frequent and severe storms. the sub committee recognized that the city oversees resilient planning for the wide range of housing, public works and functions and they instead focused on how the waterfront plan's -- [inaudible] >> -- for this purpose, the sub committee defined resilience as the capacity of the port to maintain its function and vitality in the face of natural or human caused didsruptions. some of the resilience sub committee recommendations addressed the port capacity to respond to and recover from a major zast certify. we learned that the port is one of only a few locations where the city can be accessed by water for fema plan recovery operations if a disaster damages regional bridges or b.a.r.t. the port's docks, piers or wharves would be needed for

loading and unloading a wide range of vellvssels and to sta people, figures, and a wide range of resources. this just shows how many areas we have in two areas of the port. some of them vessel landing, some of them are where we can stage food and water, and some of them are where we can take stage works to get out of the area. the next slide, i think we showed you last time, but it still takes my breathe away. this photo was from the super bowl 50, but it illustrates the kind of crowds that we would anticipate would gather on the wour fro waterfront. if we were to have a major event, we would expect tens of thousands of people to flock to our property and try to get out of the city.

it could take two or more days just to move people, especially if there are no decent landing facilities to move people to their destinations across the bay, so this really is a regional challenge for the port to work closely with other agencies. the port rebuilding of supplies would then be implemented. to respond to these needs, the resilience recommendations call ever hadded for improving the capacity and flexibility of landing facilities at the port, maintaining areas that can serve emergency functions if and when needed, continuing to monitor the effective climate change and sea level rise on our critical facilities and integrating the latest science and best practices into project designs. the port also some strengthen its planning and funding partnerships with tenants, emergency managers and transportation providers to improve emergency preparedness and disaster recovery

operations, and this is just an example of the types of events that diana and other city folks organize sod that we can be prepared in the -- when a major event or earthquake does happen. the resilience sub committee next turned to topics of seismic safety and sea level rise. this discussions were framed by the first guiding principle, which the working group agreed upon at the beginning of the sub committee discussions. and this -- this guiding principle reflects the working group's understanding that planning and implementing this will extend well beyond the time frame for the waterfront plan update process, and the sub committee focused instead on designing the public values and criteria that should under lie and support these longer frame planning efforts without prescribing specific solutions or projects. as part of this effort --

[inaudible] >> -- the public identified what they valued most about the form and the function of the port's waterfront, and the topics ranged from habitat and sustainability to urban design and historic preservation to transportation and mobility along the waterfront and economic stability and equity. the sub committee and the public also emphasized the need to improve seismic safety of the historic seawall, vulnerable buildings and histor historic structures. they encouraged us to work more closely with our tenants and neighbors to prepare for an earthquake or disaster. we accepted all of their wonderful recommendations, and we have indicated some might be more appropriate to consider an update of these appropriate plans, and they're included in appendix c of the staff report that we prepared. for other projects, the recommendations promote an aile

adaptive management approach to planning and implementing resill jensen projects. for example flood control and sea level rise adoption measures should allow for flexibility as conditions change over the long-term. the public really doesn't want to see us over build now for potential sea level rise in the future. we want to enjoy what we have address long as possible, and maybe in the future there's better solutions and we won't need some of solutions that we now need. we should also be taking a multibenefit approach to each resilience project. carol mentioned this in the process of environmental sustainability project. you see one problem, you can often solve another at the same time. the shoreline project, for

example, we should be varying our strategies along the waterfront, taking into account each areas unique character, and we slb ensure aring that we're doing further education and partnerships to educate our are resilience plans and projects. the final topic that the sub committee tackled is the important role of social cohetion, and identity. the sub committee looked at how best to further citywide efforts to boost community resilience given the port's they're narrow geography and public trust's responsibilities. the recommendations call for identifying and protecting the maritime and historic assets that are most critical to our waterfront identity, involving

