western addition and that's how heritage came to be. that's how books were created in the 1960s. but having said all of that, i wanted to use this as a teachable, learning moment. my staff and i will endeavor to do that. colleagues, i hope when we perfect that legislation and conform the definitions in the planning and building code, or merge the building department with the planning department so they stop doing this number, you know, he said, he said, but having said that, i will move item 18 moving the conditional use authorization because i think this hearing served its purpose and again i want to thank you who signed to bring in before the body. thank you to supervisor farrell for allowing this to go forward

and the appellant and those who spoke and to competent counsel for the property owner, also known in this lawsuit as the defendant, and other competent counsel. if you guys played by the rules and you don't teach people how to do serial permitting, it would be better for everybody in the development community and all the communities, about they on russian hill, in the sunset, around the city, i beseech you to do that and don't get too cute. >> supervisor breed: thank you, supervisor peskin, well said. so you have made a motion to approve item 18, what would you like to do with 19 and 20? >> supervisor peskin: table them. >> supervisor breed: a motion to approve 18 and table 19 and 20, seconded by supervisor farrell. madame clerk, call the roll? supervisor cohen? aye. farrell aye.

fewer no. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. sheehy aye. tang aye. yee aye. breed aye. there are 10 ayes and one no, with fewer in the dissent >> supervisor breed: the motion is approved. >> supervisor cohen you're up to introduce new business. >> supervisor cohen: i do have business, first i'm introducing two hearings, the first on the navigation centers. the mayor's office, hsh and the department of public works continue to introduce more navigation centers, hopefully across the entire city. i want to understand what their efficacy and impacts on the neighborhood. we have three navigation centres up and running right now, the

other with several proposed in the pipeline. so i have a couple of questions of navigation centers, residents, backed transitioned into house and what rate. the wraparound successful with substance abuse, mental health. how many people are we pushing out of the navigation center and back out onto the street, because they're temporary. how can we impact the navigation centres. is there encampment increases in neighborhood? where do they go after the day? during the day, are there impact to traffic or congestion? so there are some serious questions that i have, that i'd like to get answered. i do believe that having more data will better inform our decision making about our homeless strategy and whether

we're on the right track. this in particular comes in the wake of the mayor's announcement about navigation centers and his plan to move a thousand people off the street. i support that man, however, i want to make sure we're being thoughtful and diligent and paying attention to our successes and not duplicating shortcomings. so these are a series of questions and i have a host more that i look forward to having the answer to. i also want to recognize my constituents, there was an article in the paper this morning, that talks about the mayor's enthusiasm for opening navigation center and i want to reserve my support for such an endeavor until i have the information. and this answer to the particular questions. i understand that may slow down the mayor's office and their efforts to open up navigation centres, at least in district

10. and i am not saying no, just that i have question. keeping in mind that they opened in the dog patch neighborhood and we're being asked to consider another and then opening up another shelter in a residential neighborhood. i have more questions than answers. and i look forward to working with the stakeholders, the office of homeless services, department of public works and the mayor's office. secondly, colleagues, i'm calling for hearing on the business tax reform which had its annual report published about a month ago. i want to call attention to this report. as you all remember, prop e of 2012 approved a "phase in approach to a gross receipt tax

business registration free that was to begin in 2014. this works hand in hand with the phaseout of the city payroll tax. over the last five-year period, ending in january of 2019. so, you may or may not know this, but san francisco was expected to transition all business from payroll tax to gross receipts and registration, but ensuring no loss of revenue to the city. it hasn't been as smooth as we thought. i want to revisit the discussion to set a stage for a better -- for a number of revenue discussions that are going to be coming in the months moving forward. so specifically i'm interested in learning about how the different tax types serve the city. i want to look at the revenue forecast for each type of tax. i want to examine the schedule of the reform transition, particularly are we meeting our transition goals? and what type of businesses pay more or less tax under each

specific -- each type of tax? i hope that this hearing will inform our collective discussion around revenues and small business burdens going on during the school year. the rest i submit. colleagues, i have one more and that is to close the board out in memoriam, she lost her mother early this morning, her mother's name was lorraine taylor. she leaves a husband, a wonderful man named cliff behind to grieve. they just celebrated 40 years of marriage. lia and her brother are pulling together the arrangements to honor their mother's memory. their mother lorraine spent a little over 40 years working for kaiser here in san francisco. she is a resident of the bay view community and overall want

