a propensity to talk employees there and make up information. why would somebody-i do know by the name of and tricky, works part-time 30 hours a week in a new hire with no experience or training as a market manager say the things that she is said to me? for example, at the last hearing here that i one retired city attorney paula jessen got me an appointment to

go pay for this permit. and tricky open the door about like this. grab something i had in my hand and slammed it. i was called into the hallway by rebecca krill, who asked if i said something to her. at a july street artist meeting and tricky payment before the start of the meeting and set them up all, why don't you behave good you are going to jail to people don't behave like this at of nowhere unless their minds have been filled by somebody else. march 1, 2005, and tricky not over patterson-peterson of the ethics commission in the hallway of 25 van ness ave. she shouted to the guard to call 911 . and tricky thing get that comes about restraining order that did not exist. the building management went to talk to and tricky. october 16, went to an executive committee meeting and the public meeting of the arts commission. in the hallway, and tricky called security claims that i violated a restraining order to phil gramm the building management and sfpd were there. she did not have any paperwork in her hands. i supplied it and it

clearly says that i could attend a public meeting. so once again, she was reprimanded by building management. i did contact deanna rosenstein, city attorney who said quote i we went to get [inaudible] i don't care what you do with it. on december 14, i waited in a office for over 20 min. because i wanted to answer questions but i don't go there very much because i know that it's a trap. it's a web. [inaudible] it's a waste of time. but if they don't respond to calls or e-mails, well then you've got to do something she was ranting for 20 min. about the catawba when she saw was there she screens, what are you doing it. i walked out. it was just bizarre. similar in the permits office when she dropped off those fonts on march 23. looking at the-o god, >> 32nd >> okay, to address the allegations that have no merit,

fake addresses, they did not provide any evidence of it. i don't recognize those addresses good fake names. no, not true. i'm quoting from a civil grand jury report of 2012 that documents the arts commission addictively howard was our refuses to communicate with people. >> i'm sorry your time is up but you'll have time during rebuttal. thank you. >> we can hear from the arts commission now. >> good evening and welcome >> thank you. director thank you for taking the time to review our response to appeal number 17-013 and sit for the opportunity to present our position before you. i'm going to highlight key points from the brief we submitted to you last week. the ordinance which

created the arts commission street artist program was designed for persons the commission licenses to sell the art they make. staff has previously refused permits to pablo's detached and others because results from investigation show they did not actually make the items they sold. the voter adopted ordinance opposition l provide an actual residence address in addition to a mailing address and an actress with the artist creates the art to be sold. this is not only necessary for sending important notices to an artist, but it's vital that satisfying the ordinances required to do in on-site possession of the artist studio or workshop to their further verify whether the artist is creating his or her work. in addition command pursuant to legal precedent, the government is allowed to require an applicant to provide a physical location where the applicant stays. in this case, she would have at least a temporary residence to store her physical property when she is not

selling on the street. ms. detached, as students we provided a real address for many years. she is taking a bandage of the confusion regarding her address to avoid enforcement of street artist rules and regulations as well as to avoid service of restraining orders related to treatment of commission staff which at times rises to the level of obsessive and frightening harassment. ms. detaches prior indolence actions of submitting applications and fees and then withdrawing them has resulted in the commission staff physical return of payments because of a lack of address. given her long history of inaccurate representations of her address, the board should not automatically accept as true the statement that she is homeless. in denying if she went to the street artist certificate the arts commission is exercising the authority granted to it by section 5 of

the voter mandated ordinance which provides for denial issuance when quote charges of deception resorted to in obtaining the certificate or any other violation of the applicable provisions of the san francisco municipal code cabin filed with the commission. ". as part of the implementation of a feasibility study to improve the program the commission has hired a market manager to spend more time to ensure program compliance. the accurate information of the artist addresses as required by law will allow the market manager to spot check the artists and resulting possible studio visits to verify whether or not the artist creates their work. however, when someone tries to hide the location as ms. detach has done, the market manager must expend in an organ amount of time to do the most basic of investigations which results in limiting the commission's enforcement effectiveness. ms.

detaches not about street artist license for number of years. she nevertheless continues to sell items that she does not make from a table on the street in various locations. it is the peddler permit managed by the police department the cupboards for our kiddies with respect to those items and not the street artist ordinance. we believe should not be allowed to take a huge amount of resources that we better spend >> great. nor should be allowed to flout clearly defined and requirements for application. in closing, granting mr. tesh's appeal would adversely impact the arts commission's positive progress to improve the street artist program. it undermines the credibility and integrity of the program encourages a lack of compliance. we respectfully request the board to deny the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, then we will have our rebuttal. ms. toubro.

>> once again rebecca krill has confused the application process with the screening and permit process. in the application process, i was not asked for a home address. had every opportunity to ask me. by drudging up 20 years of past history is not fair and it's not relevant to this thing. most of the information is -they don't have any evidence to support their claims. the application process is clear. providing a home address. there's no such thing as an on-site check. it's not in the ordinance. it's not in the

bluebook and it's not in the police code. this is another invention of the arts commission. they do not show up like her role officers or eyes in the middle of the night and you open the door so they can inspect to see if you made stuff. it doesn't happen. this was an excuse. basically, i have never been issued of violations. in fact, it's been the contrary. in my brief i showed a series of hearings that i've won because they have not been able to demonstrate proof with the so-called restraining orders. i've been doing public records researches for 20 years because i expect this whether out of the country, out of the state, i always do public record searches. when something pops up in san francisco i know who to call. dwight moore of city attorney's office. in every situation i did not so it wasn't a matter of being me running a way of avoiding detection or anything for that matter. once again, those sites provided by the city attorney's office work against them. in all three instances, the people

won the right to vote because they were homeless, because one gave an address of state park in santa barbara. april the. gave an address of the park and its the truth in my case. nobody bothered to ask additional provision in any ordinance any police code or any bluebook that talks about the things i've talked about. they just don't want me to have that permit. that's all it is. people do not be a good way john-digit if you recall, out of nowhere stalking and harassing you let someone has filled his ear with a lot of fake news. that's what happened here. >> i have a question. so do you have a home address? >> no. but pursuant to the appellant cases that were cited here i would be willing to say

once again, i was never asked for home address. >> okay. the next question is, when is the last time that you did have a valid street permit license or vendor license? >> i don't recall. i don't communicate with them and i don't-i keep records of legal things, of e-mails. i don't know. there's something called a priority reissuance. there's freezing a permit. there's lots of things that they do that are not written down. those opportunities were never offered to me and when sent e-mails i never got a response >> the last question is, what is the product that you sell and do you-i veil handmade by you? >> everything i did was hand made when i was in the program. i work with feathers. >> okay. thank you. >> we have rebuttal time from the arts commission.

>> we have a copy of a application for certification filed by ms. detach on december 26, 2015. a copy of it is in your packet we submitted last week. there's a request for residential address on the application and ms. detach it up at homeless. she put 150 center st. address which is not a resident address. i don't have any further comments. happy to respond to any questions you have for me. >> the question am i have is how often does your department make inspections on vendors in regards to if they make the products? or not? >> usually investigation based on complaints that been filed or on observations made by the advisory committee members to do the monitoring should so it really depends what information we receive. >> so how often and when is the

last time you recall that inspection had been done? >> of the studio visit >> correct. >> they're done on a regular basis. >> so- >> i mean, there's done on a monthly basis. >> okay. thank you. >> another question. if she had written homeless, what would your department [inaudible] >> i understand now from the city attorney, because we've now got some legal counsel with that situation because is the first we have heard about her being homeless and i didn't inform that the government can still require a person to give us a location good so it's not a residence address because there homeless it would be a street or an intersection on where they can be found. >> in her grief she referenced

a number of other street artist who had unusual addresses and residents. are those verified by your department? >> we've not had the opportunity to verify all those good we have requested residences addresses from all the artists because we are now wanting to step up our enforcement in the program. as part of our efforts to improve the program. we do feel like this is a very unusual special case where because of all of these other related issues with ms. detach, it's especially important that we have an address for her. >> so the appellant says that there is no required for a home address and that you are mistaking-mistaking the application-i hope this get this right-for the program and

the application for the permits. that there is no come in requirement for a home address on both applications. she says-and so is that so? i don't have the applications in front of me >> sure. what i have in front of me is the application for certification. that is required before a license is issued. if an individual is participating in the program they don't need to read like they can just request that the license be renewed, and that doesn't-they don't need to repeat the application process because the department already has enough of their information on file. so would only be have some kind of change. >> so the initial application takes care of the permit information? >> right. exactly. then there have to be reissued. >> okay. secondly, the statement was made that there is no place in the rules regulations, anything anywhere,

that says anything about the need or the option to inspect and verify that a street artist is selling their real art as opposed to something made offshore which i've seen many times unfortunately in the city of san francisco or by somebody else. we are in the rules and rags does that specify and give clarity to an applicant like the appellant? >> sure. thank you for asking. so i actually disagree i think the whole crux of the law that was passed is based on the notion of the artists making with a cell because the whole reason the law was created as a result of this community effort for folks art, artists to be with to make with this on the streets. so that was really the whole impetus for the law and so it's reflective of the law >> maybe i did not get my question-

>> the examination? >> these discussion is not whether it was made not by the hands of the artist. that is implicit and that's understood. we've heard that before on this board but, rather, the requirement to make an inspection to insure an artist is making their own stock. >> sure. there's an entire mayoral appointed body called the advisory committee street artists and crafts examiners. that's their whole job is to screen the artist and inspect what they make to verify that they've made it. >> does that process occur-it would seem to me that it would be logical if that process occurs at application time. >> it does, but are also on the street doing field

inspections >> i understand that. because that's how we found out about the stuff that's on the street is not made by the artist. but, in the appellant's case, has anybody-did anybody-from this advisory committee screen the appellant to ensure what her product was and that she was making it at a location and that it was, in fact, real art? >> yes thank you for asking i believe she was screened many years ago. she has been in and out of the program many many times over the years so i would have to check our files and are records for the times when she was screened, but she would have been over the years. >> isn't the first up the application. the certification process you have in whatever else you have in terms of the interview and other things, that occurs after the application >> exactly... >> thank you.

>> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i have a question for city attorney. what is [inaudible] >> i can hear you >> what if somebody writes if somebody's place of residence is on hold? >> have to give a corner or approximated area. >> i am asking our city attorney, is that by law a beagle place of business on an application? >> i agree with the cases cited by-in the arts commission's brief. that in the context of the registration the courts have said the government can require a person to list some physical location, whether it may or may not-it doesn't have to be a physical building. a place with a person can be found.

>> so if ms. to go read those are application that says i'm homeless and puts a place whether it's a park does that qualify her? is a place of residence? >> then i think that could be sufficient to set aside the ordinance. i think the arts commission has agreed to that. i think that was a statement they made on their brief >> understood. >> i want to follow-up on a question to the city attorney. so, if we find today that if we deny the appeal, tomorrow can the appellant walked back and ask for an application, fill in an address, or a location, satisfy the needs of the arts commission and be assured she will be dealt with fully?

>> typically, i'm sure you are aware section 31 of the business and tax code would bar an application for a permit after the been denied for one year. there is an exception, however, that if the permit was denied by bees and of definite existing conditions, which prevent the granting of said permit, instead of conditions removed to remedy the one-year prohibition against application will not apply. i think in this situation, if ms. toubro were to provide an address that met the requirements under the ordinance that might fall within the definite existing condition exception to section 31 of the business and tax code. in which case she could reply without having to wait for a year.