our tenants neighbors and stakeholders in emergency planning so they have the information and connections required for recovery. ensuring that the recreational opportunities for under served areas and people -- excuse me -- ensuring that there are recreational opportunities for under served areas and people, and continuing to meet or exceed our goals for equitiable accesses to port jobs and business activities, certainly something that you were discussing tonight. all of these efforts will contribute to making the port more resilient. so i'd just like to end this discussion of the recommendations where we began with the working group's guiding principles. this is guiding principle number six, and while it applied to all the working group sub committee work, we felt that it was particularly important when it comes to resilience projects. and what this guiding principle was really getting at was that although the port has, you know, very difficult financial choices have to make, and

constraints, it's also important that we don't lose sight of our aspirations and our goals, and we need a place where big ideas can be discussed and decided upon, and we need to make sure that happened, and the waterfront plan some reflect aspirational goals as well as practicalities. the recommendations call for further port planning to identify short, midand long-term resilience plans and projects, planning work that must continue with key agency and community partners long after the waterfront plan update is complete, and with ongoing planning should incorporate and benefit from what we learn over time from our own adaptation projects. the sub committee and ultimately the full working group spoke about the ability of encouraging new ideas. as you were discussing here today in the last item, the historic resource was a

particular important concern because we want to make sure that we enjoy those as long as absolutely possible. in this regard, the port should remain flexible and anymonimbl we can continue to take advantage of the latest science and technology, and because the city is an important state and historic resources, we should look at other viewpoints to help bring planning updates to fruition. so that's it with the recommendations. and i just want to put this in context of the planning process again as we were just discussing, we were just wrapping up our part three outreach, and we are compiling the input and comments received which includes input and comments on pier 30-32 and seawall lot 330, and we'll be reporting those back to the working group and to the port commission in may and june.

with that, we'll be seeking commission endorsement of recommendations and further direction before we begin to actually draft waterfront plan amendments, which we'll be doing over the summer, and we'll be bringing those amendments back to the port commission and to the public for review and comment in the fall. the final waterfront plan amendments can't be approved by the port commission until completion of environmental review pursuant to ceqa, and you authorized at your last meeting -- i guess last meeting, march 13, you authorized th authorized to go out with an rfp for environmental consultant, and we'll be doing that later this month. so thank you for the opportunity to brief you. your next briefing will be on transportation recommendations and that's tentatively scheduled for june 12. carol and i again want to give a shout out to pia and aaron and other members of the our sub committee. we really enjoyed working with

them, and i'm here to answer any comments or questions. and i do believe our chair, pia, would also like to say a few words. >> hello. my name is pia hinkel. i chair the working committee. i want to start by thanking port staff who did such an amazing job throughout this very long process with a huge group that was amazing, taken from different neighborhoods all over the city, people with different backgrounds. i myself started out as an advisory team member in open space and recommendation and ended up chairing resilience, so anything could happen. the other strange thing for me personally was my first job out of college 30 years ago was working for chris martin at the old cannery when he was on the first citizen's advisory group

on the first working plan, so some of these things have been going on all these years that sounded familiar. thank you to aaron, all of our advisory members, especially my cochair. i'm also a bay swimmer, so i see the portlands and the waterfront and the historic piers also from the water and the city as a whole. i really feel that resilience was a missing piece in the waterfront plan, and really, in a way is the story of the history of the port. the news this week was that california is now the world's fifth largest economy, and if you look and see, one of the stories was that apple's -- the amount of money that apple made was equivalent to wyoming's output, so that's one company that's here in the bay area. so the ability of the port lands as part of the city and the region to be able to

operate in any kind of disaster or to be resilient in the face of sea level rise is critical, not just to our historic assets but to the city as a whole and as a region. thank you very much. >> president brandon: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? is there any public on this item? okay. commissioners? commissioner gilman? >> commissioner gilman: i just want to thank all the tireless volunteers and pia for chairing this committee. i know how much work goes into this, and dedication. i especially want to thank everyone. i think as a new commissioner, if i need to read it through or four more times, but i think resi resiliency is really important, and i hope i can say this. i hope you all will help us pass the bond in december because this is necessary to continue to do the work on our

seawall and continue our work across the state. thank you for your time and energy. >> president brandon: commissioner woo ho. >> thank you, carol, and ann for this report. and i appreciate the task force, pia, and everybody. i was thinking back to when we first started the strategic plan and deciding on what some of the strategic plan goals were, and as you know, that's when we first raised resill iey as one of our goals. i think the waterfront land use plan came at the right time for us to sort of fill that in, that we talked about that, what does that mean. of course we had done tactical things along the way. with the cruise ship terminal, we have onshore power, so wie'e been doing things along the way to improve environment and climate control, but i think we were missing pieces to fill in