to make a motion to close the entire board meeting out in honor of ms. lorraine taylor, thank you. >> supervisor breed: can we do that without objection? without objection the board meeting will be closed in her honor, thank you, supervisor cohen. >> before supervisor farrell left, he told me he submitted. >> supervisor fewer: colleagues, i will be calling for a hearing to look at the challenges our families of children, particularly ages 0 through 5 are experiencing in san francisco, that our family service agencies, including hsa and our families, our children our families counsel, have in response to challenges. unfortunately, housing and the cost of living in the city are significant hardships many families are facing and have

adverse impact on children's development and their academic and social readiness. with only 13% of the population that is children, san francisco has the lowest population in the largest cities. the survey found that 31% of san francisco residents said they were likely to move out of san francisco in the next five years, but for families birth to 5, the percentage of families leaving is 43%. raising children is a tough job. which is why so many parents depend on others to persevere. but in san francisco, parents are struggling. in 2015, only 21% of families received help from family neighbors and friends. percentages of families who can find someone to talk to for advice about child rearing or get help with problems and their families have fallen substantially. parents social support and

coping are critical to children's school readiness. i hope this hearing will address what the city is doing to reduce the social isolation of families and give them support they need and want. since 2009, san francisco has been home to the family resource center initiative. a system of family resources funded by the san francisco, the department of children youth and families and social services agency. these centers provide a respectful place for families to connect with one another, build parenting skills and knowledge of child development and receive concrete supports that they need. our network of 25 family resource centers grounded in neighborhoods can be of a great help to the communities, but the need for the services far outstrip our city funding. this will be an opportunity to look and reflect back on where we are with the first five initiatives, discuss challenges, including a long-term funding strategy and accomplishments of the first five and help guide a

road map for where we go from here to coordinate efforts and support young children and family. the rest i submit. >> supervisor breed: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: i also want to speak about early childhood education and infant childcare in california. as i mentioned, supervisor yee and i have launched initiative to make childcare more affordable for all families. we know childcare can cost as much as a mortgage. the annual cost to put and i fantastic in a daycare center full-time is over $13,000. in san francisco, the cost is nearly 18,000 to $22,000 a year. the tuition that at uc berkley, 12, $972. in 30 out of 50 states across the country, childcare now costs more than tuition at a public

four-year university. for the families and yearning to be parents in san francisco, the lack of accessible and affordable childcare in our city often means they're faced with the choice of either leaving san francisco due to the additional high cost of childcare on top of their skyrocketing housing costs and for those who say they must consider a number of different choices. one is having a parent stay at home and become the primary caregiver. and increasingly hard choice while most of the households in the bay area needs two bread winners in order to get by and live in the homes that they live in. in 2017, it is still women who overwhelmingly are the ones who have to make that choice to become the primary caregiver. that is not to say it is a poor choice to care for your child, but it should be a true choice, not outcome due to the lack of other options. or many families make the choice

of spending inordinate amount of their income up to childcare for a family of four, who makes 100% of the area mean income, $78,000 a year, that means the childcare can eat up 20% of their annual household income before taxes. for many women in san francisco, access to childcare can be a choice to having a meaningful career or even the option to leave an abusive situation in order to become independent. these are not the only options that should be possible in a city like san francisco. we can do better by our families and by our children. in fact, research shows that early childhood education is not a luxury, it is a solution. both in helping to keep our workers productive and continue a thriving economy, but it also helps prepare our children for kindergarten, helping to close the achievement gap and the

opportunity gap while supporting our beleaguered middle class families here in san francisco. we know without financial self-sufficiency, women will never be able to achieve true equality and affordable, accessible childcare is the key to opening that door. but the measure is not to raise commercial rent to generate enough revenue to create more slots for childcare. it is important we lift the wages of the childcare workers. our workforce is almost exclusively female, women of color, recent immigrants and first generation college students and mothers. nearly half of all educators in california rely on some form of public assistance just in order to make ends meet. over the last few months with supervisor norman yee, i have met many of the childcare workers that the supervisor has