>> okay. crates. i think one of the issues that is obviously there some frayed emotions on both sides here. in fairness is what we try to do here. so i think regardless, if we do find not in favor of the appellant, i think we always try to provide a remedy to allow that to happen. so i want to-i'm not projecting one way or another i would make a motion. i think i'll let somebody else make a motion but i want my fellow commissioners to understand when they go to make a motion with the sure i'd be one way or the other and,-or, if we find -another question- >> before you do that guy ask who decides on that interpretation? in other words,

is it the arts commission? who decides whether or not it's- >> i think ultimately, say, if they were to deny the permit because it falls within the one-year bar, and ms. toubro appealed that it could be a decision that you would make again. >> can i ask a question related to-i asked the question related to if we deny the appeal. i like to ask a question if we uphold the appeal. and condition it with the need for ms. to bow to provide a home address and sure that things that are the issues in-on the table here. could we find either way and give the appellants the opportunity to clean the slate and redraw it

so to speak? >> i think you could grant the appeal on the condition that ms. trudeau provide addresses that comply with the code. i would also point out, though, i think it was some discussion whether being the second step in this process, which is not been completed which was re-examination of our artwork. there may be another >> vector be another condition >> that could be another condition of the granting of appeal in which case would go back to the arts commission and of a denied you might want to clarify that if they ultimately deny the permit on the basis of the artwork not satisfy the examination portion that out within still be appealable to the board. >> actually a question for the department for the commission. we've heard several times regarding a restraining order.

with the restraining order to and from and for what? >> sure. i believe them there's been several over the years. i've been with the department five years. i believe the most recent restraining order was from commissioner scolari against ms. to passion. >> okay. thank you. i been here over and this is been the force 3-4 times as well. thank you.[[inaudible/off mic] >> i'm sorry please >> [inaudible/off mic] >> please you are not helping your case here. you're not helping your case reviewed please, be quiet. thank you.

that made it easy.would someone like to make a motion? >> i am leaning towards allowing her to submit an appropriate application. not necessarily understanding or guessing whether it will continue any further than that, but i would also say that historically, any permit that has shown a change to it and the amount of change is not on quantifiable does illuminate the one-year bar. so, i would be inclined to deny the appeal

and allow her should she choose, to submit an appropriate application. >> i have been on the board for over four years. i think she's been before this board. this is either the third or fourth occasion. this board has leaned with her on all four occasions. i believe so. you know, what i meant by my comment earlier is if her outburst and her lack of decorum on televised-i can imagine she would be in a closed room without a camera to the fact that i asked her nicely to,, to please pay attention to that, it meant nothing to her. so i mean, depending on what the other commissioners are going for,

this is-i think she shows really well when she gets here and literally she just fell apart. >> why don't we proceed equipped >> yes >> i would support the vice president's position with the clerk occasion that she the one your-that she could file again within what. of time commissioner? >> any period of time just there's no bar of the one-year ban >> so the one-year ban would be-so tomorrow she could walk in? >> that is right >> unprepared to support that. >> i'm prepared to support that. [inaudible] >> it's not the first time. that's-i will make a motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the application was not properly sent out. >> with the additional motion that the one-year bar would be

waived in this case? >> if we condition it i have to grant the appeal. >> so you don't want to grant the appeal >> not necessarily. >> so what your motion? >> i am a little confused. i might've misunderstood good >> can you repeat your motion again, vice president? >> my motion is to deny the appeal on the basis that the denial of the application was properly done. >> but if you- >> i have an aside. i would consider placing a designation that place of residence on a new application would be a substantial change. are you

confuse? >> i'm not sure if you are ready to call the motion. if you are i will try to do that >> yes >> can i get clarification from the director? >> commissioner wilson are you ready for the motion to beard? ps >> the vice president has made a motion to deny the appeal, hold the denial the certificate on the basis that the application was not properly filled out. okay. that's the motion. on emotion than honda aye wilson aye swig aye. that motion does best with a vote of 4-0. thank you very much. we will move on then to item 5

-eight and five-be the appeal number 1701 one and 17-012. filed by john-i guess the department of building a special with planning department approval having to do with the property at 153-155 arkansas st. both are protesting the issuance on generally 17th 2017 to jc sf investments lp of one of a demolition permit to demolish a three-story one-family residential building in the other of a permit to erect two stories, no basement type db2 family dwelling. we will start with the appellants.please, step fo > >> good evening and welcome >> good evening. i am appealing the permits a demolition of with 153 arkansas st. because

there is an investigation going on by the antitrust division of the department of justice on the auction of the second lien on the property at 153 arkansas st. involving clay clifton. on october 3, 2012. because craig lipton's previous guilty plea of auction and conspiracy to commit mail fraud on october 27, 2011. regarding real estate option. so the department of justice [inaudible] is now investigating the property of the sale of the second lien and auction of 153 arkansas st. so i'm asking the board to hold

off on the demolition of the property until the investigation is over. >> are you finished, sir? >> i'm sorry. >> keep going, yes. >> i was waiting on word from tim fry of the historic preservation commission also appeared i've not heard back from them yet. >> are you done, no? >> yes. >> are you disputing the ownership of the property? >> yes. i am trying to-welders investigation going on on how the property was auctioned off and how the bid was onewon. and

that's being held by the entire trust division by the department of justice. >> so maybe you can clarify a look at 40. going to the presenter was a lot of reefs, regarding this, the person that acquired your property off the second note has a court case before the state or federal. is that specific to your property, or is it for another property? i'm trying to get some clarification, sir. >> i believe this case is dated before he obtained 153 arkansas st. but when i spoke to the department of justice they were not aware of him

--they told me they were not aware of him bidding on 153 arkansas st. so they are investigating that as well. >> so when did you have that conversation with the doj? >> well, my first conversation was with the senator's office [inaudible] district when i met with jeff sparks. district director. and my conversation with the department of justice was just a few days ago. >> this has been-i'm sorry i'm not trying to question, but this is been going on for a while, sir, why would that call to the doj only be a few days ago? >> this investigation-no. let me >> take your time. relax. >> i first contacted the antitrust division when david ward was there. a few years ago. but he's no longer-david

ward was the attorney following the case that he is no longer there. so, now there's a person named tom greene. he is a new attorney on that. i have been going back and forth with a lot of departments on this. i was waiting and i had not heard anything. >> are you currently living at property, sir? >> no., i am not. >> thank you that answers my question. your time in the rebuttal as well. >> i just want to characterize it properly. so, what i got from reading all this up is basically this. you felt that this property was acquired inappropriately in a fixed way, in a prevented you, or somebody else, from

purchasing it in a legal and just fashion? is that basically the discussion then? and one of those persons that might have bought it in a legal and just fashion could've been yourself so that you could keep it in your family? is that what i am hearing? >> no. that's not how we're planning on doing we were not bidding on the property. we were talking to the bank and they were modifying-they told us there were modifying the loan the second lien because the first mortgage was up to date. it was a second lien on the property. my son, ray, was working with the bank to modify the loan. but there's a thing called [inaudible] tracking that happens. one department is working with modifying a loan where the other department is foreclosing on that loan. so we

do not know. we were under the assumption that everything was okay and that they were modifying the loan. until there was a notice put on our door and i called my son and he said, no, that has been canceled. the sale was canceled. of the auction was canceled. so that was my understanding. so, this tracking is now a legal but two months after this happened. it happened to us but the law went into effect two months later. >> are you done, commissioner or another question? >> yes, the please. >> so when i'm confused at

-confused here is this home is not included in the lawsuit. you said yourself, not included in the lawsuit, which is currently in the courts related to the integrity of this man's actions. so how is this-how is our action one way or another, going to solve the problem? >> okay. say, for instance, the investigation by the department of justice finds out that there was something illegal done while he was bidding on-my family home and it's demolished. what am i going to do with an empty lot?

>> that's a very good point. thank you >> one more question can you said your first loan was current? >> yes b was huge only the amounts if you remember what your first loan-what the amount was for your first loan and with the amount was for your second loan? >> about $575,000. around there. the second was $101,000. >> okay, thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> you can sit down and will hear from the permit holder. >> good afternoon. i did prepare a very short brief

which i did not file on time. a one page with a couple of exhibits that have to go through it. >> state your name for the record spews my name is david estes, i'm sorry. i'm happy to hand a one-page summary of the facts together with two exhibits or i am happy to go through >> you can go through it and you can put it on the overhead. >> what we've learned in the last few weeks the department of justice-i mean this is having her what i just heard, the department of justice has not identified if in fact the doing an investigation the idea that someone can call the department of justice as a commodity investigating the matter is factually inaccurate. i think that sort of line of reasoning takes us down a rabbit hole which i don't think any of us want to go because i can assure you there is no pending department of justice investigation. the was a matter that was settled in 2011-2012

before this event occurred and with his counsel, he was able to continue his business. the idea that there are some ongoing investigation is entirely false. but as to what we are talking of today come i think there's factual issues second the demolition and erection permit we heard pursuant to the appellants brief. what we are doing is throwing a lot of mud in a direction which i understand you don't have good facts, [inaudible] it is very sympathetic situation. what the real facts are, mr.--has a right to pursue an action in state court. he can pursue an action in federal court judge in that he's indicated he would

and can go get an injunction to an extent he can get an injunction and no one is discouraging him from doing that. that is right and he will say he will avail himself of that. as whether the lien was valid or not out the title committee determined it was about. the title, he determined the lien was there. so the idea there was an invalid lien and improper foreclosure is incorrect. mr.--was provided opportunity to pay off the loan. in california's foreclosure process takes approximately 120 days in which notice was given. so he had an opportunity to two dude defendant did an opportunity to continue to pay on the second lien which was $100,000. so having made on monthly payments the foreclosure would have been stopped in here brought it current. that was never done. after the foreclosure, mr. lipton on behalf of the buyer found out this it happened he offered, after a bout foreclosure, to sell the property back for a $108,000. he bought it for $102,000 and taking subject to the senior lien, actually out of the

goodness heart he had offered an opportunity to acquire the property in which i've never seen in my any years doing this, buddy ashley said, here is an opportunity that you can buy it back. finally, mr.-who is a tenant in the property, he conveyed the property to his son and his son had gone out in part $100,000 on the property and the sun had not made any payments. the suggestion that the bank was modifying that deed of trust, i get to see a second lien holder modified but taking him at his word that was a modification, we certainly have not seen any documentation to that. but mr.-is living in the house. and in a muffled retainer was brought against him following our clients rightful taking of title to the property and mr.--represented by counsel, sign the stipulation teared up when i had and agreed a full release with respect to the property and also accepted a $10,000 payment in consideration of giving his

full release and is vacation of the part i find it somewhat disingenuous now to say, the $10,000 i took from you now coming back in and, by the way, here's what i really want. i think if you cut to the quick, he's got an opportunity in a court of law. i don't think this board, inc. makes determinations with respect to the adequacy or foreclosure notices or pending litigation may or may not exist because i think that far-it goes beyond i would think with this board would be comfortable viewing. with that i was likely request to go ahead and confirm the demolition permit and the permit to build the two units and to the extent you have any questions am so happy to answer questions. >> the applicant on the permit represents the owner? >> yes. >> the owner provided the

appropriate documentation to allow an agent? >> to allow the agent to do what? >> to file the application? >> as far as i know i've not heard there's any inadequacy and the filing of the application. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. planning department. the subject property 153 arkansas located within our hiv three zoning dispute subject permits were submitted in august of 2013. underwent neighborhood notification in march and april of last year. there were no discretionary review requests filed. it does involve the demolition of the existing single-family dwelling. it was

reviewed and applicable requirements for demolition of an unsound building and the apple can did provide materials that satisfied our review that found the building was not in the soundness-did meet dishonest criteria the planning code was found to be unsound allow for administrative review of the demolition. during the application process is also represented that the building is vacant and that seems to be the case. did not heard anything to the contrary this evening. all the materials i have in the file appears that the permits were appropriately reviewed and approved and none of the matters raised in appeal this evening seem to relate to any planning or land-use matters but am available for questions. >> thank you. does lanning normally all the demolition invades [inaudible] >> correct. he was has that been issued here? >> yes they have the demolition and new construction permits of those probably filed where both were issued together. >> this building doesn't

bother under this work for any reason? >> no. it's not a historic resource and demolition approval. >> okay. >> inspector duffy. >> good evening commissioners joe duffy dbi. both building permits for demolition of three story single family residential building. the army was filed in august 2013. it was issued on 17 january, 2007. [inaudible] on january 27. both the type and for the demolition permit. you can the new construction permit was filed during exactly the same date and issued together with the demolition permit on 17 january and suspended on 30 january 2017. both appeared to have improperly issued and approved by dbi. the contract for

details is appears to be that of the owner as well. craig lipton [inaudible] san francisco. and according to the city assessor's records, in the dbi system, the owner is tag like production llc and i'm a 38 tanner st., san francisco. i just thought i would mention that. we do have one notice of violation on the property for a vacant tilting ordinance and that is has been issued by the department. we have not brought any further. it's just the notice was issued in 2015, which is pretty typical for a building that's vacant. i am available for any questions. >> what is a vacant -i mean,

why would you issue a notice of violation on a vacant building? >> because with a vacant building ordinance in san francisco under the san francisco building code. there's a seven and 60 471 $65 annual fee for any building-you're supposed to register them and if you don't register them then you're subject to a notice of violation from the department if we find out that the building is in fact vacant because there's a demolition you can do construction and probably have it enforced because they know that there's a building permit in place to eventually demolish and construct a new place >> i learn something new every day. thank you inspector duffy. >> mr. duffy, how far do you check ownership records in terms of who we permit applicant is? >> i heard you asking the question during the-dbi goes off the city assessor's records. it's called property [inaudible] in our system. we can look that up yet that's what i did in this case. when you apply for a permit and the contractor can apply for the permit in this case, if you can apply for a permit for someone

else's behalf, you would need permission from the owner. if you're not a licensed contractor. so you would be an agent for the owner in essence. >> i know the process. just some years back >> yes. >> how do you prove you are the owner? >> id. if you're the owner, believe you have to have some documentation wiki. >> except contractors they don't accept architects? >> yes. there's a lot of-a lot of criteria and i don't work in that division but-- >> [inaudible] just so you know >> there is a criteria. i have on occasion seemed permits improperly issued. to someone representing that wasn't done properly but i'm of the understand that the central permit bureau there's any stringent requirements on checking numbers, issuing the

permit to the proper party >> that all comes in the profile study >> yes that's exactly right. yes. a lot of times when there's a seller property it's not always for popped manners there's obviously the issue of the old owners details being in which case you have to prove you purchased the property in order to pull your permit the city assessor's records are not up to date. but, i think that in checking them pretty well. >> thank you. >> thank you any public comment on this item? seeing none, the of rebuttal starting with mr.--the appellants. >> i wonder if the people in the audience know that the last case on 19th ave. has been withdrawn? it will not be heard. >> go ahead, sir. >> at the time all this