the gaps to see all the work that we've been doing across the port. i think all of this work that has been done is extremely important to give us a way to integrate it with everything else that we've been doing. it's now, i think in the evolution of the strategic plan that we did in the waterfront land use plan and now going forward, i think it's a great piece of work, and again, 161 recommendations, that blows my mind. i'm glad that you didn't take us through every single one of them. but i'm not sure we would have remembered them, but in reading the staff report, they're obviously all very important, and i appreciate also that you're cross-referencing of them, many of them with the transportation sub committee, and things can't be done in a silo, and there is a crisscross integration effort that has to make this effort work. this is really a tremendous effort and wonderful to see that we've pulled it together, and i can't thank the group enough that we have something

that we can be very proud of. i think that we have -- not only the city but particularly the port, we've been a leader in so many different ways, so i'm proud of what you all have done at the staff level, and particularly, we support you. >> president brandon: thank you. commissioner makras? >> great presentation. thank you. >> president brandon: commissioner adams? >> vice president adams: this has been a long process. i know it's been very tedious, a lot of meetings, but i really appreciate the effort. this is where we really need to be because it's just when, and we're getting out front on these issues, and i really appreciate the port staff for their long hours. you never get enough thank you. thank you for your hard work, the community, the volunteers, and all this tedious work has to really be done. i just remember when they had the b.a.r.t. strike, and how people had to do different things. and we got 6 million visitors to take our ferries and stuff like that.

and supervisor yee asked me the other day, he goes, what about water staff, and he just wanted to know what was happening in the port, everything to do with what's going on down here. and then to be proactive to deal with the environment and to deal with what's going on, the citizens are going to benefit from this 'cause we're out there, and i know that they would voice that they may not know, but you guys are working tirelessly on their behalf, and i appreciate it as a commissioner because you ghiez a -- guys are doing the hard yard and getting this done. and dealing with different personalities, as i say, trying to get everybody to agree on something. this is a lot of work, and some more is going to happen. i just want to say please continue, and let -- know from us, our work is appreciated. thank you. >> president brandon: thank you. carol and ann, thank you so much for this report. it's a great report. pia, aaron, alice, corrine,

thank you guys so much for all of your time, your energy, your input, because this -- all the waterfront updates are extremely important, but i'm so happy that we included resilience because right now that is something that we really need to focus on, so you guys have come up with some great recommendations. i just want to thank you for all of your work and input. and i do squlujust have to sayn i started on the commission, i served with pia's mom, deniece mccarthy, and we worked with ann and carol on the original waterfront plan, and so we're just coming full circle, and i'm just so happy that everyone is still involved and active and volunteering your time. we really appreciate it, and these are great recommendations, so thank you very much. we're looking forward to transportation next. i do have one question. out of the 161 recommendations,

which one was not unanimous? >> it's easy to remember 'cause there's only one. it had to do with the sole source public process in the land use recommendations, so tom radulovich on the working group had a recommendation in the part two report, but that was the only one. >> president brandon: interesting. thank you. thank you, everyone, for this great presentation. [agenda item read] >> i have one item under new business from your conversations this evening. i came back with a timeline and a process to solicit ideas and interest in pier 30-32. is there any other new business? >> i would like one other, and that is i think it relates to actually what we heard as the first item, but because of the neighborhood and the ideas that we have for the 88 broadway, i

think it's time for an update on teatro cinzani, and what is happening with this pronject. hopefully, good news. >> president brandon: is there any other new business? well again, we would like to welcome our new commissioners. you guys have been great. we really look forward to working with you and all of your real estate expertise is much needed right now, so welcome to the commission, and please let elaine or the staff know if you need briefing or updates on any items. and can i have a motion to adjourn the meeting in honor of lee radner, doris ward, and governor deukmejian? >> second. >> all in favor? [voting] >> meeting is adjourned.