been working decades with. i heard heartbreaking stories of how many of these women often can't afford childcare for their own children and commute hours just to come to the job they love because they cannot afford to live in san francisco or any city close to san francisco. this is about creating affordable childcare for all families in san francisco. we want to make sure this is a subsidy that can go not just to low-income families, but middle of course families as well and we're raising the wages of the childcare workers, so they can do the jobs they love and fill the teacher vacancies we're seeing in the preschools today, even though there is room available for them. i want to take a moment to thank mr. jarrett, department of youth and families, the office of early childcare and education,

the controller office, city attorney general, who are working with supervisor yee and i to craft an ordinance that would raise the gross receipts on commercial rent of our property owners. we think there is an appropriate nexus to asking employers to pay more that ensure we can continue to have a productive workforce and in many cases, free women to continue to be in their careers and provide for their families while providing quality education to our children. finally, i know supervisor yee will speak after me, i want to thank him who has dedicated his career to fight for early childhood education and for childcare workers throughout san francisco. this ambitious effort to raise over $100 million a year is going make a true difference for families here in san francisco.

and as i look toward my final year on the board of supervisors, i feel the urgency to make sure we're doing everything we can to make sure we support our working and middle class families here in san francisco. i want to recognize many of the colleagues supportive of the efforts and have been providing input and feedback on the process as we move forward to a june ballot initiative, and also want to thank supervisor ronen who has come on as cosponsor today. colleagues, i look forward to having your support as we move forward with the measure over the next month and i look forward to campaigning vigorously with all of you to get our voters out in the june 2018 election. and finally, i also wanted to address a fire that took place in the district that i represent, in the tenderloin neighborhood of 545 o'farrell,

this fire, while it only burned down one unit, impacted over 22 households who were impacted by smoke damage, water damage and of course, damage in the water areas. over the weekend, american red cross, human services agency, department of emergency management, department of public health worked to shelter 40 different individuals, many of them small children that attend our public schools at the jean friend rec center from thursday night through sunday afternoon. i want to thank all of the agencies for working together in a truly coordinated action to make sure that we were able to assist over 70 individuals that were displaced. primarily working class families with small children. we have been able to place a number of the families in temporary hotels and in units throughout the city, but we have

families that have lost everything due to the fire or to water damage. so our office has been working with hsa and red cross and we've launched a "go fund me" campaign to provide additional assistance to the families who have lost cash, food, clothing, everything they own, during the holiday season. we hope that you'll help us promote the fund and also contribute to help make the holidays an easier time for the 22 families. i have posted it on my facebook page. it is go fund me, tenderloin fire 2017. thank you, colleagues, for your support and the rest i submit. >> supervisor breed: thank you, supervisor kim. did you ask that supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: thank you, i really appreciate this. as many of you know, this -- i

came into the board of service supervisors with a passion to fix this issue for san francisco, it's something that's been needed for decades. where actually, even we're ahead of the game as compared to the rest of the country, we're sort of lagging behind in many aspects. i say this not only from an advocate's point of view, somebody that actually worked in the childcare early education field, and was during the time when i had my first child and i qualified for subsidies. that's how low of a salary i was making. i decided not to take it at that time, thinking maybe there were other families that needed it more than i did. that was a mistake. now that i passed my fatherhood, i'm a grandfather of two babies.

and once again, it's become personal. what i have seen over the many decades is that we keep on losing families, whether they're of low income or middle income and we're seeing much more rapid pace of losing families that are lower income. the service industry can't even find workers anymore, including those that are working in the early education field and that's really a sad case. we need services, we can't find the workers, and we don't have enough funding to support our families. so, i mean i heard today, during public radio, they were talking about in the 70s, 80s, the flight of people to the suburbs, and of course, it was social engineer to allow for people to have -- that have resources to