happened i had a bad brain injury and still being treated for it. i was also in a wheelchair. also, the neighbor at 151 arkansas st., i was told, he is a lawyer. i was told he was fighting the demolition. so i cannot really do a whole lot because i was doing with a lot of medical issues. i could not make a lot of good decisions at the time when i was in court being evicted from my family's home. there is an investigation going on. contrary to what the

gentleman said earlier. it's being held by tom greene at the department of justice. let's see, what else. at the time, he said that i signed a piece of paper in court with craig lipton and i agreed to move out with some money but i was lied to. there was a trial. the judge set it for trial, but he said we want you to go through mediation. here i am, sitting in a little red with a mediator and some other person craig mallory, but as i said i had a

brain injury, which was pretty bad and still being treated for it. i did not know if the time when i signed that paper-i did not know this criminal charges. i would've went to trial and thought it. i would've had my day in court. i would've fought for that house because i put everything, my whole life savings, into that house. i don't think it's fair for someone-you know they should be honest with you good if i go to

court unexpected honesty. i'm not expecting some lies to come at me. i would have never signed a piece of paper for $10,000. i would've had my day in court, which there was a trial coming up. not only for the objection, but for title of the house. he said that he offered me to buy by back for $108,000. he gave me 2.5 days and i'm sitting here in a wheelchair. then, i called up my cousin. he was going to do

it but i asked mr. lipton if i could have more time. he would not give it to me. i needed more time to give $108,000.so i would not come here and lie and tell you there's an investigation if there's not. i have a 13-year-old son. i was hoping to give that house to him. so i'm just waiting to see what the department of justice says. when i spoke to him he said it was going to dig into it. he said he was not aware

that craig lipton bid on that one 53 arkansas st. the whole time i thought they were. i mean a whole bunch of e-mails back and forth over the years with the department of justice. city hall. and a lot of people from city hall. spears are you done, sir? >> yes >> one question is when you went into mediation, due to legal representation? >> yes but this person that was representing me stepped up in court at the same day and said,

i will represent them. he said -i just want to see what's happening. >> okay. thank you. >> exact words were you want to see always playing out. >> okay. thank you very much. >> the trustees, you have rebuttal. >> again we find this very sympathetic but it has been five years. here is a copy of one page of the settlement agreement that was negotiated with a handwritten comments, which said everything is fine except you need to pay me

$10,000. here is a copy of the settlement that is signed by his lawyer-i don't think the practice in the legal community as far as i know is to question competency whether real or imagined obligations of a lawyer so i don't think it was up to mr. levin whether the lawyer representing him with the correct lawyer or he could've had a different lawyer but i was signed at the bottom there by his mr.-'s lawyer. so he was represented at that point in time. as to whether or not it was enough time the idea that you would actually offer someone to buy property back at a foreclosure sale, again i've never seen that. but it was an e-mail offering to do that. one

could quibble over the time but to my knowledge, was no response to its. in subsequent to that, the settlement agreement was reached and a $10,000 was paid and again was five years ago. finally, this idea that there's a pending department of justice investigation is i think we still called poppycock. the idea department of justice calls up and says that these are the people we are investigating today is just without merit. i know we stretch sometimes and we don't have good facts on our side and have a motion on our side, but i can unequivocally state there's no pending investigation of mr. lipton. thank you. >> so-go ahead. >> so was it that you only get 2.5 days to raise over $100,000? >> by the grace of-once the gavel goes down at a foreclosure sale the sale is done and there's no ability to pay off. what you have is when under 20 days from the date - excuse me - you have no major mortgage payment they send it again and again. they may give you a 90 day notice that says

>> i issue is very simple. did he-you said there was an offer to buy back for $108,000? >> yes. >> was the offer only on the table for 2.5 days? that's my only question >> the offer was made and not counter. as i'm sure we all know people offer >> you're not answering the question, sir >> to my knowledge it was it was two days. >> thank you >> you mentioned earlier there's no doj pending investigation. your client has a believe something in the brief there's no upcoming court times or anything? >> there was-let me go back in time. in the midst of the foreclosure crisis, there was >> the question is >> i need to answer because there is a historical component >> it's a yes or no. i asked

at this point is your client of any upcoming court cases regarding this type of practice? >> is entered into settlement agreement with the department of justice. he's cooperating witness in connection with ongoing matters that are still open. is agreed to pay $13,000 in restitution. it's not otherwise restricted from doing anything >> so is no court case coming up >> if you're cooperating witness, you don't actually sentence until the actual case they are cooperating on is settled such that you can't be used in the cross-examination tuesday did you testify in order to get this sort of a flea. they keep the plea open. it's now been five years but that has been open >> when is this court case coming? >> i believe it's been pushed back to november of this year. >> okay. thank you. >> any of the questions? >> no. >> thank you. [inaudible/off

mic] >> no. >> anything further from the departments? okay. the commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> matters, plural. >> actually, commissioners of i can listen to the permit holder has to make a comment without the okay? >> sure. >> please stepped to the podium come assert. >> please sailing >> thank you my name is craig lipton on the one i purchased the property. after i purchased the property we do not know who is living there and what the situation was. i was able to crack down mr.-his son and he explained to me that he had

taken a second loan on the husband's father was not aware of it or might not have been aware of it. at the time and that his dad was living there. it was a situation and so i did offer his son's opportunity if they wanted to pay for the house at the time it was $102,000 that i would be willing to deed the property back to them and i did this with annexation e-mails with his son because i cannot reach tom. when i went over to talk to the owner to talk what the situation, the document, he opened the door and mr.-student in my partner's face. we do know at the time who was living there and then the sun had told us that his tenant living there he do not toss it was his father. so those a lot of back and forth and finally when i found out it was father to a private investigator i offered them to buy the house back. because give me the money back and you can have a husband whose time was what i paid for. a couple months that gone by.

maybe it but definitely 30-45 days we started the eviction we started the process. the raw making a deal with us. then the sink them back to me and said, okay we will sell the house ourselves and give you the money back. we'll keep the profit denies it, doesn't work that way. i said, now we've already started the foreclosure process eviction cost. father stop incorporating. we lost that money on legal fees i spend money on the private investigator. i said, if you guys really want to do this, i will still give you the opportunity to pay me back when i paid for it all deed you the house that are marketed to be an opportune to go out and hire broker and sell the house. and profit off it at this point. so, i did february and i never heard from them again. so that is-is not this idea was that today take it or leave it. it's not at all factual. >> so essentially,-- >> thank you. the question is

whether the permit is valid and i find it to be valid. >> i also agree. is quite a bit of greece as well as, it's a hard story. but the reason what i asked with the first was on the second was, we are totaling close to seven or 8000 and this person had got it for 108 and was way to wipe the slate cured or he got it for 100 and willing to wipe off the slate for $108,000. basically remove the first four 565 from the original owners. any personally i think this is doom and gloom type of transaction but the person actually offered

it back to them. i mean, i love to be honest with you i love to be mad at the permit holder but at this point i think that it was a fairly generous offer and i would agree with by commissioner. but this is a really hard case. it's a tough case, but what is before us is the validity of the permits. >> i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis the permits were properly issued. >> both appeals and is that correct >> yes >> the motion is to deny both the meals that uphold the permit on the basis that they were properly issued. on that motion, honda aye wilson a

reluctant aye. swig aye. the motion does carry a vote of 4-0. pres. harnik is no further business before the board. >> thank you everyone. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> >> >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. this meeting will

come to order. this is a regular meeting of the full budget. i'm supervisor -- to my left is supervisor tang and to my right is supervisor fewer. and supervisor sheehy. supervisor yee, we need to take a motion to excuse >> yes, i would like to include supervisor kim in that motion >> yes, i would like to include supervisor yee and kim for a motion to excuse. >> tang. >> i would like to make a motion to excuse yee and kim. >> second. >> seconded by second. supervisor fewer. without objection. thank you to our talented clerk, mr. victor young and to our friend adrian -- thank you for assisting us with today's broadcast. could you call item is. >> yes, prior starting, i would

like to state that supervisor fewer has been appointed to today's meeting and supervisor yee. in announcements, [inaudible] complete speaker cards and any documents to be included as apart of the file to be submitted to the clerk. item number 1, hearing on the proposed five-year information and technology plan for fiscal years 2017-2022. and requesting the committee on information technology to report. >> i'm a sponsor of this legislation, and today we will be hearing an overview on the proposed information and communication technology plan or the ict. this plan, you should note, this plan is the guiding document for the city investment and it provides an assessment of the city investment recommendation for the next five years. so as you

can imagine, this is important. this may be adopted by the board may 1st of 2017 which is why we're hearing this item outside of our usual budget process. i would like to bring up kelly who will present this item. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, naomi, kelly. i would like to present the communication's technology plan for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. oh, i'm sorry, fiscal years 2017-18 through fiscal year 20 -- we present an updated strategy on the future direction of the city's technology. in the last ict plan the city renewed over 121 projects and invested in key technologies across the city. the ict plan helped the city plan for investments

towards the replacement of the public safety -- and have recommendations during the budget cycle. it led to development of two technology initiatives that are running. first is the implementation of the city wide digital service strategy. i'm pleased to share that our new chief digital service officer kerry bishop is hired and actively working with departments to redesign their services to be more accessible and user friendly. up first, she'll work with the office of sifb immaterial grant affairs on their portal as a -- working with the office of short term rental on a faster and more efficient online application process. the second initiative to come from the ict plan was a focus on shared services. the department of technology has instituted a shared service

form which acts as an advisory body where department bodies can active -- this is an important step to develop our city wide it students that have been -- decisions being made, department by department, but together, we will be working collaboratively. i think i would like to go through some of our quick accomplishments. the ict plan over the last few -- last two years, we have been invested millions towards new technology. it changes how we deliver services, although there's many different projects to share, i want to highlight few accomplishments today. with the technical existence from the department of technology and staff involvement from every city department in this -- and i mean every city department, the controller's office let the financial system replacement project which will replace our city wide procurement system and this is on budget and on

track to be completed this year. we're excited about that especially my city roll purchaser. we help the police department establish a new smartphone app called east op which offers -- anyone stopped or detained for any reason. the police began using east op in response to the bill 9 -- the treasure tax collector has made the profit to register new businesses available online in the first seven months, 30,000 businesses registered and compare -- the department of public health and technology installed a new system at sucker bird hospital last yaek. this will provide more than 3 how voice over ip sets with 71 offering video conferencing features and these

are a few -- the it plan discusses much more in detail and to share more with you, i would like to introduce the new director, jaime who will walk you through the remaining sections of the plan. >> good afternoon, i'm director of coit. i'll go through the remaining section of the it plan with you all. and just to restate what the purpose of the ict plan is. it's a five year strategic document for the city's document and has two purposes of identifying areas of strategic importance -- and this is a financial document that guides our decisions during the budget cycle as we

review budget request. it's put into five different sections where we review the vision in the city and reduce the accomplishments, looking at different technology leaders, including department technology, data, mayor's office's innovation. coit, 311 and the new digital office and how they're contributing to the digital operations in the city and the next decisions is the goals of the city and strategies and recommendations for the next five years. >> looking at the vision for city technology, through our discussions with city leadership and our surveys and discussions of stakeholders, san francisco technology supports egt as an accessible service for every visitor and business and employer. this is an important vision statement to say that technology -- it's to improve better service

delivery. following up with the vision, there's three important goals, each with various sub strategies within them, and included in the ict plan document, there's several performance measures that we'll track each of these going forward to see how the city is going forward. goal number one is to support critical infrastructure which is the highest priority goal for the city. and this is where we've identified major projects like financial system replacement project and the future upcoming replacement to public replacement and public radio. within the goal one, we have four separate strategic initiatives which is the network communications and data -- and our disaster recovery efforts and each are fundamental to supporting our goal of supporting and

maintaining critical infrastructure city wide. under goal number two, we seek to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of city technology and operations. and underneath there, we have four separate initiatives ongoing as well including the strategic sourcing of procurement in the city led by contract administration and improved hiring technology as are increasing growth in the city. we need to have more and more professionals so that's led by the department of human resources and we have a data resource to improve data share and how we're using data operations and improving our customer services and creating central portals so when residents come to the city, that they can get the services they need and that is led through 311. our third goal is increased transparency to city services and city technology.