>> hi. i'm shana longhorn with the san francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss proposition c. the city collects a gross receipts tax from many

businesses which receive revenue from the lease of commercial property, such as office buildings, warehouses and retail spaces. the current tax rate ranges from.825% to 3%. businesses with $1 million or less in san francisco are generally exempt from the gross receipt tax. several other businesses are also exempt including some banks, and nonprofits. proposition c would impose an additional gross receipts tax of 1% on the revenues of business received from the lease of warehouse space in the city, and 3.5% on the revenue the business receives on additional leases in the city. it would not apply to revenues

received from leases to businesses engaged in industrial uses, some retail sales of goods and services directly to consumers or arts activities. this additional tax would also not apply to revenues received from certain nonprofit organizations or from government entities. the city would use 15% of funds collected from this general tax for any general purpose. the city would use the remaining 85% of this additional tax for quality early care and education for children from newborns through age five whose parents are very low-income to low-income. quality early care and education for children from newborns to age three whose parents are low to middle-income and do not currently qualify for assistance. programs that support emotional, cognitive for children newborn through five and increased compensation for people who provide care for

children from newborn through early age five. if you vote yes, it means you want to kboes a new gross receipts tax of 1% on revenues a business receives from the lease of warehouse space in the city and 3.5% on revenues the business receives from the lease of commercial spaces in the city to fund quality education for children and other purposes. a no vote means you do not approve this tax. we're joined by lisa rhenner from the san francisco republican party and an opponent of the measure. i'd like to start with miss remmer. why do you believe this proposition is so important. >> just like housing costs, our commercial rents in san francisco will railroad high. and this 3.5% tax will be passed onto the tenant, the

businesses, who will then pass it onto their staff and onto the consumers, us, making the cost of living in san francisco -- the high cost and shortage of child care could be contributed to the administrative costs of opening a child care business. city hall can help working parents by easing regulations and fees, allowing more child care centers to open. what is a crisis is the city budget of $10.2 billion, and the $88 million deficit for this coming year, rising to 800 million in three years. we just paid 77 million for a child care three years ago. in terms of value of child care, well, the u.s. department of health and human services reported the head start benefits have all disappeared by third grade. >> miss buck land, why do you

believe this proposition is so important. >> parents need child care so they can support their families, and children need early care so they can vehemently start their life. child care and early education is expensive, costing $20,000 or more peryear on an after-tax basis. it's often a family's biggest expense after housing. over 50% of san francisco families live in eligible for state child care subsidies. unfortunately there's not enough slots for all families to qualify. every month, there are 2500 children on the waiting list for subsidies in san francisco, two thirds of them infants and toddlers. a third cause is low wages in the child care sector.

due to the work of the city's office of early childhood education, we know what can cost san francisco families. we need to spend 300 to 400 million peryear. >> how will the voters be affected by this 3.5% commercial tax as proposed in proposition c? >> well, i think this tax is actually good for our city. my understanding is that our current commercial rents tax is lower than in other cities, and i believe that helping families pay for child care is a critical need in our city. we hear a lot about the struggles that families are having, particularly struggles paying for housing, but frankly, as i said before, housing -- child care is a bigger expense than housing, and i personally being helping families pay for child care is a housing strategy as well as an economic strategy for our city. when families get help paying for child care, they can work,

support their families and are contributing to the city's economy. and when they get help paying for child care, they also can afford more for housing. >> same question to you, miss rhenner. how will the voters be askd by this proposition specifically by the 3.5% commercial tax. >> the 3.5% commercial tax can immediately get passed onto the tenants or the businesses. your doctor, your dentist, your grocery store, and they could end up cutting employee pay, cutting staff, closing shop, so do we really need more closed storefronts, and mostly it will be passed directly onto consumers, raising the cost of living in san francisco. what we really should be doing is lower the regulations required to open a child care business from head start, with 2400 regulations to be complied with to all of our local zoning and licensing fees.