have tax breaks and so forth. and what happened then was as people moved out of the city, these are more of the higher income, larger homes in the suburbs, they took away some of the resources that would have gone to the city. and what we had left were many, many people that were in low, moderate, middle income bracket and eventually it caught up with us. we didn't have enough to serve these families. and now, they're saying, guess what, population is growing again because these people in the suburbs decided the best place to live is urban areas like san francisco, meaning that it's forcing the prices to go up, meaning that it's once again going to celebrate the departure of low-income, middle income, families, that could be our

workers in san francisco. the just to put a face on some of this stuff, i've seen childcare providers, they have to move out of the city, because they can't afford it. i've seen centers, under-enrolled, more and more. i mean there are centers that leave a third of their slots open because they can't find workers. and you can talk to restaurant owners, you can talk to any service, retail type of places, they can tell you the same thing. we need to do something about that. we're in a crisis situation. this is a solution to be had. this is a solution that needs to be done. it's a solution that is going help not only one generation of people, but two generations if

not three. being a grand dad, it's going to help me, i won't be taking off work all the time. right now we have basically 2000 -- for example, we have infants and toddlers, we have 3,000 families waiting -- and these are families by the way, making what we call, less than 85% of the state median income, which is much less than our average median income in san francisco. so they've been waiting around for subsidies so they could go to work, have the kids -- actually the other thing we didn't mention, this is the period where children actually learn 85% of the their cognitive skills by time they reach age 3. and yet, we're not paying attention to them. so i'm very a happy to join

force was supervisor kim, and now supervisor ronen, to make this reality for people in our city, because we can't delay this any more. i've worked three decades to get there. and in fact, last year we were able to secure some funding for a pilot project to serve the 0-3, which -- and this is an age bracket which we have almost no resources for. we're going to have a hearing that will give the guidelines to the pilot project, called the early scholarship funds program. once we have a hearing and work out the details, we're ready to roll out the pilot, to smooth out the program further. because what we want to do is to provide -- get the resources

necessary, not only get the 2000 families off that waiting list, but to also roll it out so that we can serve families making into the middle income. and we want to -- to do that, we need to be able to start a program from scratch and wait three years later to figure out how to do this, we're going to be ready. i'm looking forward to the rest of my colleagues joining us and supporting this really necessary piece of legislation going forward. >> supervisor breed: thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, colleagues. today, as we face the prospect of the minimum nent passage of -- imminent passage of one of the worst, most regressive

federal tax bills in memory, i'm hoping to restart the process of backfilling the $100 million in krill transportation operations and infrastructure funding that voters on the one hand overwhelmingly approved with the passage of prop j last year, but at the same time, disproved the source of funding, regressive sales tax that was prop k which did not leave us with a funding source for the transportation expenditure plan. as you all know, in my role as chair of the transportation authority, i have been working with the mayor and abroad coalition of stakeholders on the task force 25, which was slated to issue a final recommendation as their last meeting, but instead took a straw poll and pushed off final recommendation in the hope of getting higher attendance amongst the members. given the tight deadline, i

wanted to at least start the conversation by introducing a measure that made it into the top three options in that straw poll that was taken by the transportation task force. this is an iterative process and i'm looking forward to taking recommendations and analysis into consideration, but we have to start this conversation somewhere. so to that end, today, i'm introducing the transportation improvement tax for june 18's ballot which would increase the existing gross receipts on commercial rent by 2%. this is increase over the .3% rent that they receive from office tenants currently today. we have been working with the city attorney's office to include small business and nonprofit exemptions that would ensure that property owners would not pay increase on the tax rent from the tenants and therefore could not pass through

any rent increases to them, as well as looking at progressive caring which we'll continue to refine the legislation over the weeks ahead. the roughly $100 million generated through this transportation improvement fund will fund everything from vision zero safety improvement, congestion litigation efforts, the increased bus service, road repairs, for neighborhoods from the sunset to the excelsior. i realize this is not the most glamorous issue, but it is vitally important to the day-to-day functioning and growth of this increasingly congested city. we saw the numbers presented to us earlier today at the transportation authority commission meeting. as i said, it's dismal numbers. as your chair of that body, i've been tasked with steering this towards some solution and i've heard loud and clear, i think we all have from the voters, they want to see equitable way to

