>> 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 h, a measure that will be before the voters on june 5th. the san francisco police commission is a civilian body that sets residence lation for the police department tazers are weapons that discharge electrical currents into an individual. auto mated external defibrillators are portable electronic devices that are used following a heart attack. san francisco police officers do not currently use tazers. about half of police department patrol vehicles versus defibrillators. any policy control on tazers or defibrillators cannot be changed by the commission. tazers may be used when a person is actively resisting, assaulting or exhibiting any action likely to result in serious bodily injury or death of another person, themselves or a police officer. proposition h would authorize

the police department to purchase tazers for each police officer subject to the following conditions: the officer has successfully completed the department's use of force and threat assessment training, uses only police department issued tazers and holsters. holsters the tazer on side of his or her body opposite from the firearm. police department vehicles are equipped with defibrillators in districts where tazers are carrie, and there is an investigation and report each time an officer uses a tazer. this may be amended only by a majority of the voters of san francisco or by an ordinance adopted by a vote of four fifths of the board of supervisors. a yes vote means if you vote yes, you want to set a policy for the use of tazers and authorize the purchase of tazers for each police officer by the police department superintendent to specific conditions. a no vote means if you vote no, you do not want to adopt this measure. i'm here with tracey mcray from yes on h and a proponent of

proposition h. welcome? >> thank you. >> we're joined by john roy, a proponent of no on h. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> we're going to start with tracey. why do you believe this proposition is so important. >> so i'm a native of san francisco. i was born and raised here. for the past 29 years i've been a police officer in the city and county of san francisco. currently i work in the bayview district which has had a number of high profile incidents, shootings, assaults. as police officers, we need the best tools available for us to do our jobs, to go home safely, to keep the public safe, and this ballot measure will do that. i know that people have often times felt that tazers are inherently dangerous, we don't need them, we've been in a long, arduous fight trying to

get tazers, even though when the d.o.j. collaborative reform recommended in their 27 two-page evaluation that we have tazers, that people have always stated that no we shouldn't. and numerous police departments throughout the bay area have them. >> thank you. john, why do you feel this proposition is so important. >> well, i think the most important thing for people to take away is just the unbelievable opposition to the scope of h. if you heard what tracey said, if it was really that simple and true, you have to ask yourself why are both protazer people and antitazer people opposed to it? why are progressives and moderates, why is the san francisco chronicle and san francisco activists? because it's not as simple as tracey portrayed it. this is not about tazers, yes or no. the police commission already approved tazers, and the p.o.a. went ahead and put this measure on the ballot. this is about when tazers are used and more importantly who

gets to regulate them. this ballot measure is reckless and dangerous. it would strip the police chief and the commission from their ability to make any changes in the policy that was carefully created, no matter what happens, and i look forward to getting into greater detail. >> well, that is going to lead us into our questions, and the first question goes to you, john, and it's what are the advantages or disadvantages to this proposition. >> well, honestly, i don't see any advantage because even if you're protazer, the policy has already been created through the process recommended by the justice department, the obama justice department cop's office, and just to slightly correct tracey here, they didn't recommend tazers, they recommend that it be strongly considered, and that a collaborative process be used to try to develop the policy, a collaborative process that has been tried all over the country. i've worked with the department of justice, departments all over this country. you bring in the union, the

stakeholders, experts, medical people, and you craft the best policy possible. this is what happened. the police commission approved tazers in november , and they adopted a policy on march 14th that the mayor supports, that the police chief supports, and yet, the p.o.a. is going forward with this measure because they do not like it, and they want to strip the commission and the chief from the ability to regulate it. there are two big differences between what prop h would allow and what the p.o.a. law would set into stone. one is prop h would strip the requirement that officers try deescalation deescalation before using force, especially important on as weapon as dangerous as tazers. second, the commission looked at this weapon and said this is a dangerous weapon. they need to use this only when there's resistance, and they have proposed in this law and locking into place no physical dangerous whatsoever, moorely bracing, moorely verbally noncomplying, and you can use this weapon, and it's dangerous. >> thank you. tracey, same question to you. what are the advantages or

disadvantages to this proposition? >> well, i respectfully disagree with him about the language. so the language of this proposition, the way the police commission has it, has been very restrictive. so the most restrictive language, the less the officer will likely use this device. so we're getting into semantics will assaultive behavior, like he said, bracing. no, it's clearly spelled out in the p.o.a.'s language for proposition h about the training and the need to deescalate and having proper training, the 40 hours of c.i.t., another ten hours of deescalation practical exercises, so the training is there, having the medical equipment on-site. it -- it boggles my mind that the sheriff's department has tazers, and we never had this sort of diversion about getting this piece of equipment. they took away the carotid

restraint, which we never had a negative use of force. i've used that numerous times, but then it was taken away. we were given shields and long batons to use, but there was no training given to us on how to use those. so it was here you go, they've taken that away from us, but here's a baton and shield. our position is the language is too restrictive. if they want to down the road revisit language, the police commission can do that, so -- >> thank you. the next question will go back to you, tracy. should voters be making decisions about police weaponry? >> the voters are part of the community. the community is a stakeholder. they should have a stake in this. i'm a citizen of san francisco. i vote, so why not have a say in what we do?