this 3.5% tax -- and none of it helps homeowner's, just makes the city more expensive. home enners are already paying for the last tax in 2514, 014, just think it's going to make people move away and make the city cost more. >> a second question, which we'll start with you, miss rhenner, what are the advantages or disadvantages to a universal child care program in your view. >> in my view, the benefits of early child care have disappeared by third grade, and the claims of high quality child care are highly exaggerated. there's ten studies that have been cited. only half of them have been used randomized control. only three found positive, long-term results, and these took place 48, 58 years ago,

with treatment groups very small, mostly children. they focused on infants, toddlers, not pre-k and had huge in home family visits which seemed to work out well. the teacher to student ratio was 33 to 66% higher than what students will be getting in the proposed programs, teachers all had bachelors agree and experience in these programs, and moms all had i.q.'s under 85. the treatment wasn't random. the moms stayed at home and dad worked outside of the home. the treatment groups and the control group still only earned under $12,000 a year. they both had approximately 50% arrest rates, yes, 6%, less than a semester more in school, no i.q. differences beyond the differences actually shown among the children. the best results were with the

moms with an i.q. under 70, and the younger moms with less school. the mothers actually in the treatment groups showed the biggest gains in lifetime earnings, even looking at ages 26 to 60, compared looking at the children 21 to 65, the mothers' lifetime earnings were estimated to be twice what the child's were, so yes, teen moms need child care while they finish schools, but we already fund these programs. >> same programs to you, miss lessman. what are the advantages and disadvantages to universal child care programs in your view. >> so i'm not quite sure what, lisa, you've been reading, but the research -- there is a growing body of research that shows the short and long-term benefits of quality child care for families. it's been nobel economyist

james beckman about investing and the out comes in early childhood education, about the need to provide special education and quality education in long-term earnings rates for families, the involvement in your criminal justice system. there's no shortage of studies that show the really important outcomes that come from early quality childhood education. for us, we have a situation in the city where i believe that this is really the key to ensuring that san francisco is a city in which diverse families can thrive. we have -- as i cited before, we have a 50% of san francisco families are living below the self-sufficiency index. it's affecting kids of color.

you know, lack of access affects children of color, and it's really important that we want to -- we want to provide equitiable outcomes for children in san francisco and ensure that all kids are ready to learn when they come into the school district, and we want to make sure that all families can thrive in san francisco. >> thank you, miss beckman. we're now going to start with the closing arguments, and we'll start with you, miss rhenner. >> the 3.5% tax will be passed onto us, the customers through the businesses, and i think that that will make san francisco that much less affordable. again, the child care, the value of child care, the effects dissipated by third grade, except in these totally different, different studies with different groups of people, and they've been highly contested. i've read all of these studies.

testing moms with less than i.q. of 85, that's totally different. again, i do think the teen moms need totally free child care while they finish school, but we already have this. let's not raise the cost of living in san francisco with a tax that just gets passed onto the consumers. >> thank you. miss beckman? >> thank you. i believe prop c is a critical investment in the city's future. it'll raise more than $100 million a year to support early care and education. most of that will provide access to low-income families that are struggling to make ends meet. parents that can't afford to go to work are relying on family, friends, and neighbors, catch as catch can in order to be able to do that, to be able to work. we -- it will also help us increase the wages for our early educators, ensuring we can actually have classrooms

open to serve san francisco's children. prop c will help people pay for care so they can work and support their families and support our economy and long-term benefits for kids. prop c is endorsed by a majority of our san francisco supervisors, the harvey milk democratic club, san francisco labor council, and many others. i hope you'll join me in voting for prop c to ensure that our city is -- remains one in which diverse families can live and thrive. thank you. >> thank you both for your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this or other ballot measures in the june election, please visit the department of elections website at sfelections.org. remember, early voting is available at city hall on may 7, starting at 8:00 a.m., and

if you don't vote early, be sure to vote, starting on may 5th. thank you. >> hi. i'm shana longhorn with the san francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss prop e, a measure that will be before the voters on june 5th. in 2014, the supervisors adopted a resolution in san francisco that prohibited the sail of cigarette products. a rhenendumb was filed requiring that the ordinance be submitted to the voters. the ordinance will not go into effect unless a majority of voters approve. proposition e is a refer endumb