fund the growing transportation needs in the city. think this is -- i think this is the right tax at the right time for the right purpose, the right sector. it's clearly the growth in office space. we're seeing about a million square feet a year that thankfully is driving our low unemployment rate. we've been adding about 26,000 jobs per year since the dawn of the new century. and i also note that we helped stimulate -- i was not on the board at the time, but we helped stimulate some of the job growth and unemployment rate decline by offering significant tax breaks to certain parts of the corporate sector. the city population is booming. and just to give you a sense of comparison, the commercial rent tax in manhattan is 4% after exemptions and carve-outs. at a time when san francisco has one of the highest cost of

living in the country, and growing income gap, i believe that those corporations that have received huge windfall profits and stand to receive even more from the federal administration, it's time to share the burden and have them start to be part of the solution. having said that, i know there is an endless amount of need for many laudable things, including what we just heard from supervisors kim and yee and other competing interests and i look forward to having that conversation and working with you colleagues and administration to see where we go from here and where we end up. i am also introducing and want to thank supervisors ronen and sheehy for their cosponsorship, the update of the slope protection act that ensures that proper geo technical analysis is

done, so we don't end up with what we ended up at edge hill, with houses slipping down the hi hill. we've seen that in parts of the city, so this legislation is long overdue. thank you again. and i'm introduce supplemental appropriation for 300,0$300,000 the cigarette litter abatement fee that the controller adjusted and aappropriating that to supplement street cleaning. a little bit of nexus, cigarette butt, street cleaning. it's no secret this is never ending battle to keep the streets clean and this will be a boost to that effort. and there will be actually more money next year. this is just for part of the year. and the rest i will submit. >> supervisor breed: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: i have a few items today, but i wanted to

start off by talking about how excited i am to be cosponsor to supervisor yee and kim's effort to get a form of universal childcare here in san francisco. and i just want to take a moment to recognize the travesty that is happening in washington right now with the passage of the truly disgusting tax bill at the senate. that will absolutely make life for san franciscoens much harder than it already is. while earning billions and billions and billions of dollars for the elight 1% of -- elite 1% of the society and corporations they run and serve on the boards of.

this is the opposite type of policy making and use of government resources to support the people and not the corporate interests and the society and it's inspiring to me for a number of issues. but also, as you know, a mother of a young child who talks regularly with families who are struggling to pay for childcare in the city, you know, what many, many parents do when they have a new child and are deciding to go back to work, is say is it worth it? it's basically financially a wash. so whether they should go back to work is always a question. should i stay home and raise my child?

or should i go back an contribute to society through working? and this usually falls upon women, not always, but most often falls upon women and so this really is a women's rights issue. it's not only about families struggling to survive in san francisco, but it's about the women deciding whether or not to go to work and about the majority of women workforce who take care of children when two members of the family decide to go back to work. and as a former attorney and organizer with the women's collective in san francisco, and someone who represented childcare workers for years, for six and a half years, i can tell you that the salaries of childcare workers are insufficient as well. and so this is one of those measures that really, you know,

looks at all of the issues and the intersection of the issues, the need, the desperate need for families to get financial support to be able to have children and continue surviving in the city. the women who are struggling to continue to live here and who take care of those kids and provide the essential service to our workforce. the women that make it possible for all of us to work. and then finally, as a women's right issue in general, you know, it matters when women who choose to go back to work when they have kids, that feel it's important to contribute to the workforce and to live out their passion, it matters that we have this ability to do so. so i just want to say, thank you supervisor kim and supervisor yee, especially for your, i don't know what, 40 years of leadership on this issue, i'm so honored to join you in this

effort and i will be fighting alongside you every step of the way. in addition, i have a few other items continuing the theme of this ridiculous tax bill, the most regressive piece of legislation in the history of this country that was just passed by the senate. i'm introducing a resolution today that talks about what i fear will be the next piece of the trump administration agenda, which is a plan for national infrastructure. i'm sure they'll put corporate interests above all else. so i'm introducing a resolution that would urge members of congress to cosponsor house concurrent resolution 63, which is a national effort to create