this is led by two different efforts and the first is the digital service's team led by kerry bishop who was recently hired and her purpose is to help reimagine how we interact with the city and look at the experience for resident and businesses -- and improve that process through digital means. the other major initiative is digital inclusion whereas we continue to create new technologies and have more of a digital society, making sure that all of the residents in san francisco do have access to the internet and know how to use these services whenever they need to. looking forward to the next two years, we have identified several different initiatives that guide and focus onto improve our technology. and the first is the city employee's experience. this is a direct result from our previous it team that led to the digital services strategy where we think how we're delivering service and create more engagement with

them. the city employee experience flips that and how city employees use technology and how we can better use technology to improve technologies on our end. we're looking at on boarding to see how we can train new employees and makes them adapt into city services quickly. the next stage initiative is reviewing the strategic procurement in the city and this is a seen as a pain point when bringing on new technologies so over the next two years, we will be looking at the current legislative framework, administrative code and other ways we can potentially help the procurement process. the next initiative is improving data sharing architecture. we want to have 54 different departments or technology services and we want to reexam how we can improve data sharing and how we use operations in

the city. coit passed two different policies around private security and disaster preparedness and response recovery. these are two fundamental issues we need to be concerned about and incorporate more risk management and over the next two years we'll look how we improve our data systems. moving onto the financial side of it plan. coit reviews all technology projects that are over $100,000 and through our process of public meetings and review of all the projects, the goal is to encourage facilitation. looking over the next five years, we recommend increasing the coit allocations, 10% for a total of 184 million over a five year timeframe. coit allocation is put into two categories and

it's -- this allocation has been used to fund a financial system replacement project, the public service safety and radio replacement project and will be used to fund the replacement property assessment and tax system. all these projects are defined as multi year and multi-million project that takes massive resources to change how we're using technology on an enterprise scale. over the next couple of years, we'll see this scale wrap up and looking at the public safety and public safety radio project continue to be implemented and beginning the project and the property tax assessment. the department of public health will be implementing the [inaudible] records project. although no general fund money will be used from the coit allocation to support this project. we'll maintain records and track this as it goes because it does have significant changes to the way the department and health will

be doing business. looking towards the future, there are several major it projects that we'll be investigating and scoping out for possible support. i will be reporting back on this on the next ict plan. the first major project we're considering is revoicing voice over protocol. our phone system needs continued support, we're investigating whether voice is an effective solution or offers cost savings to improve our operations, and we'll be looking at customer relationship management systems, specific to 311. many departments are using other crm systems to track how they're engaging with residents and businesses and this is a way so we could potentially work together and have better data saving. we'll scope out the voting system replacement project where the department of elections current system will be end of term in 2018. and so

we'll be investigating replacing that with another system that uses open source or open source software as apart of that. finally we'll be investigating the city's role in supporting broad ban going forward. supervisor farrell has several motions to improve universal access to the internet, so we'll be investigating how much support coit will be on that. moving onto the other allocation is the annual allocation where we review individual project request each fiscal year. over the five year timeframe, we're reviewing -- we've reviewed 152 projects and each budget cycle, we review each one to see prior [inaudible] funding and through the snap shot through the it program, the request for general fund support far exceeds any allocation

available every year. and so we'll continue having to prioritize the annual cycle. finally recommendations, we have six recommendations to the board and the mayor to consider. first is to grow the it allocation by 10% annually and the second is continue to support coit prioritizing projects that align with plan goaled and the third is making sure that each project that is funded through major it project is proceeded through a planning scoping phase. to better understand the life cycle and cost returns. the 4th is coit sequence -- risk project and readiness and cost effectiveness and this is required since it projects are in far- the 5th recommendation is that coit should continue to support technology projects

that enhance existing services, and really improve the way that the city is providing operations, and finally the city should set aside a separate funding source for the continued refreshment it hardware which is a separate and important ask, the departments continue to ask every year. if you have any questions, i would love to answer questions from the it plan. we'll track performance of our progress toward the strategic goals going forward and sharing that information on the coit website which is at coit.org. >> i didn't catch your name. >> masias. >> are you the new director of the department of dtis? >> no. >> is that the vision infield? what's your role? i'm trying to figure out who is doing what? >> jaime is the director of coit. >> got it.

>> information technology. the director -- the new director of technology, we have received 155 applications. we are currently working with a recruiter to narrow it down and plan to interview in april, so hopefully by the time our budget process starts, we'll have a new director of department of technology and my city administrator and chief financial officer is the director at dp. >> you might want to answer the questions. coit has been around. it has been a challenged program since i have been on the board. i remember former supervisor chiu ragging on coit. i don't want to throw my fellow departments under the bus. he's had issues with technology. >> technology, i'm thinking out of term. i thought it was coit. i was looking for a

series of questions, but if i got my departments confused, i don't want to ask the questions so i'll refrain and i'll let supervisor tang. >> i think it's all relevant in the context of coit. but you know, my -- when i was talking to the previous director, he wanted to get our city's -- kind of the basics down. before you go and do flashy things and so i noticed that on the financial recommendation for item 4, it says that coit should think when funding certain it -- and you know, i guess looking at those criteria, i was wondering, i think it was really important, what the previous dt director said, which is we need to get the basics down before we can

do anything major. is that going to be one of the evaluation criteria rather than just the basic risk of cost effectiveness. >> mathia will address that issue for you. >> sure, i like to comment because the two major it projects we're doing right now, the finance replacement project and the public safety radio projects, those are large infrastructure projects and they were considered because they were about to fail or they need today have support. during that evaluation of risk, the city and coit decided these are major projects that needed to be prioritized and funded. that's how we're incorporating infrastructure into that process of really identifying what are the biggest risk because without the infrastructure, we can't do anything else. >> i'm glad to hear that. it wasn't highlighted in the presentation, but if i'm hearing that's the priority, that's good to hear.

>> thank you. colleagues, to my right, any other questions or anything? no. okay. all right, thank you for your presentation. it's good to see you and to meet you. let's see. let's take this matter to public comment. ladies and gentlemen, if you're interested in speaking on this item, please come up at this podium. you'll have two minutes to speak. seeing none. public comment is closed. thank you. is there a motion on this item? do you want to continue or file the hearing? we can file? >> controller's office, you can file this item today and then it will come back as a different item, it would come back as an action item in a couple of weeks. speaker: i look forward to the detail when's it comes forward.

i'll make a motion to file this hearing. >> thank you. >> we can take that motion without objection. >> we need a second with a five-member committee. >> we need a second on this speaker: second. >> all right. without objection. that was sandy fewer who seconded by the way. could you call item 2, please. >> item number 2, hearing on the proposed ten year expenditure plan for fiscal year 2018-2027 and requesting the control's office to report. >> thank you for joining us today and colleagues, we're going to be hearing an overview of the senior capital year for 2018-2027. this plan is a guiding document for the city's infrastructure investment and this assess the city's capital need and identifying the investment level required for us to meet those needs and it

provides funding -- provides a strategy and a financing plan for the city for the next ten years so we can deliver on these infrastructure improvements. this is many critical needs for the city, and while the investments identified in the plan might not be immediate or sexy, sorry, brian, but they are differently important. i think we all agree to that. it lays out the future of our city and also it lays out the identity of our city. we're talking about critical investments like central -- major developments that are shaping the look and feel of our city. these are a few of the things that will truly shape the city for the next several years so i want to emphasize how important it is for us to be discussing this item today. and with that, i would like to bring up naomi kelly who will bring up ryan strong. all right, thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors, naomi city administrator. it's my pleasure to present the fiscal year plan 2018 through fiscal year 2027. as you mentioned supervisor cohen, i know you are excited and all the other -- libraries, cultural institutions and other places all over san francisco that's owned by the public. this recommends a record level of $35 billion in investments over the next decade and these funds will improve san francisco -- seismic repairs and strengthening utility systems and safer streets for pedestrian and bicycles and drivers and more affordable housing. this plan is fiscally constrained. strategic -- it's a strategic blueprint for a

more sustainable san francisco. it includes plans to address the multi generational need to fortify the c-wall which protects three miles of our vibrant water front. it's assets in those who rely on it for home, recreation or travel and they're vulnerable to the meet threat of an earthquake damage and -- the plan keeps us on track for smoother pavement by bringing the city's pavement index score to 70 by 2025. its highest level in nearly 30 years, major projects range -- we're working on the replacement of the animal control shelter and the replacement ambulance deployment facility, repurposing space at laguna hospital, improving the sewer and emergency water systems and and retro and fire police stations. the citizens of san

francisco are showing their support for the plan and city's capital plan -- over the past 8 years, voters approved $3.5 billion in go bonds for approvable housing, hospitals, parks, police, firefighters and transportation and streets. this investment is more than any other time in the city's history. the work -- the work to draft the plan was done in a fiscally and transparent manner without increasing the tax rates or posing an undue burden to the fund. it met strict standards and leverage public investments for project delivery and funding. as i mentioned earlier, it's investing in the c-wall. we're imposing a $3 million obligation bond to fortify that wall. we also looked at -- we are addressing key challenges by striking the right balance between caring for existing aging infrastructure and investing in new projects that

accommodate a rapidly growing population. we're dealing with the rising construction cost in the market and we're continuing our efforts to increase the city's resiliency against earthquakes and sea level rise. it is my pleasure to call up ryan strong who is taking on a new role of both the chief resilience officer, but capital planning. he's working with capital planning and he will be presenting the rest of the plan. >> thank you. welcome back, mr. strong. >> thank you very much. good afternoon members of the board of supervisors, chair cohen. i really appreciate -- this is the 9th capital -- 9th tenth year capital plan i have had the pleasure of presenting to this board and i have a copy of the original one here and the new one is twice as big. so we've actually increased and it's a $35 billion capital

plan. the first was $15 billion. it's twice as much of where we started. part of that is we've done a much better job capturing different needs and leverage resources. the capital plan, and the capital planning committee is the only place really where the city comes together and talks about infrastructure in a hole list tech manner. that role is really important just in the amount of collaboration and coordinations we have seen with departments and other agencies as well. the city administrative says it's a -- it's one of the best practices we've had other jurisdictions looking to follow our lead. by considering the capital plan, we state what we fund and do not fund. and that's important to keep in mind. we also have

created a transparent process where we have public meeting on all these different items. the capital planning committee in of itself is one of the few committees that has legislative and executive branch reputation on it and it provides executive information on the state facilities and recommendations to you to make the decisions around house the capital plan and how these projects move forward. so very briefly, the accomplishments and we have more identified in the presentation. you know, we -- over the past, you know, naomi mentioned $3.5 million. we invested $10 billion so that includes revenue bonds and the

work at the puc and other projects moving forward. the lion share of this is to address resiliency and in addition, we know we've also managed to increase the amount of funds, the general fund has been putting into capital. i think supervisor tang was asking the it plan and taking care of what we own. when we think about pay as you go program, we take care of how renewals and we have manage today grow that significantly over the past -- since i started doing this a little more than ten years ago and it's one of the key policies in the capital plan that we managed to, for the most part, honor and move forward. i would say that we also -- at the city and the capital plan contributed, i think so the city bond rating and the controller can attest to our bond rating are as high as it

has ever been. we know the a rating -- they ask a lot of questions of our capital plan and the assets we're funding and those we aren't able to fund and we're proud of that rating and proud of moving the city toward more - to having really strong fiscal health. >> quick question. what is the city's bond rating? since it's the highest? >> i'll refer to the controller. >> supervisors, there's three ratings and they use different scales, but we're a double a plus. it's across the board. we have a table available on our website to give more information. triple a is the highest, but mr. strong is correct. our current rating is as high as it has been in the history. >> real quick, controller, what are the factors that contributed to having a high bond rating? >> a whole host of factors have

contributed to things -- improvements have been the adoption in some of the multi-year plan. the fact that we go through a process to assess longer term needs has been a major positive strength. it's a reserved policy adopted by the mayor and the board since the last recession were significant improvement for us in terms of rating agencies. and the forecasting process we go through -- look out over five years as apart of the five-year forecast and to do that habitually. it's relatively new. and then the thing that's less about our management decisions in the building and more about where we are is the diversity and the strength of the san francisco economy, which can't be underestimated in this math. >> thank you. >> moving onto slide four

instead of funding overview. it's a $35 billion capital plan. $5.2 billion -- those include the departments you would find in a city, so around public safety, city and the county i should say. some of our health department programs, recreation and park and those facilities. it's around $19 billion when you talk about -- when you add in our enterprise departments, those you know, are the mta, port, puc, sfo, you know, puc and sfo are making large investments in their infrastructure and the port is moving in that direction and some of the general fund dollars that we have are going to be helping to fund the projects out of the port. we have $11 billion in external agencies and these are agencies we do not have direct control over or authority over, but we coordinate and collaborate with on a regular basis. that

includes city college and the school district, the redevelopment agency or now the office of community infrastructure and investment, housing authority, you know, the county transportation authority, those types of agencies. the next slide shows the funding sources. if you're looking at the general fund department program, you can see the go bonds and the general fund, the general fund is in the blue, it may be hard for some to see, but those two programs make up, you know, 2/3 of our overall spending. for the general fund department is not as high although we have critical federal grants that are coming in especially around our bridges and we have other debts around participation which you'll get to later in the presentation. if you look at our enterprise department, you'll see the federal and

state picks up considerably. they work out at the mta and at the airport. so i mentioned it's a constrained capital plan. we have a number of policies that we agree to when we put this document together to help with the structure and what we're able to fund. the pay as you go program which you consider instead of our cash program is -- it's a policy or the policies around that where we agree that we'll be growing it at 7% a year. in previous times, we were growing it at 10%. we started at 50 million and it's up to 128 million in the current year budget. next budget, this is taking -- again, this is becoming a bigger percentage of the discretionary budget and it's why we started having discussions to slow that down -- the growth of that down a

little bit. and i have to say the flexibility is hampered by the set asides that has occurred. if we look to the fourth bullet, we have a park and rec set aside. they have committed that to capital which we're happy to see, but it does reduce flexibility. the more recent street tree set aside has reduced some of our capital only by 5 million in total. but again, those few things combined, you know, make it -- can make it challenging when things shift in our program. >> on your sheet, you have a note that says escalated by 5 percent for the remainder of the plan. can you explain that to me? >> yes, when we're looking at construction cost over -- if we look back over the past 50 years or so, on average, escalation for construction cost from year to year has been 5%. so it's like your