to pass the ordinance passed by the board of supervisors prohibiting the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san francisco. a yes vote means you want to prohibit the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san francisco. a no vote means if you vote no, you want to allow the sale of flavored tobacco products in san francisco. i'm here with dr. lawrence chung, past president of the marin medical society. we're also joined by star child, outreach director of the libertiaryian party of san francisco. thank you both for being here. i'd like to start with you, star child. why do you feel it's so important. >> well, it's an expansion of the war on drug dos, and we shd know that the war on drugs has been a massive failure. it didn't work with alcohol, it

didn't work with cannabis, and it won't work with tobacco. this will create a black market in san francisco for purchase of cigarettes on the streets where they won't be checking i.d. it's already illegal in california for people under 21 to buy tobacco products, so the opposition's claims about oh, it's about kids being able to buy tobacco, well kids can't buy tobacco now. this is about not fringing on adult choices. it's going to lead to more crime, it's going to lead to more retailers closing. controller's economic office estimated 50 million lost in sales. vaping stores and other retailers that are highly reliant on tobacco sales will close. raping actually helps people quit smoking. it's less harmful. vaping and e cigarettes are included under this proposed

ban. >> thank you. dr. chung? >> thank you for asking me to be here? i'm here not only as a concerned physician but as a father. i have two wonderful nine-year-old twin boys and girls, and i am worried that this is allen assault on our k. canny flavored tobacco has only one use, and that's to hook kids into tobacco. this measure is all about protecting our kids, our community, and i feel very strongly that we should uphold this ban on tobacco that has already been passed by a unanimous decision at the board of supervisors level. so please join me and the san francisco marin medical association, the california medical association and the american medical association in upholding this ban on candy flavored tobacco, vote yes on prop e. >> thank you. i'd like to ask some questions, and i'm going to begin with you, dr. chung.

do you believe that this proposition, a ban on flavored tobacco is the best way to fight youth tobacco use. >> yes, i believe this is a very effective way to fight youth tobacco, because we know that four out of five kids who start smoking start with a candy tobacco flavored product, four out of five. so if we ban the sale of these candy flavored tobacco in our stores, we will effectively keep them out of the reach of our kids. it's all about our health. >> and the same to you, star child. >> absolutely not. as i mentioned, the kids already can't buy tobacco in stores. what this will do is drive sales to the streets or on-line where i.d. check is less effective or in the case of on the streets, it won't take place at all. if you buy things on the street from unregulated sources, he

don't know what's in them. we all know the case of eric garner in new york city who was killed by police there. he was selling illegal unlicensed cigarettes on the street, so that's an example of the kind of violence that can be produced by this, and it's not going to be effective at preventing kids from smoking. i mean, kids get tobacco know. i mean, it's a parental decision. keep your nine-year-olds from smoking, absolutely, but prop e won't help make that happen. >> thank you. our next question goes to star child first, is do you believe proposition e is too broad, there have been some arguments that in addition to it covering candy and flavored tobacco in that sense, that it also covers menthol cigarettes and hookah use in the middle eastern

communities. >> we would be against it even if it were only covering a very narrow segment, because your question is does your body belong to you or the government. all of us consume various things that are unhealthy. if we all switched to a raw food, vegan diet, we would be much healthier. does that mean that anything that's not vegan should be criminalized? no, but that's the way that some people want to go. big government, unfortunately, they already make more off of the sale of a package of cigarettes than the tobacco companies do. they're trying to make money off of it on both ends, fining it from the sales, and criminalizing it on the other, and all the apparatus, there will be air cost with enforcing that, and we've seen with the war on drugs and putting people behind bars, especially with low-income communities and communities of color, and this is the wrong way to go.

we know proceed hibitihibitionr on drugs is the wrong way to go. >> dr. chung? >> absolutely not. again, most kids start smoking through candy flavored tobacco products. these flavors are added for a reason: so make smoking easier and to make more pima ikt didded. we know the more you smoke, the more it'll call you to have harm, cancer and eventually death. i like to do whatever i can to keep my kids safe and to keep my community safe. i do believe this ban will be effective in reducing our kids from smoking, so i'm a proponent of this proposition. >> and we'd like to have our closing arguments. we'll start with you, star child. >> well, first of all, i wanted to point out, for one thing, there's medical health professionals and people who care about kids and reducing death on both sides of this argument, so please don't be misled by the fact that my