new jobs through infrastructure improvements that will actually benefit working families and low and middle income communities. the house concurrent resolution 63 is pending and includes a fame work and set of values for the infrastructure in the country. the plan calls on the federal government to prioritize public investment over corporate giveaways and direct that public investment provides the majority of funding for infrastructure improvement. we need congress to stand up to the trump administration and prioritize infrastructure solutions that actually support our communities. so i hope to have your support with that. i'm also introducing a resolution for interim controls and emission and ct zoning district. this resolution extends the existing control implemented by the planning commission in 2016. which requires conditional use of any change of use permit to the restaurant and establishes a limit on mergers of store front,

commercial space of 2000 square feet for more. i'm introducing legislation to expand san francisco all-gender restroom law to include hotels and single room occupancy hotels which is housing for many low-income people in san francisco. in 2016, my predecessor, supervisor wrote a law saying all restrooms to become all gender restrooms through change of signage. this was fantastic, however, it was oversight and didn't include sro hotel rooms given that those aren't public accommodations, but actually are shared bathrooms in a private setting. i have been speaking with transgender tenants of residential hotels, who have

told me that this change would help them feel safer in their homes. s.ros are home to 5% of the city residents, 30,000 people and many do not have their own private restrooms, rather shared toilets and bathing facilities. this would apply to single stall restaurants. this would be for parents with child of different gender, gender nonconforming people and women who have to wait in longer lines for men. this issue is particularly important for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals because of the safety concerns when deciding which bathroom to use. people of all genders deserve to feel safe, using the restaurants where they live. so please join me in supporting

this law. i want to thank supervisors kim, sheehy and peskin for cosponsoring and thanks to jordan davis, the newest member of the -- i'm not sure if the newest member -- but a member of the s.r.o. task force for bringing this idea to our attention and advocating so effectively on this issue. and for s.r.o. tenants in san francisco, thank you, jordan for everything you do. >> supervisor safai: thank you, madame clerk. i have two items. the first is a small item but over the course of five years is really important. it's from the california -- it's a resolution i'm introducing in conjunction with the mayor's office to allow san francisco department of public health to accept and expend first year of a 5-year grant from the california department of public health, it's about $300,000

funded by refuses from prop 56, to fund health care. it will be used here locally to achieve the goals of oral health, outreach, education and training. so although small, i think it's a good step in terms of educating and outreach. the next thing that i wanted to rise to is in regard to the overall conversation about revenue. we had a hearing at the land use committee yesterday and i've heard great words today about prioritization and the desire and need for new revenue in the city. we've heard issues about childcare. we've heard issues about transportation. in the past we've talked and i'm sure this body will tackle again the issue of homelessness and public saecht, but from the -- safety, but from the beginning of my term in office, the issue that i think is the quiet crisis in this city is the loss of

working and middle class housing. san francisco, we learned yesterday in the presentation in the land use committee and many listening to this, can attest to the fact that san francisco is polarized in a dramatic way. we're a tale of two cities. we're becoming extremely wealthy and extremely low income and those in the middle, the working and middle class families, janitors, nurses, teachers, health workers, those in the hospitality industry, hotel workers and the list goes on, those that make you're city work on a daily basis are being forced out of san francisco at an alarming rate. and the presentation from our controller and economist and the planning department and the mayor's office of housing, and all of the economic workforce and development, describe a desire and a need and demand for housing that is shrinking.

and so i think this crisis requires serious intervention on the part of this body and serious intervention on the part of this city. so i think if in the conversations of new revenue, i think we need to prioritize and have a real honest discussion about creating this type of housing. and creating a fund. so i would hope that those in the business community that would be asked to pay for this tax would be brought to the table. we can have the conversation about transportation and childcare and long been a supporter of universal childcare, talked about it as a father of two small children. i can attest to the fact that the cost of childcare, if you make over just a certain amount of money, you pay an exorbitant rate. but if people can't live in the city, get to work, find a place to put their child in childcare, we're in crisis. i'm asking the city attorney at