consumer price, it's cpi for construction cost. we're not as high as health cost have been going up, but we are higher than your normal cpi. so when we're -- when we're looking at these programs, we're escalating them forward and when you look at the numbers, even the $35 billion number, we're working in that escalation. does that answer your question? >> yes, thank you. >> and i should also say that while the pay as you go program, we're using it to take care of what we own. they're critical enhancements that creep up every year and an example is telegraph hill when we had a rock slide. this is trueing up our plan with our budget. we know we have to spend a certain amount of money on enhancements so what we have done, we put that into our pay as you go program as well. the lining share -- it's paid out

of our gop bond or certificates of efforts participation program. the capital plan started this concept and we've been putting it in practice of having a capital planning fund. the idea that we have money that we're setting aside to do pre-development and understand projects before they go to voter and before they come to this body so we're speaking a lot more with confidence about what we can achieve and that has made a difference to move these bonds forward. >> when do we start the pre-construction project development? >> that started back in 2006-2007. we had a year -- this is under former mayor newsome, but we had a 30 year surplus on the budget and we

did funding for the hospital rebuild. that $24 million we spent on that hospital ended up enabling us to be one of the few hospitals in the state, if not the only hospital in state that delivered that budget on time. that was $887.4 million project. so we have been doing that and committing to that ever since that time and that's usually when we're bringing go bonds to you, we try to make sure we -- done to the greatest extent. speaker: i see, thank you. >> so the next -- this slide, the next slide to show you more detail on the pay as you go program. we split it into sort of things we have a fixed allocation for, which we agreed we're going to fund it at 100% or a certain level. of the $128 million in this budget or of the $137 million in next year's budget, this is how it breaks out. though i would

just mention now we're looking at ten years so we're looking at the full ten-year capital plan. so routine maintenance, i should say this is the ada improvement plan and ada public -- that's our curb ramp, those are things we agree we're going to fund at 100%. street resurfacing which we know is an important issue, that's a net score of 70. that's the idea that we want to do around streets. that's the goal we've had that we've been committing to. the remaining dollars, um, go toward right of way renews which are bridges, guard rails, stairways and things in the right of way and facility renewals which are going to be roofs, hbac systems, exteriors and fire panels and all those things that make up a facility and you need to keep in good working order to get the full

life out of the facility or out of the building. and those you can see respect -- you know, we're restrictively funding at 59 percent. i'll talk a little about the implications of those in the next two slides so the next slide talking about the sale's measure impact. we talk about this because the street -- it was relying on $33 million that was going to come from the sales tax measure. the sales tax measure did not pass. and as a result, we know that we're going to be coming back to you to talk about how we fill that gap, how that affects the capital planning program or the capital budget. we did want to show you though, around street resurfacing if you look at that diagram here, you can sort of see the pavement connection in escort is the dark line and we should

say 70 -- net score of pavement is a c, maybe better than that because the highest point you would get is an 85. you would not want to have 100%. that would mean every street would be brand new. the goal is to reach a pci, potentially of 85 at some distant -- you know, some time in the future. but you can also see the funding sources and i think that's important. and that's what we wanted to show. earlier on, we started at the high levels and a lot of the money that was invested in streets would come in bunches -- in big bunches from the federal government and other sources. we invested a lot of money in streets before the 1984 democratic convention. that's the last time we made big investment in our street. our net score was going down, you can see the funding levels were relying upon a lot of -- a lot of local sources, some of the sources were prop k and we

have prop aa. now we have prop k which is coming through your half crepts or quarter cents sales tax. as we've done the capital plan, we have increased the capital fund, and that's the green bar. those are -- the [inaudible] bar was the gop bond. you can see that local general fund, that brighter green is taking up quite a bit, the idea was we were going to -- i would say the impact of not being able to fund these streets is the pavement condition score dropped significantly. this is something we track very closely, and something that we think is of great interest to

the mayor and yourselves and the other members of the board. the next slide shows the impact of the funding levels on our facilities and our right of away renewal program. the two bars at the bottom are hard to see, but they represent the blue -- the blue is proposed funding. the red is the annual need. and then the gas red above is backlog and again, the situation here is that we are still not funding our annual need for renewals. and in so doing, it means that the backlog is growing and you can see our backlog grows in the first seven, eight -- through the capital plan period. part of that is because we're able to grow or capital plan at 7%.

and we know that escalation is going up at 5%. once we hit fiscal year 2031, then you can start to see the backlog will start to level off some and will begin to -- you can't see it on this chart, but it will begin to come down. this, again, it's something we're focused on. how can we reduce the backlog levels to this great extent as possible. moving out of the pays awe go program, this program gets a lot of attention from our capital plan and these are the bonds the city is going to be proposing over the next ten years, the go bond -- this includes the -- it does not include the school district bonds and those are in our capital plan, but they're not represented on this table. it doesn't represent bart bonds and those other things. city

administrator kelly mentioned the c-wall fortification effort, this is a new bond. we did have i vulnerablity study. we know we have sea level rise that's further down into the future, but we really know that with the likely hood of a large earthquake in san francisco from the hayward or the san jose faults we need to address the sea rise faults and that has been introduced into the -- parks and open space, earthquake safety or we call our easter bond program, public health, and transportation, they're apart of regular programs, so every six years, five or six years we bring these bonds back, really until we feel like we're at a point that we reduce those needs in

those areas. park and open space, the last one was in 2012. we plan to do another one in 2019. easer, the last one was in 2013. another one scheduled for 2020. transportation, we agreed through the transportation task force, we would do a $500 million bond every ten years so that's why transportation is in 2024. if you go to the next chart, you can see how we're maintaining our constraint. the constraint we have is we issue new bonds as we retire old ones so it means the tax rate does not go up. so by having that constraint, we're able to sort of layer a new bond as we retire old ones so the grayish bar at the bottom, those are bonds issued and sold where we're paying them back. and often our bonds are 20-year bonds but they can be 25 or 30 years. most are in the 20 year

range. the darker bar, the light gray one, those are bonds passed by voters. we passed bonds but we won't sail -- we won't sale the bonds or issue them until we're ready for construction. the green one is the bonds we're planning for in the future of the that includes the park bond -- the green one is the port bond. and so forth that are layered on top. we work closely with the controller's office and the department of public -- under that red bar which is the tax rate, the out of warrant tax rate that shows up on citizen property tax bill. if we go to the general fund program, somewhat of a go bond program, we have a constraint and that's to limit the debt service that we're going to use general fund

dollars for to three and a quarter percent of discretionary fund revenue. so the state of california spends more than 3.25 percent on their debt service. we've created this constraint and i think it's codified in our city wide financial policies. the idea with this program is that there's certain things that are just not going to be feasible through a general obligation bond. these are also thing that's are critical that we really need to take care of and address that we have a responsibility for. so we have 101 grove. that's our worse seismically buildings and it has administrative staff in it. we really want to move people out of that building as soon as we can and we have a similar

situation with the admin building. if you look at 2019, we start talking about county jail number two and the hall of justice. a lot of these funds are working toward how do we address the needs in the hall of justice? if we were to recreate the hall of justice, we would need a building over 1.2 billion square feet of -- 1.2 million feet of space which is almost 2/3 of size of the da tower downtown and it's something too hard for us to take on in one bite. it's difficult to find land and an area to do that in. and we know that we have, you know, critical functions that are operating in that space. some we don't have control over like the courts and county jail and so forth. so that's general fund debt program. you can see

on the following slides, similarly the red bar is the three ask a quarter percent discretionary -- we try to stay below. you can see the challenge of this program, and these dollars compete with operating dollars and they compete with our pay as you go program dollars i was talking with you about a minute ago. so it's we want to be careful how we use these funds. you can see the programs that we have planned for it -- because we know there's a potential for a recession and changes at the federal level, which we know you had a hearing on the other day, we also reserve some of the cop moneys where we may need to come to you and say we

think we need to do civic participations to make up for the fact we're not going to have as much general fund cash on hand. so that's the concept behind that program. and yeah, i failed to mention it on the previous slide, but we have set aside -- it's $50 million a year between fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2022. really reserving that capacity. hopefully we won't need it. the remaining slide and i won't spend significant time on this because i think administrator kelly covered it. this is economic development, general government, you know, all kinds of different programs, health and human services from housing to the hospital that we mentioned. infrastructure and streets, again, and i should mention that rachel is here from public works supporting us

because potential for questions around street resurfacing but the work that public works does around our capital plan and the important partnership we have in working with them on these projects. and finally there's also public safety, recreation, culture education, and transportation. i know that's a lot to chew on. so i will leave it at that and happy to take any questions that you may have. >> all right. is -- you've put a lot out there. thank you for your presentation. supervisor tang. >> thank you, so much, mr. strong and of course everyone who work oz the capital plan. it's a lot of work but we have to think long term and he is specially with plans that cost a lot of money. thank you for that. going back to slide 10, you had mentioned that you know, on the schedule line up our go bond program that

transportation cycles every ten years but at a higher dollar amount. he didn't have time to follow or i don't know if it happened at the hearing that supervisor breed called regarding the sfmta ability to spend on the go bond, so given that, and that is a reality, has it ever been discussed whether this $500 million even though it's cycling every ten years is right level? >> yeah, i mean, i think that -- there have been a number of discussions at the capital planning committee on concerns around the ability -- the quickness with which those funds are being spent and we know it's an issue, i believe it's an issue that go back has taken up. our general bond oversight committee that oversees the spending of these funds, we have not, you know, gotten into details with them about whether or not you know,

a bond in 2024 at $500 million is the right amount as of now. i mean, i think that we are actually waiting and we're -- every year they have to come and report to us, and i think given the amount of needs and the transportation sector, we're confident the $500 million is needed in that area, and it's needed for the thing that's were identified in that bond. i think what we -- i think the capital planning committee perspective is we need to work with them on how to -- to better spend those dollars and i think peskin has talked about this. this is the first time they have done a go bond at this level, the department there. they haven't done a go bond -- i don't know that -- there was one introduced in 1966. so they had not really, unlike public works, who is working with

other departments or even rec and park and "space and if you remember the rec and park, their 200 0 -- the 2000 bond, it took them a while to spend that. they're betting at moving their projects forward. i think -- there's growing pains there, but i think it's a good question and it's something we're watching and you know, watching closely. >> thank you, and i'm sure that all of us will followup more deeply with smta more. there's a huge need and all of us supported the transportation bond. it's the largest amount, so i wanted to make sure that we are -- the department is actually able to spend it down and address the needs that all of our constituents write us about everyday. and also going to slide 13, in terms of the debt capacity and so forth, i see there has been quite a bit -- starting in 2019, it looks

like -- i think it's 2020. i can't tell if it's orange or red. i'm sorry. in any case, i see that starting around 2019 or 2020, there's a lot of capacity that you've carved out for hall of justice and the demolitionen closure, prisoner -- demolition encloser and prisoner -- it's important we have workers, employee and prisoners who are in a safe building, but i know there are still discussions about what to do with that site and what a new facility would look like in materials of with the prisoners and so you know, how is that conversation going? again, i see there's a place holder here which is good, but are we moving forward in those condition and i don't want to get into a whole dive on, you know, that topic right now, but

just what's the latest update on terms of where we are in progress? >> sure. no, so there's a community process that met for six or seven months and they made a number -- i think, we're waiting for those recommendations to come out. there should be coming out soon, the results of that community effort, but really we're looking at doing a number of sort of operational-type improvements. some -- and some work out of san francisco general hospital as well. and part of that is to understand where the jail population is going, and one of the challenges with any of our capital projects is we're trying to look forward into the future and trying to understand what the service levels are going -- or going to require down the road. that effort, you know, has gone -- we're waiting for the final report, we want to give some time for some of those recommendations to bear out. to see how they

work. and to see what that does with the overall number of admins we think we're going to need to house in the future and that's part of the reason for some of the delays or for pushing it back, and the other reason is that quite frankly, these projects take a lot of time to plan and to move forward, so we know that you know, for instance when we're not able to move forward with the previous proposal we had taken to the state, it means we would -- i wouldn't say start completely from scratch, because we had a lot of information, but go back and look at what's going to happen with some of these recommendations around the operations side. how is that going to impact our capital site and how can we put together a program that makes the most sense moving forward. we did make some decisions, for instance, in previous capital plans, we were going to move forward with addressing the

jail as soon as possible and we're going to address the admin functions and we're going to take the admin functions as soon as we can as well as the jail functions. we talked about setting a goal to get out of the hall of justice in two years. we're moving toward that goal. some of this may change based on whether or not we can move some of these departments out sooner, into lease space. we know the hall of justice is going to top priority in our capital plan since it was put together. we know we want to get out of that building as soon as possible. and i think this plan, you know, reflects the community process where it is, it reflects us setting aside capacity to make sure that if it doesn't work out, we have money in the program to take care of the, you know, the inmates so they are not forgotten or not left behind. but it's really sort of the

latest, i think, thinking about how we can do that, there's a grant, i should mention, so we're going to be -- we're applying for a grant and waiting to hear from a grant from the state to do a bunch of renewal work at county jail one and two which is not in the hall of justice. that's the new jail adjacent to it. it's 20, 25 years itself and has a lot of needs. speaker: when that final report comes out, i think we're going to be interested in seeing what those findings are. if you can keep us posted on those recommendations, that would be great. in terms of street repaving and one of the top things we probably get complaints about and i understand it's under the pay as you go program and we have not identified a long term funding force, so can you share what are our thoughts going forward because we cannot

sustain this -- >> i think so. so the mayor's office -- melissa is here so she can come. the mayor's office is putting together a transportation task force. i believe we have a schedule laid out for that. that's going to be moving forward and i think we're going to be looking for them to make some recommendations around some potential revenue sources. do you want -- >> sure. >> thank you. i'm melissa, director of budget. president breed asked president peskin and the mayor has asked chief of staff steve to work together to call the transportation task force back together and to make recommendations to the mayor and the board on how do we move forward and that will include, also in addition to street paving, there was money to be -- >> thank you. all right.

thank you. colleagues, any other questions for mr. strong? no, all right. i think supervisor tang covered most of my clarifying questions. so i think we're going to go to public comment. thank you for your time. all right, ladies and gentlemen, would you like to call on item 2. please come up. seeing no public comment. public comment is closed. all right. colleagues, the matter is back in our hands. the same process. got it. supervisor tang. >> sure. so i'll make last comments and in terms of -- we have a board president who sits on this committee, but i encourage you to follow what happened at the planning

committee because it's important to keep an eye on the long term projects because they do have -- they can have daily impacts to all of us. it's something i wanted to state to colleagues. so with that said, i'll make a motion to file the hearing. >> all right. a motion has been made. is there a second? seconded by supervisor sheehy. you can take that without objection. thank you. >> all right. mr. clerk, any items before this body? >> that completes the 1:00 budget and finance meeting. >> thank you, we are adjourned.