opponent has the word dr. in front of his name. et he et -- he's a dermatologist, not a health care researcher. the fact that kids may start by smoking flavored tobacco, that has nothing to do with the reality that everybody likes flavors. they're acting like oh, just because it's flavored, it's going after kids. nonsense. i like different flavored when i eat products. i don't smoke cigarettes, but it's something that people should have, again, ultimately the right to choose what to put into their own bodies, and this is not going to reduce smoking. history shows it's not going to reduce smoking. the belief that it will somehow flies in the face of reality. >> thank you. dr. chung? >> thank you. again as a practicing physician in san francisco for over ten years and having represented san francisco marin medical society, the california medical association and also the

american medical association on public health policy, i can tell you that all of our organizations feel that this proposition is the right thing to do. this proposition simply is to uphold the ban on candy flavored tobacco. big tobacco is waging a war, an assault on our kids' health. they try to get a new generation of children to be addicted to tobacco products that's going to increase our health care costs down the road. nod to diseas-- in addition to diseases and deaths, so please vote no on proposition e. >> thank you. thank you both for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> no on prop e. >> we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures in the june election, please visit the department of elections website at sfelections.org, remember, early voting is available at city hall on may 7th, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00

p.m., and if you don't vote early, remember to vote on june 5th. [♪] >> hi. i'm here with a san francisco league of women's voters. i'm here to discuss proposition acts. it will be before the voters on tuesday june 5th. the city and county of san francisco funds and nonprofit organizations that provide free legal representation to some of san francisco residential tenants who face eviction. to evict a residential tenant, the landlord must give the tenant a written notice of eviction. of a tenant does not move, or landlord may file a lawsuit asking a court order eviction. proposition acts would adopt

policies that san francisco should provide legal representation to all residential tenants facing eviction. it would provide the city to establish, fund run a program to provide legal representation for all tenants in the san francisco facing eviction and provide a lawyer for tenant with 30 days following an eviction notice or immediately upon receipt of a lawsuit seeking a diction -- eviction, whichever comes first. the lawyer would provide legal representation for the tenant through all stages of the process until resolved. and implement this program within 12 months after the measure is adopted. proposition would not require the city to provide legal representation to tenants who reside in the same dwelling units with their landlord. a yes vote means if you vote yes, you want to require the city to establish, fund and run a program to provide legal representation for all residential tenants in san

francisco facing eviction. a no vote means if you vote to know, you do not want to create this program. i am here with john snider and a proponent of the proposition. welcome. >> we are also joined by the san francisco apartment association and an opponent of the measure. thank you for being here. i'll be starting with opening statements and let's start with you, charlie. why do you believe this proposition is so important? >> so the apartment association is recommending a no vote on it and there are a number of reasons why. but mainly, that's the proposal, as currently written as overly broad. so when you think about providing city funded eviction defence for tenants it sounds like a good idea. and then you look at potentially tenants who are evicted through no fault of their own. what we call no-fault evictions. but that's not what this measure does. this measure provides eviction defence paid by you and i as

taxpayers, for high income tenants and tenants who are creating a new sense for other people in the building, you are not paying their rent for months or years at a time, and who are safety hazards and allowing it to persist in apartment buildings. on top of that, the measurers is an unfunded mandate, what that means is this expansion of government will draw away and necessary resources from our general fund. the general fund we used to build affordable housing, homeless services, clean our streets, those sorts of things. at the measure is just too bro broad. >> why do you believe this measure is so important? >> well, as a noncontroversial statement to say that san francisco is facing a massive displacement crisis. rents are skyrocketing. over 40,000 people have faced eviction in the past five years. one folks are evicted in san

francisco, they often have to leave the city in it's entirety or they end up homeless and on our streets. in fact,, a recent study showed that 71 % of our homeless folks on our streets were actually housed here and san francisco in the past two years. and one of the reasons that that is true it's because there is a massive power imbalance between tenants and landlords in the city. nationally, the statistic is 90 % of landlords go into any eviction with an attorney and 90 % of tenants go into an eviction without them. that means that they lose their homes, even when they shouldn't and even when it is a fraudulent eviction. they often do not fight it because it is so cost prohibitive and difficult. >> thank you. i'm going to ask some questions and i will start with you. >> sure. >> what the mandate legal representation in the situation of nonpayment of rent?