this point to begin drafting a ballot measure that would discuss with prioritization of middle class housing. and also addressing the idea of perspective revenue sources, whether it be some of the ones mentioned today or others, we will prioritize that in the conversations moving forward. and again with the community that will be paying that tax along with all of the interested parties in this room, the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor sheehy. >> supervisor sheehy: yes. good afternoon, colleagues. today i along with supervisor safai are calling a hearing about lead in the water in san francisco schools. i was quite surprised earlier this year, a couple of months ago to hear from my daughter,

there was hazardous material emergency team truck at her school and they were unable to use the water. shortly after that, we had the announcement that there were three schools in the district that will excessive amounts of lead in the water. i was a bit surprised that the parents were not notified in advance that lead testing was taking place at the schools. the stories i've heard at her school, and i suspect at others, that security guards in the morning are supposed to run the taps and the water fountains for five minutes before school starts. presumably, that's to clear lead out of the pipes, but the amount of information that we as parents have received was really quite limited. i did reach out at the time to the school district. i talked to the superintendent, i talked to the health department. i talked to the puc and i was really surprised last week to

get a call saying they've done a public records act and notwithstanding the three schools that had excessive levels of lead, actually half the schools this the district that they had tested had detectable lead. i'm sure that kqed story, parents have not been notified. so i think it's essential we get a complete accounting of what the issue is about lead in the water at san francisco schools. we really don't know what accessible -- acceptable levels are. we know what the epa has set, but this is not testing every outlet. i think an open discussion so parents are informed would be great and i appreciate supervisor safai cosponsoring this because we really need to protect our kids. the rest i submit. >> thank you.

supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor yee submit. president breed? thank you. colleagues, i want to use today as an opportunity to talk about a topic i know we have all grappled with over the past week. the angry rhetoric and phone calls after the stanley verdict that led know feel like someone needs to speak up on behalf of our city. someone needs to defend what we stand for. and in the 29 months since kate steinly's tragic death, i'm tired of seeing it used to advance donald trump's racist agenda. am i disappointed in the outcome of the case? yes, i am. but the facts of the case were more complicated than a sound byte or tweet. we're talking about a bullet that bounced off the ground,

flew 80 feet in the air and struck someone who was a complete stranger to the shooter. maybe the district attorney could have charged different, but it was their decision. they served their civic duty, listened to evidence, and rendered a verdict. we need to respect that. we need to remember that when it all said and done, this is about a family who lost their daughter. this is about a young woman who lost her life. it's not an opportunity for posturing, it's not a rally cry and it's not a reason to upend decades of immigration, and public safety policies in our city. it's time to comfort a grieving family and do what we can to ensure others don't suffer the same tragedy. i want the steinly family to know they're in our thoughts and our prayers and the city stands behind them. the far right is too eager to

make this tragedy about sanctuary cities, deportation or building some asinine wall. angry commentator angried by the usual ca-- let me put some fact to their hate. san francisco has one of the highest percentage of immigrants of any other city in the country. over one-third of the friends, neighbors, relatives, coworkers are immigrants. and we have one of the lowest murder rates of any city in the country. and you know what else? most of the big cities are rates lower than ours, boston, portland, seattle, new york, san jose, are all sanctuary cities too.

our tragedy is not going to change the nearly 30 years of policies we've worked hard to develop. one tweet is not going to bully san francisco. our city has always welcomed immigrants, always embraced those deemed unworthy or inferior by the far right, and it is that approach which has made us a stronger and more safer city. and we are not stopping now. our tolerance -- our tolerance here in the city and county of san francisco does not kill people. the hundreds of millions of guns throughout the united states is what kills people. i would much rather focus our outrage and policy efforts on addressing the loss of 80,000 americans who have been killed by guns since miss steinly's death or the 327 mass shootings which have occurred in this year alone. what is making us unsafe in

america is not immigrants. it never has been. it is the far right's callous disregard for 30,000 americans who die by guns every single year. that is the issue that we should be talking about and i wish that those who have chosen to launch a campaign to boycott our amazing city, would use the same energy to help boycott the guns in our society that have sadly taken far too many lives. [applause] thank you, the rest i submit. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, i would like to please add my name as cosponsor with supervisor kim, yee and ronen. >> thank you. madame president, that concludes the introduction of new

business. let's go to 4:30 special order. items 22-29. 22 through 25, for the mid-sunset neighborhood association, these items were continued from 14th in order to be scheduled alongside a second appeal, 26-29, on behalf of the sunset association. items 22-26 are hearings for persons interested in the certification of the use authorization, for a proposed project located at 2161-2165 irving street. to establish a medical cannabis dispensary doing business as barbary coast dispensary.