>> very much smaller allocations for public safety grants for example, and at least in the fortunate flows, much smaller for transportation. >> not all is flowing to the

city itself. some payments are come directly to either residents or service providers from the federal government. and those are going to be outside of the numbers we talked about here. so a couple of examples of that, well, parts of the ihs program and home supportive home worker -- there's a chunk of money that flows to providers as wages. that's $200 million in directive support outside of the $1.2 billion that i talked about. cal fresh, food stamp workers are on the city budget in support of federal money, the benefits flow to recipients s san franciscan was receiving $5 million as apart of that benefit. other benefits in the city benefit and it depends on

city money. the school district receives $60 million in federal funds as apart of their budget and the city college receives $6 million directly from feds and then students receive $22 million a year in federal financial aid. the housing authority, director smith is here, should you have questions, the housing authority receives $76 million. it depends on federal money for their operations in particular there's a host of other non governmental entities here in the city that receive funds from the city outside of our budget process. to highlight a couple, we talked earlier this week regarding art's organizations that received money directly from the national endowment for the arts. about $6.4 million is our current estimate of how much those organizations are receives. usf is dependent on federal funds for their research and operations and a

host of other entities -- we've listed at the bottom of the page the organizations that received more than $10 million as of the most recent years from the feds. >> so looking ahead to some of the key risk areas and really they fall in three buckets in materials of how we're thinking about it, the risk related to the executive order regarding sanctuary cities and federal funds, risks created by risk known to the -- departments can speak in more detail. first, the sanctuary city. as you're aware on january 25th. the

president issued an executive order that generally indicated in a fairly brief memo, the goal of withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities like san francisco and over 200 other cities in the u.s. the executive -- i think the key points for today, and city attorney can provide you more information on this in closed session, but the key point for today is really that executive order is not clear about what federal funds are really intended to be covered by it. this city has -- it's almost certainly unconstitutional for the site government to withhold all federal funds from this city and withholding some of the funding we receive from the feds, the city has strong constitutional arguments that that's prohibited and the city attorney has filed a lawsuit to prevent the used reductions from going into place. that

lawsuit pending, but even during the 60 days since the executive order has been issued, their no clarity from the federal government by what's intended by it. there's a lot of uncertainty. a risk and uncertainty. we'll be keeping you up to speed on this as as the case progresses and also as we receive, if we do, degrees -- if we receive direction and what that executive order means. second, issue area. the federal budget itself which establishes most of the appropriations that flow to us. we're at an early stage where we're trying to understand even what's being proposed. as you're aware, the federal budget process starts with a budget overview that's presented by the president in

march which is called the skinny budget. that skinny budget eliminates $54 billion in domestic spending to increase military spending by an amount. the key thing i like to leave the committee with on this is that they call it a skinny budget because there's few details in it. the whole document is less than 50 pages long. it provides very -- it's almost like a blueprint of what the president will later intend to submit. but you get very -- you get some clarity about what's likely to come, but not specifics and so there are some cases where we can look into the skinny budget and understand what the local indications might be, but it's not clear. the budget timeline will go on for many months and the president releases a blueprint in march. the president, then typically released a more detailed budget

to congress in may and june. that will have of moesh information about what the president is proposing and we'll understand what those impacts will look like if they are adopted, but the congress takes time to adopt and amend the president's budget and those amendments are often substantial. the deadline for the adoption of the federal budget is october 1st. that's when their budget process -- that's when their fiscal year starts. we will likely have more clarity there as we work through the budget process in june and july at the board of supervisors, and congress won't have acted by the time we adopt a budget which creates planning problems for us. it's worth noting that congress rarely meets this october 1st deadline. i think in the last 40 years, congress adopted all of their appropriation bills by october 1st four times. so, and the last time they did that was over ten years ago. and so

it's very likely that even by october 1st, we won't really have final clarity on exactly what the federal budget will look like and therefore what the implications for us might be. we have a long road ahead of us in materials of understanding what those risk look like. a few of the areas where we can look into skinny budget and understand the amplifications and i'm not going to dwell here because you have departments that can speak more eloquently to this and in detail. there's implications in hud that has implications for the housing authority and in particular you can see in the skinny budget, the president is proposing to eliminate the community development block program nationwide. that's where it's $16.5 million in programming here in san francisco. home is also proposed to be eliminated. i believe $4.2 million. in department of transportation, skinny budget, you can tell the president has proposed to

eliminate any money for new full funding grant agreements for the new start's program. this is the program that we relied onto build the cal tran line. bart to san jose, a lot of the other big regional programs are counting on this which the president is planning to eliminate -- and the list goes on. there's some implications that we can read into that's clear for the department of environment and fema. the art's funding we receive directly from the -- some organizations in this city received directly from the mea, the president's proposed to eliminate the mea. if that was adopted, that --

>> what does mea. speaker: national endowment for the arts. >> thank you. >> the last major risk area of the three is related to the repeal and replacement of the affordable care act. garcia and others from public health can speak to this in a moment. it may be the most significant impactful of any of the ones i have talked about here today. with that, i will -- if there aren't questions, i'm happy to turn it over to the department of public health to continue with their presentation. >> just real quick, many of my own constituents have just asked some pretty direct questions. and i feel like i've given them a standard answer, it's too early. we don't know what's going to

happen. but these cuts actually materialize and they are permanent. what is the process that we do -- that we will begin engage in to backfill, evaluate what programs we will cut, i mean, how -- what would it look like on the ground, if i was a nonprofit organization and i got the news that my cd bg grant money has been cut, how do i - i mean, i don't know the words, what do i tell people and if i were an executive director, what are the things i can expect? for example, i know i can expect to see changes, maybe not immediately, but next year so that would make it difficult to plan my long term budget next year knowing this money is cut. i'm assuming i'm in a holding pattern until mayor lee make his formal budget proposal which may or may not have the

back fill that i would be needing as an executive director of his organization. >> i don't -- it's a great question, madam chair. i don't know if i have answers for you or anyone else because it's the fundamental all face -- we likely have significant and severe federal funding cuts coming, but it's entirely unclear about the timing of them. what the ultimate scale will be. everything we're talking about here is proposals at this point. they take other people to make them happen. when congress act, when the timing will look like, and when we will know those things are unknownable. it's likely there will never be a moment. we're likely to be getting pieces of news over many, many months when we hear new news in drafts

as opposed to getting -- so we're going to be dealing with uncertainty and we really probably don't want to do two things. we probably don't want to begin eliminating programs. we don't want to react too severely. but given the magnitude of risk going forward, to ignore all possibilities of loss when they likely will be significant would be full hardy. it's a key question for the mayor and budget to consider. >> in your many years as a controller and many more years as the budget director -- you're qualified to give some kind of a window. so you say that the information from the federal government will come down in drifts and drafts,

okay. are we talking about the next three months, are we talking about the for the next nine months? there's a period, there's a season. can you help me understand what -- what season we're in >> i can give you from my perspective and i would suggest you ask those behind me who has expertise in this. when we see a detailed budget from the president, we'll have more clarity on what the impacts will look like in san francisco and we can quantify if that budget was adopted, this would be the harm to the city and in a couple of months, we'll have a sense of what is going to have support from congress and what's a non starter. so i would think late summer, we have a pretty descent sense of -- we can narrow that range of losses in terms of federal budget implications. as it

becomes clear of what the president is going to propose and how congress is going to react to it, there's been criticism of the president's skinny budget, not just by democrats but people on the other side of that aisle. so it's unclear whether some of the proposals that he's outlined here - whether some of those proposals have support among republicans whose constituents are also impacted by the losses. hopefully we'll have clarity. we'll have some in june and it will grow by the time we -- public health can speak better than i can regarding when we might have more clarity regarding the affordable care act. >> thank you. >> and the implications there. >> we're bring up barbara garcia and her right hand is calling [inaudible]. how are you doing. >> yes, good afternoon, chair, cohen and board members. i'll

share my presentation with our policy director and our cfo is here. there's no greater time for our city to come together and to continue to advocate and continue to fight for our health in san francisco at both of the federal and state level. several weeks ago, our mayor supervisor sheehy worked with a local union to call representatives to fight acl. health care is complicated and changes at the federal level will take time. in the timeline that we'll share, the changes will likely happen in 2020. we also know that as our control talked about the skinny budget, we'll have -- that will have impact and we're monitoring that on a daily basis. i want you to know our staff is working with the perspective -- with the national professional associations to continue to advocate and fight. we're apart of the -- the health plan

associations who are advocating to protect our health care system. our -- we'll advocate for the federal support given to our local nonprofit clinics. that's going to be important as well. that's outside of medi-cal. the federal government has not made a decision. if they repeal, the next impact will be at the state level. so i encourage us to work together and to be mindful of writing local legislation too quickly before we know what the federal and the state government will do. we want to work with you closely on this, so we are working together to protect the services. we'll continue to monitor this on a daily basis and we'll continue to work with all of our health partners at the federal state and local levels as we turn -- as we determine the impacts of responses to the health care

challenges. the mayor has just sent out a letter to all of the health care partners in the city to talk about bringing them together to have the conversation. of the 133,000 people that have received the benefits from the aca, 25% of those are within the department's services. and so 75 percent of those are within our other networks, and so it's going to be important for us to work with the kaiser, and cpnc to make sure we're working together to ensure that we're able to continue to provide care. >> you mentioned some of our stakeholders and partners in public health outside of the department, has there been a calling organizing between dignity, and [inaudible] hospital to begin to talk about what the landscape is? or potential cuts? >> we will certainly share this letter with you. i'm sure the mayor's office will share it

with the board. we sent it out today. >> i haven't seen it yet. >> we'll make sure you get a copy of that. it is discussing about what we did in the past when we had a large uninsured population in the city. >> my question is, where are the other companies? the cpmc, dignity health, are you talking to them >> we'll bring them together and as you know, this is all in the process and they're insured individuals. we've benefited from having the aca and people with insurance getting benefits, but [inaudible] that we will be taking? colien will give you more details and what it looks like and we're here for questions you may have. speaker: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. so i have a short presentation for you on some more of the details of the repeal and replacement -- >> could you eye into yourself.