>> it all, covers all tenants. that doesn't mean that they would win the case at all. just like how you get a public defender in a criminal case, you would get an eviction attorney if you are taken to housing court. but that does not mean that an attorney will litigate a case that has nowhere to go at all. and there's been studies in new york, which are the past this in 2016, that creates, it does not take up bunch of time in court. it goes pretty smoothly and quickly. in fact in new york they found that for every dollar they spend on eviction defence, they are saving three dollars and homelessness services. it is just as cost-effective as it is humane. >> thank you. same questions for you charlie. from your point of view, how do you feel about the mandate providing legal representation in the event of a right to vote evictions such as nonpayment of rent? >> the city and county of san

francisco has very highly regulated controls on eviction. the fact of the matter is that they were -- there were around 1700 evictions that took place in san francisco at around 200,000 rental housing units. less than one % of tenants. what that means, because there were only 15 reasons to evict a tenant, is that there are legitimate reasons. sure it might make sense to provide an attorney for an eviction for no fault of their own. but what we see overwhelmingly, is that tenants are evicted for things like breach of rental agreement, nonpayment of rent and committing new sense for other people in the building. it doesn't make sense that we as taxpayers would pay to defend an eviction for a nuisance where a tenant is creating a decreased quality of life or his neighbours. >> the next question will start with you. will income restrictions be put in place for those who could afford representation from using

city provided attorneys at taxpayer expense? >> that is part of the problem with this measure. what that means is that it is inflexible. and san francisco, land is approved by the voters and cannot be approved or changed except of the will of other boats. is a legislative a proposal that would do it almost exactly what this proposal does which is provide eviction defence for residents. if it was worked out in the arena where we believe it should be, you could income test residents and only provide eviction defence for people who couldn't afford an attorney. or you could say that perhaps in the city, it should not pay to defend people who are creating new sense for other people in the building. the legislative process, again the board of supervisors passed this before them currently, they have the ability to legislate the same thing at what reasonable controls where we are all not paying for the attorneys of a very wealthy residents. >> your response to that? >> the truth is that actually, 80 % of tenants that faced eviction are at about 80 % of

a.m.i. so they are already low income folks. it covers everyone because the process necessary to income test everyone is actually not worth doing to exclude the very few amount of folks that could potentially afford it. let's face it. i mean most folks who are very wealthy own their own home and most folks who are wealthy and our renters usually have their own council for things like this and don't rely on public attorneys. >> we will start with you charlie. >> the apartment association would like to ask voters to vote no on proposition x. because again we believe that the measure is overly broad and something the board of supervisors can do legislatively. it will allow for flexibility and it will allow for jan and myself or other community groups to come to a table and negotiate. we can perhaps agree that maybe the executive of a tech company down the street doesn't deserve to have as attorney paid for by

you and i as taxpayers. we can also agree if somebody is creating a life safety risk at the building, perhaps that person doesn't, should not be provided an attorney by us as taxpayers. passing this legislatively allows for much more flexibility and a more collaborative solution. >> so at the time for this is now. this has already been done in new york city and it has been so effective and wonderful. we had a pilot program for this in 2011 it is time to make san francisco the first city in california on the second in the nation to have a legal right to council for tenants facing eviction. that's why huge broad coalition of everyone from teachers and nurses capped a small landlords, tenant groups, neighbourhood associations, democratic clubs, you name it. will come behind us and we are approaching discharging folks to vote for it for san franciscans. >> thank you both for your time. >> thank you.

>> we hope this discussion has been informative. for information about this and other valid measures in the june elections, please visit the department of elections website. member, early voting is available at city hall starting may 7th from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote to state, june 5th. [♪] blank >> self-planning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a

variety of other matters related to the physical urban environment planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of

open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be alerted the community meetings sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for

our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking ann

>> president cleaveland: good morning, everyone. we will begin with the pledge to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> this is a reminder to silence all devices. fire commission may 9th, 2018, it's 9:00. roll call.