items 23 and 27 are motions to approve the commission's decision approving a conditional use authorization for the proposed project on irving street and to adopt the appropriate findings. items 24-28 are the motions to conditionally disprove the decision for the project subject to the adoption of written findings. and items 25-29 are motions to direct the appropriation of findings. >> supervisor breed: we have two use of appeals for the project at 2161 and 2160 irving street in district 4. there -- we are going to hear them both together. for this hearing, we will be considering whether or not to approve the planning commission conditional use authorization to allow dispensary at 2161 and

2165 irving street. it requires eight votes to overturn the planning department's conditional use decision. since we are combining the appeals, i worked with the city attorney office to revise our normal hearing procedures to provide speakers with more time. without objection, we'll go as follows. up to 15 minutes for the appellant, that's 7.5 minutes per appellant, giving the number of speakers here today up to one minute for each speaker. and up to 15 minutes for presentation from city departments, up to 15 minutes for the project sponsor or their representatives. and given the speaker the volume of speakers here today, one minute for anyone who wants to speak in opposition of the

appeal and finally, five minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or the appellant representative. please note if you're here to speak on either of the 2161-2165 irving street appeals, this will be your time to do so. so, colleagues, without objection, we'll proceed as follows. supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. i do know that many people are here on this item and we're delayed by half an hour, so i'm going to allow us to proceed with public comment first. also want to remind everything that i have also reviewed petitions, letters, e-mails, phone calls, so certainly if they were individuals were not able to show up for today i have their comments as well. >> supervisor tang and the other appellant, are they here today? please come forward?

ok, would have 7.5 minutes. >> my name is flo kimmerling, i'm going share time with my colleague. i'd like to talk about the background of the mid-sunset neighborhood association which i helped to start 35 years ago and has to my joy grown. in all that time, as we've grown, we've tried to foster cooperation among neighbors, developers and merchants. we've met on this particular issue as a group with both the neighborhood association and other neighbors. we met as a board. we met with mr. house and mr. henry who run the barbary coast, to listen and hear what they had to say. as a result of that, we put

together a list of conditions under which we felt comfortable having this mcd on irving street. really trying to be flexible. really trying to be cooperative. that said, i need to tell you, that putting a medical dispensary in our neighborhood, it's a stretch. it's a real stretch. given the feelings and the biases and the just the culture in the community that we are. if it was going to come, we asked that it be closed by 8:00 p.m. you have the list of restrictions. i won't go through all of them, but we asked by 8:00 p.m. it be closed because the neighborhood is quiet by then, as they call themselves a medical dispraens and calls themselves patients, we said if wall green pharmacy is closed by 8:00 p.m., that should fit well with you.

that is not the time they're scheduled to be closed at this point. we also asked they not apply for a recreational use permit when that would be allowed, which i believe is in january of 2018. and i'd like to read you what their response was, because we were surprised. we do not believe there is such a thing as recreational use. individuals who use cannabis do so to medicate for a problem. it could be anxiety or something else and we intend to apply for an adult use permit. it is not a recreational use permit. we found this surprising. think the millions of people who get stoned will find that surprising. they feel they're self-medicating, but all the more reason, we do not want this mcd to be given the possibility of having a recreational use permit. we feel that's just beyond and

we're the most liberal group in the neighborhood -- that's beyond what the neighborhood can bear, beyond what is appropriate. and so we're asking you, to exclude that. there is something very self-serving and ill logical about that statement and it gives us pause, makes us suspicious and we're counting on you to support us and to hear us. thank you. >> hi, i'm patrick wolf. i actually personally voted in favor of legalizing cannabis and our appeal it's not against distribution or the location under consideration. but at the same time, it's not reefer madness for citizens to insist that our government protect us against the harms of cannabis distribution and i would note that different cultures in the city have strong feelings about cannabis, some strongly in favor, some strongly