identify yourself. >> colien, the director for planning -- i'm on slide 3 which is the proposed timeline which seems to change every time i update the timeline, but today is the light blue circles is where we are today, the house of -- the house of representatives had independent indicated that -- they indicated they were going to have a vote on the replacement plan. they're delaying the vote until tomorrow, but that hasn't been finalized yet. the -- director garcia mentioned between the time that the house of representatives passes legislation, if that occurs, and the time that the majority of the previsions going into effect is a long time, so it's 2020 when the majority of the previsions of the repeal and replace bill go into effect. so just a little bit about the affordable care act to give you

context around what the american health care act would do, the affordable care act was signed into law in 2010 and it does two things. it requires everybody to have health insurance and then it gives more opportunities for individuals to get health insurance. so the requirement that everybody have health care is called the individual mandate and there's three ways where it gave people more opportunity to get that health insurance and meet that mandate and the first was through their employer and that's the employer mandate, requiring certain employers to offer coverage to their employees or face a penalty and the second one is the health insurance exchanges. ours is called covered california in california. it gave subsidies to low and moderate individuals to buy health insurance on those exchanges and the third one is for the medicaid adults and they can cover all low

income adults where certain populations were covered before. and in san francisco, we have seen [inaudible]. director garcia mentioned, 133,000 san franciscans gained health insurance under the affordable clear act. 93,000 got medicaid coverage and that doubled the medicaid enrollment in san francisco. we're over double. 30,000 got insurance through covered california. 80% of those 4,000 got -- those are people who have 400% of poverty income or less. it cut or insurance rate by half. the lowest insurance rate we've had in san francisco. it has caused more people to -- more san franciscans to assess their health as good and better and

fewer san franciscans report delaying the care that they need. the american health care act is the federal government's repeal and replace proposal that is currently before the house of representatives. and as it was -- as its proposed it would repeal the individual and employer mandates. it would repeal the income based exchange subsidies and replace them with subsidies based on age. it would reduce federal funding to states like california that opted into the medicaid expansion program. this is affecting the 93,000 san franciscans that got medicaid. it would pre--- right now, the way medicaid works, if the state or local government spends money on a medicaid individual, then that expenditure is entitled to be matched at the federal level, 50 cents to 50 cents and we would cap the total amount of

money available to california and we would need to restrain expenditures within that cap. the board may have heard that additional changes to the american health care act were discussed in the house of representatives on monday and may be adopted as well and these would impose additional requirements on states related to the medicaid program. so director garcia mentioned california's role and this is really important to note here because the way that california responds to what ever is passed, if anything at the federal level is as important to the health department as to what is passed at the federal level. so if the hca has passed in its current form, it's certain that california will receive less medicaid funding. in fact, the department of health services issued an analysis yesterday

that says that beginning in 2020, california will see $6 billion less in revenue after the passage of the affordable care act or the american care act in its current form. that would rise to $24 billion in 2027. and with less medicaid funding, the state has some tools within its tool box it can use to reduce its medicaid budget and the ways that it could do that if they chose to take cut in the medicaid program is reduce public health -- to reduce eligible for services, so not covering everybody who is currently covered today or to reduce the set of services available to medicaid beneficiaries and right now, california offers a generous scope of medicaid services, but there's optional benefits that states can choose

to reject to bring back cost to the covered population. so the potential ' impact -- it's not known as you've heard the control discuss earlier, these are still proposals and they're in negotiation. so it would depend on what the final bill is, if it's passed as well what california's policy response would be. but it is certain that it would -- it would impact californians who gained coverage under the health care act. also as director garcia mentioned, of the 133,000 san franciscans with aca insurance, a quarter received their insurance through public health and others receive their

insurance through health systems in san francisco. all these individuals would be at risk of losing their insurance or see their coverage eroded and as director garcia mentioned, in order to preserve the gains we have made over the course of the years -- that we need to work with our health care partners throughout the city to promote continuity of care and access to health care we have long held in san francisco. just one slide on the president's skinny budget as control rosen felled, mentioned it's low -- it proposed an 18% decrease in the health and human services -- this doesn't include medicaid or medi-cal spending so it decreases in discretionary

spending and the specifics on how it is achieved, it's not indicated. it does help with -- but it does not provide any detail on how it would continue to support those programs. and then what we're doing to prepare, so advocacy is still our number one -- our activity at the moment to oppose reductions to the american health -- to the affordable care act -- we're in communication with the state lobbyist and making with our state and federal delegations and the associations that director garcia mentioned. we're trying to maximize the current use of our program. so right now as chairwoman cohen said, nothing has changed. there has been to changes to the affordable care act and no changes in reduction and services and we want people to remember that and take

advantage of the services available to them now. we're educating our patients y and clients about that. >> so people should make dentist and doctor appoint manies now. y -- appointments now. >> we're analyzing the health impact in here san francisco. i'm -- >> colleagues, any questions so far? no. thank you for the presentation. >> okay. so next, we're going to hear from the mayor's office, brian chiu has a presentation on his updates. >> brian chiu with housing -- i'm here with benjamin, director of -- we have a few slides for you that gives you a

little bit more information about what we do with our lock grant program. so our cd bg program is a federal entitlement program. we receive 16.4 million. it's through a formula. we receive 3 other formula grants, one of which was also targeted through the president's skinny budget. we have cd bg and home as you see in your pocket. you have emergency solution grants which focus on homeless services and housing opportunities for person was aids. those two federal grant programs have not yet been targeted for cuts. i'm hoping that that does not follow through in this larger budget. of the $16.4 million it's divided into two primarily

areas. one is affordable housing development and the second is a list of a variety of services that goes to low income folks. as you can see on slide two, it has housing services such as tenant counseling and on evictions. it has work force training. we have an agreement with economic and work force development that administers funds for work force development and economic development, small business assistance, a variety of other public services and we are the primarily department within the city that provides funding for capital improvements to capital facilities and then of course it covers the program delivery for our -- all of our block programs and you can see next to each area, the list of potential individuals that would be impacted by the loss

of those funds. the next slide talks about our home program. it's a formula allocation we receive. at this point about $4 million that goes directly to fund new multi family housing developments. and then just the last slide, just demonstrates the fact we have seen this before, although not to this extent. in the past, the program has had popular broad support in congress. just in terms of the timing of how this would work, so the proposed budget for federal fy-a team, we would use those funds for our service grants that start july 1st, 2018. so right now. for 17-18, these cuts would not impact us. it would be for our city 18-19. it's about the timing of how we receive information about this

in the past, to your question, supervisor cohen, in the past, congress has not agreed on what the appropriation should be for this. we tend to get some advanced notice through the house sub-committee on transportation and hud funding. usually, i would say october, november, we get information from the house sub-committee. around that same time we get information from the senate sub-committee in the past. what we have done, we look at what the president's proposed budget is, and what the house and senate sub-committees look like. sometimes they're widely divergent and the extreme example was eight years ago where the senate proposed, i think maybe like a 5% cut and the house proposed a 60% cut. in the end, it had to come through the joint committee. by the time they went to the joint committee, they brought

it up and the overall cut was about 10%. the federal budget is on a resolution. we're at the end of the march so we haven't received allocations for funds that would start july first, but continued resolution extended through april 28th. we hope that congress will then take official action which would then give us our formula allocation we will use for 17-18. i think the hud regulations require that the formula allocations be given to us, i think around june 15th. so hopefully congress will come together and make that decision. so we will have some time before the city's budget process starts because again, if you're making your decisions in spring of 2018, we should have some indication through the fall of 2017 what that might look like. i guess i will echo what my colleagues have said that it's premature

for us to figure out what we'll do. we don't know if it's $16.4 million or 3 or 5%. we work with our membership organizations and we're a member of the national -- they have seen this coming. they maintain long standing relationships with those relatives from other red states. i think one advantage that the community -- it serves owe over state receives an allocation and every city can apply directly or through an application through the state april cajun, so we feel confident that this is over reaching. i will say that it's not impossible that we will see some decrease through that. the home program had one bad year when it did receive almost a 40% cut in one year. and so

we do have concerns, but as we move forward with this process and as we get further information from our colleagues in dc, we'll keep you posted, again. we have reshot to our federal delegation and our federal lobbyist to keep us informed as things change. we have a little bit more of a window than the aca proposal, but we'll keep you informed as we go forward. the budget for our 18-19 allocation of cd bg of course comes to you through the expend resolution, so you'll see that come to you next march or april of 2018. so you can make your comments on that. >> that's it. thank you. okay. let me see -- any

questions. president breed, thank you very much mr. chiu. come on down. >> chair cohen, rodriguez, san francisco department of the environment. thank you for the opportunity to present, this afternoon on the implications of the proposed -- the president's skinny budget on the environment. normally when i come to budget committee it's standing at the podium asking you to approve and accept and expend given the president's budget. you'll probably see lots of me given that a lot of opportunities that the city has gone after in federal funding opportunities are dramatically dropping in the president's proposed budget. >> excuse me. we were wondering if you had a presentation for us? >> no presentation other than -- >> you're going to walk-through. >> do you have slides that

you're presenting? >> not slides, supervisor. >> okay. >> with respect to what i wanted to share with you this afternoon is the policy implications of the president's proposed budget and cuts will have as has been referenced and shared already. likely you've heard the environmental protection agency is getting the brunt of the trump's administration cuts with the 31% cut of $2.6 billion. the largest percentage reduction represents largest reduction of any federal department or agency, and brings epa funding to the lowest level in 40 years. what does that mean for san francisco? the bay area? a couple of things. it halts are for example, the san francisco bay, napa river and water shed clean up efforts

including habitat -- they go after companies that are he leasing toxic fumes into the air or dumping sewerage into the bay. epa staffing cuts will impact the cleanup of 130 california super fund sites maybe here in the bay area. it will impact all of their research on chemical, pesticides, and other work that they do which have a direct implication on the programs and policies that san francisco manages. protecting the environment and climate change and addressing these issues is not just in the epa's jurisdiction. like in san francisco, many departments play a role in climate change. with respect to looking at the president's proposed budgets around the area and it's notable and i wanted to share a couple, the proposed cuts at the department of commerce in particular, they're slated for

a 16% budget decrease. the president target programs in particular the national oceanic and atmospheric, and -- they provide grant resources to assist communities and local governments in the resilience to climate change. some of the impacts to san francisco and the bay area, and the tide station and the oldest operations tidal gage in the western hemisphere. they collect information that's critical to san francisco and the entire bay area to understanding changes in local tides due to local global sea rise. they have support to the san francisco bacon -- san francisco relies on coastal

management agencies to maintain coastal access and protect our coastal resources. so significant impacts there. looking at the department of interior, they're responsible foremost federal land. and they manage 75% of federal land. they're expecting a 12% budget decrease. what we see with the cuts at the department of interior and the impact here is really a policy shift that this administration is making from resource protection to resource extraction. we'll be seeing more details as the president unfolds additional policy statements. but the department of interior and for us in san francisco, it plays a major role. the national park's service manages the coastal resources within the golden gate national recreation area, including [inaudible]

field, and baker beach. and these bay and beach habitats protects san francisco from the impacts of climate change, serving as a buffer between -- [switching captioners] >> as you can see a lot of these different cuts and the different departments represent things

that are significant it's unfortunate the cuts come at a time the programs are yielding significant results. these investment the departments have made over the last several year have yielded significant results. for example in 2015 solar employment had over taken oil and gas and coal employment as jobbings contributor equally electricity generation and capacity in the united states came from solar more than any other source when you look at these cuts others are slated for targeting the vulnerable. the home assistance that is managed is for reduction and elimination that helps low income family with wter ization is also slated

to cut so specifically to the department environment controller shares we receive grant funds from the department of energy, epa, approximately 1.3 million what the proposed budget cuts mean for our department is opportunities to apply for additional resources these representatives funds, that give the department the opportunity to be creative in working with major academic institutions to provide this board with good policy that is rooted in science in what is effective for what moves greenhouse effect emissions down. also the federal cuts are specific to policies. so, for example, the department of energy the president is suggesting elimination of the star program it's a volunteer program we build public policy on those. san francisco's current building efficiency ordinance relies on the energy

star program as our benchmarking component that program goes away we will have to come back to the board and look at ordinance of using federal standards of pressurements for success and finding alternatives and replacements the only thing i wanted to close with is the irony last week when proposeedded skinny budget the same time a new report came out indicating programs and policy and regulations in place in the united states we were able to hold down our emissions which impacted globally which we didn't see increase where we see increase nationally we're going in the wrong direction. it's going to be challenging as you heard from my colleague and the other departments the environment sits with all of the other agent cease and try to gain the attention of delegation who are working together this mayor and the board of

supervisors you both resolve to continue to move forward on progressive climate reduction effort and continuing to keep that positive. we thank you for your leadership. we will need that leadership going forward given the policy and budget cut implications we can expect in the future thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any questions? okay we're going to move onto the barbara smith did you have presentation or public remarks ? then i have questions for public housing . >> good afternoon barbara smith acting director of the housing authority i will be brief. it's a long hearing but it's very important to us, we have worked very hard to provide descent services to our residents within

a very lean budget and preliminary estimates this is based on the president's budget blueprint that said $35 billion dollars is cut from suddens housing there -. >> excuse me can you repeat that again and also identify your title. >> yes sorry. barbara smith acting director, of the san francisco housing authority. we're very concerned about this budget. the president's blueprint did say there would be $35 billion cut in housing subsidies there was information pr vieded to the washington post we don't know, this is the early stage of the budget process. but public housing in that information was expected to receive 32% cut which is the loss of $1.5 million and would

equal to about 15 staff persons a lot of our staff are maintenance workers. also workers who administrator the program and meet all the hud requirements that would be a major blow to the housing authority. the capital fund is expected to receive a cut of about $1.5 million. that would reduce it from 4.4 to $2.8 milli $2.8 million from six we're managing there are enormous costs keeping up with the minimal capital bones to keep the property safe and descent for the residents there is probably going to be a cut in

the housing choice voucher administrative fees which means a loss of staff and difficulty keeping up with renting freezing with the landlord and all that is required for the programs these are preliminary we're active in bay area housing organizations and national organizations we're going back to washington next week to meet with legislatures and talk with them about the continuing affordable housing programs. and the devastating effects that the suggested cuts would have on public housing we are most thankful we were able to convert 28 of our properties to the rad funding this past year on schedule and that working with a lot of city agencies especially the mayor's office of housing and community development will protect 28 property and put them into a different program that is

less likely to have direct impact on the ability to maintain the property and the residents who live there. so briefly, that is where we are with this budget situation. >> thank you very much. questions? supervise? >> thank you for your presentation. i do have a few question based on your presentation i wanted to go back to capital cuts, specifically, your budget is 4 million and you anticipate $1.5 million cut are we talking about capital as it related to real estate or in terms of the properties themselves? >> those are funds that we use to repair collapsed suer lines transfermer where we have to do

work on boiler say, at potreroo with building serving two units. maintenance for properties . >> are there any other dollars for maintenance besides these dollars? >> the housing authority is pretty much totally depend ant on the federal subsidies that is the main source of funds we have for capital work at the properties. then we have a maintenance budget under operating funds really, that helps us keep up with the day-to-day small items that break and clean up of the properties . >> actually it's not enough even do that from my understanding . >> no. >> so these cuts are going to be more devastating can you tell me

how the rad program has helped with that. because one of the biggest challenges housing authority face in terms of all of it's properties we know based on assessment of the properties there was at a time a couple of years ago over $260 million of deferred maintenance which is why a lot of the work wasn't getting done. since the rad program have you done any analysis to understand whether or not that figure has been reduced and if doing this program has helped considerably. as it relates to capital work for the properties? >> well it was greatly reduced the overall capital needs now we're managing u14,000 units converted to rad program that can leverage $1.2 billion to fix

up those property with the units we have left of course the operating budget was cut and the capital budget was cut so that we get pretty much the same amount per unit we're struggling with a low level of funding for each unit of public housing we're managing. that is really the challenge we have to work within the funds we have available to keep up with very old property deferred maintenance. the capital needs we're growing at a much faster rate than capital funds from the federal government already. this kind of cut is going to really impact to keep everything working during the hope build sf process. >> yup that is a scary thought you come so far getting the entire process and getting

petrero. hill almost over the finish line. particularly sun sunnyvale. working with water heaters not working this is very, very serious. this doesn't impact it doesn't rise to the level the media and press may not cover this. this particular cut is because it's concerned to me how fragile people are after publicing house it's two steps forward one step back. we have come so far in rebuilding with rad program and getting these housing structure to an acceptable level people can live and be healthy and take pride in where they're living. at some point we need to have creative ways to partner with folk

anytime the business community and other parts of the development community to begin to organize and raise funds i'm talking about stuff that will scratch the surface like that water heater we need to relace. i think it's in alice griffith. >> the boiler that 7s 25% of the households it can't be repared it's underground boiler with underground pipes that are corroded and decaying we're just a little bit ahead of the construction process. so we still have all of these residents we're trying to serve. but the new housing isn't quite there yet so we have to do our best with what we have. we're working with other agent cease and the city as well to try to prioritize our capital needs and identify any funds that are

available. we have a few things we're working on that will bring in a little bit more funding with the six site we're transferring them to rad so they can bring a little bit of cash flow to help with operations. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen can i add to this? i think you bring up a good add about partnership is not just about the cuts but possible solutions how we can prepare for what we know is to come. when i think about all the work we have done on public housing and how far we have come, it is exciting to ride passed roberter pits and to see the work being done and the excitement of those moving back to the units it is amazing i

want to continue that but i want to think creatively what this means for our future and the possibility to do more you know how desperately i want west side courts to be rebuilt it's possible not only to do it but to add 2 or 3 times more units on that particular block more importantly in a way that doesn't displace the residents who live there and i think the reason i wavent to bring it up similar to alice griffith around the same time as well as burnal and alamani these places and conditions and the amount of money we need to spend in order to get them in a state of descent repair with west side courts it's money down the drain

it helps right now with the conditions that sadly some people live in but it's not a permanent solution i want permanent creative solutions and the possibilities like i said, looking at west side courts and tripling the number of units we're doing one side and the other side i want us to think more creatively outside of federal and public dollars in general. there is a better way for us to start making some changes because we have the land and how do we take it to the next level? those are some of the things i want us to start thinking with is the san francisco housing authority and the mayor's office of housing and trying to put ourselves together to do that with rad and

hope sf will be addressing properties like west side courts that could benefit from being built housing and mixed income. >> alice griffith. is the perfect example we're building the units and no displacement and the residents will be moving to the newer units and having their own priority at the units is wonderful i want to make sure and remind people of plaza east where i grew up. 300 units removed and only 200 rebuilt. that was a huge mistake where there could have been an incredible opportunity. i want us to think about those sorts of things moving forward and taking advantage of properties that provide housing opportunities

for people. >> thank you very much. a couple questions for you garcia if you can come up and for you colleen don't go too far. with health care is there something people can be doing right now. >> yes they should be continuing to come to care that is the most important thing one of the initiatives i will be working on hard is hepsi right now with medication that eliminates hepsi you don't get that much in health care to eliminate that disease and working with the health plan to ensure those seeking that kind of care that is one time medication they can and that hepsi will go away then when you think about the cloud

of sanctuary and make people feel safe to come to care that is one of the areas we will communicate and sent out flyers to all of our clients to continue to come into care and working with the providers to do that. that is part of what we need to do in bringing the entities together in terms of all of the providers to really make people feel continue to come and in the next two years we do a lot of service and care as you know preventative care is one of the most important things we can do on tuesday we had a conversation about fluoride and also issues of trying to get to little kids and putting flour i'd when you talked about denial care that will impact future generation those are things we have to focus on we don't want people to be fearful of coming into care we need to work on

immediately. >> for what reason it wouldn't be fearful. >> sanctuary city. that is part of the urban ewe fearful taking public benefit they might not have care now because of the confusion in the conversation. >> what have you done or we done as a city to communicate those -. >> we have done a campaign it's safe to come here communicating to patients how important it is to come to care. we're working with the mayor's office with cbo's and providers to ensure there is safe coming in as you know the city has passed a sanctuary law. that is for certain immigrant population for the entire community it's important for us to continue to talk about continuing to come to care. >> here's a hypothetical one if congress were able to get their

act together and were able to pass the american health care act, how would that impact people immediately? >> first of all, it won't be seen until 2020. >> so there is no immediate. >> right. >> then it goes to the state. that's what we will have to advocate at the next level there will be a cap on resources medicaid will be impacted and we will have to work closely with the state we are working with michel cap that have mills at stake and having conversations with los angeles this week to have the conversation what we're going to do with the state piece in terms of what strategies they're looking at for 100,000. >> we quantum fide millions would be left out in the cold

how do you quantify that? do you have any idea what it would cost the city and county of san francisco should this measure go forward we know that 125 million is part of what we get for the medicaid expansion we're using that data, that base it depends on what the state does and if they reduce the match for us or reduce services of that 125 hl there would be a portion of that impacted. so when the legislation gets passed, what is the time gap between legislation passing and the city of san francisco needing to begin to pay? >> it would be 2020 and potentially passed that because we will still have to see legislation that will come from california as to how they're going to organize their system. so we do have a couple years our strategy right now is document, bill efficiently, increase the revenue we have, see if we can

do reserves to ensure we do have reserved for these cuts and continue to help people come into care, come into preventive care stay within their medical home at the same time we are working with medicals locally and the inshurd sured and before aca and with everyone. >> thank you garcia i want to call up mr. chew a couple questions on block grant you see over that program, right? >> yes so needles to say you send out a letter to nonprofit organizations explaining their cdbg grants were not going to be extended no? >> no. we didn't send a letter.

because we will have money through the current formula allocation that will be in place for 1718 this impact will not hit until july of 28y. >> a lot of the impacts we're looking at will start in next fiscal year is that right. >> yes july 2018 to june 2019 when is the cut will hit our city. >> our portfolio and the department of public health in 2020 we just heard. >> correct. >> what can the nonprofits do now to stabilize themselves for the impending or potential hit. >> i think the minute the skinny budget came out, we have begun to strategize how do we work with cbo's to put them in the

best position. we have a number of our addiction defense efforts are funded through this akin to director garcia's preventative work if we prevent hundreds of evictions through funds and lose that ability the cost become intense these folks are homeless or moving out of the city we don't want that to happen we had some conversations with some of the entities for example we had a recent conversation with the new director of equity of northern california grant makers that is the umbrella organization of philanthropy we talked the day aphrodite skinny budget came out how is private fill anthro pea - however i feel

they're in a - they may be able to weather that cut and smaller organizations who do rely on our funds what we like to do is partner with philanthropy to figure out what they can do to better put themselves in a place to access nongovernmental sources it's highly unlikely in the worst case scenario we're able to $514 million for the city we can liverage other sources in brief i would say one of the primary efforts is work

with the organizations identify the ones that need assistance and not take those cuts and put them in place to access those other dollars more effectively. >> i appreciate the thoughtful answer. supervisor fewer has a question for you. turn your mic on. >> so sorry. so, this is really frightening actually as we look at proposed skinny budget and within one hour getting bombarded with all of the possible cuts. to me, the elimination of the block grants it's terrible, but the amount i fool like some of it could be absorbed a little bit from our general fund or as you said maybe some of the organizations

that are larger might be able to, i just feel after the last hit many cbo's went under they couldn't survive it. with the increasing rends for them they're having a hard time, too. what frightens me the most are budgets that are heavily depend ant on the federal funding personally i'm terrified about the cuts to the epa because it's not just us, it's the whole world. it's the future generation which is so frightening. but i'm thinking that with the block grants, that is the one that is coming so immediately because as we heard from garcia that is 2020 times for the state. although, that is such a huge percentage of the

public health budget. that is so frightening i feel like with the block grants we might be able to do something that is because it's 16 million, so crazy i'm talking like $160 but 60 mile we may be able to absorb it. what i wanted to ask the controller if he's here still, tank you, is you mentioned by may , we will know a little bit more about the skinny budget and what is really serious and what is not so serious because they're going to be bantering and back and forth and trading and this and that i have never been through a budget cycle in the city so my question to you is, does that give us enough time to adjust our budget to prepare for the cuts we think will be immediate and the most

painful? >> supervisors what happen in may and early june the president will release detailed budget and remace skinny with a full budget from the president we can use that to estimate the impacts if that's adopted we won't know whether that budget is adopted at the federal level that is action by congress to approve. that action will stretch for months after that. well passed the time line we will be adopting a budget locally we will have a better sense of what impacts could look like at that point from the federal budget cuts but we won't know xa exactly will so the mayor and the board should be considering how you deal with that adversity

or uncertainty in this years a's budget process the city has used in the past strategy of creating reserved or allowances where we don't know the specific reductions but have an order of magnitude the losses set aside money as you know about specific cuts later it will reduce your requirement to reopen the budget and make cuts on the fly. >> when we had a bad budget time at the school district and much smaller level, i know, we did set aside a reserve. it was hard to do actually but we anticipated a bad couple of years not just one year but a couple of years they were bad you remember we had to send 700 lay off notices which is painful. that is good advice thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chew for your presentation and to all of the department heads that

participates thank you very much. we will see you soon. this is only the beginning. okay colleagues is there last minute discussion? we need to take public comment. if there is public comment do so, come on up. welcome. >> hello i'm dena lawn for policy and advocate at the san francisco consortium and here to talk briefly about our role in providing health care for our mainly lower income san franciscoians. i want to emphasize we worked closely with the san francisco department of public health we have been sharing information about what makes our department share most of the patients are hospitalized at the agenda in terms of primary care we serve 100,000 patients. that is over 1/10 of

san francisco's population we're nonprofit we're independent of the city we don't get a lot of city funds we work closely in our networks most of our money, most of our revenue come father-son the federal and state government for medical we have done a great job enrolling in medical which is great unless the federal government retreats from this. we also have something called the 330 health grant which gives basic money to the nonprofit community health centers. that is up about 70% of our funds are up in september of this year we're going to washington to fight for those. i'm here to say it's a tremendous impact even though it's not tral funds and not give up the fight on the federal side and work closely together on the state side. our first fight is

to preserve as much medicaid and funding at the federal level if it goes to the state we got to work with the state to keep the expansion that's what keeps the primary care going. >> i assure you, we are not giving up a fight. if there is anyone one else come on up so we can hear from you. >> good afternoon. i'm richard i'm the executive director of conner house. i want to thank you for the discussion you have had this afternoon i want to say quickly my organization is part of several other local provider groups nonprofit organizations the human services network, the support of housing provider network choo choo so all of us who are watching what is going on down over the horizon in our

funding streams are the same things you have been talking about. a lot of us have more immediate things happening now where the business community is reading the paper and when we go to reapply for credit facilities at our bank, even when we have a conversation with one city department that's depend ant on assuring continuity of funding for long term projects they're not necessarily communicating with one another we have a great need for looking at business continuity where decisions are being made now that effect our long term regulatory agreements on housing building we own credit facilities that allow them to operate the time line in which contracts get renewed and outside funding sources and donors and granters ask

questions about viability we need to answer those questions they have and many times w efind ourselves saying, well, you we need to talk to the city. the city needs to give reassurance to people we do business with and those things are actually in front of us right now. i also want to commend the department of public health for issuing rfp's. [speaking off the mic]. >> thank you very much for your comments. and to the public that stayed for this hearing we appreciate you. public comment is closed at this time. all right. may i have a motion to file this? >> yes i make a motion to file this. >> thank you. i will second that motion. mr. clerk will take that without objection. is there any other business before this body. >> that completes the business for