the police commission, now two commissioners are leaving the police commission board, so when are we ever going to get to meet and confer about this topic? so it's incredible that it's taken this long, eight years, that we've been talking about this, when other departments have this. the sheriff's department, their tazer policy is four pages long. you have oakland that has this, san jose that has this, but all of a sudden, san francisco, we're a world dlsh class cit-- class city, we should beequipping our officers to keep the people safe. >> same question to you, john. >> they shouldn't be locking into law a standard that cannot be changed. i need to correct here what my friend from the p.o.a. said. it's clear in the language of this law that it cannot be changed. the police commission will have no power, the chief will have

no power to change anything that is inconsistent with what is being proposed here. that is what is so dangerous and radical. it is unprecedented, and i'm not aware of a single police union that has actually tried to take something like this away. this is an unbelievably radical measure. and with respect to the particular standard, it's right here in black and white, the terms the p.o.a. chose to use were active resistance, which is defined. it's a police term of art. it's defined in sfpd manual as tensing or running away or not complying. we want to see if we can make a looser standard over time, why not start with a more restrictive policy, on a weapon that has been this controversial. again, tazers have already been

approved. this isn't about whether or not you get tazers. that's already been decide dangerous dred. that's not the issue on the ballot. >> thank you. closing statements, i'll start with you, tracy? >> like i said, it's been a long process trying to equip our officers with tazers. voting yes on this proposition will ensure that officers do their annual training, complete deescalation. they will be required to have accountability, which we do right now. as a sergeant, i fill out a very long form to do that. with he will have medical equipment, defib railators on board if we do use this tool. prop h, i believe, is the correct policy. people have the choice to vote yes or no. obviously, we got enough signatures to get it on the ballot, so obviously, people want this -- this tool, this device for us to use.

if that wasn't the case, then we wouldn't have been able to put it on the ballot. >> thank you. your statement. >> this is a deeply cynical argument. the p.o.a. has put $180,000 on this campaign already. they spent $140,000 on a paid campaign to gather signatures to mislead voters. they told them this was about whether or not they have tazers, when in fact the police commission already approved it. this is why the league of women voters and sffovtv did this. we strongly encourage you to read the voter guide. there's more information on our website, votenoproph.nationbuilder.com. you will vote no like most of the people who have looked at it have already decided. >> thank you for your time. we hope that this discussion

has been informative. for more information on this and other measures in the ballot initiative, please visit sfelections.org, remember early voting is available on may 7th from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on june 5th. thank you.

>> supervisor cohen: and we're live. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i want to welcome you back to the budget and finance committee. my name is malia cohen. i'm the chamber of this committee, and to my right is supervisor sandy fewer, to my further right is supervisor jeff sheehy. to my left is supervisor kathrin stefani and further left is anthony yee. our clerk today is kathrin majors, and we are grateful to sfgovtv for their broadcasts. madam clerk, are there any announcements? [agenda item read] >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you very much. could you please call items 1, 2, and 3 together.

>> clerk: yes. item number 1 is a resolution determining and declaring that the public interest and necessity demand the construction, reconstruction, acquisition, improvement, seismic strengthening and repair of the embarcadero seawall and other needed infrastructure. item 2 is a plan reviewing the city's two year fiscal plan to increase the proposed seawall bond from 350 million to 425 million to fund phase one of the seawall program. and item number 3 is an ordinance calling and providing for a special election to be held in the city and county of san francisco on tuesday, november 6, 2018. >> supervisor cohen: great. thank you very much. first, i'd like to call up our city administrator, naomi kelley. she will be making a brief presentation, and following her will be the director of the san

francisco port miss elaine forbes. >> good afternoon, supervisors. naomi kelly. supervisor administrator. first on behalf of the capital planning committee. i am very happy to be here today to introduce the seawall earthquake safety bond measures that are before you for recommendation and inclusion on the november 2018. it supports our regional transportation including the b.a.r.t. and muni tubes, and ferry services. it protects our city from flooding, it supports critical utilities, whether it's water, sewer, electrical, telecom, and emergency response and disaster recovery infrastructure. it makes it possible for our way of life and it's a big part of who we are in san francisco. the seawall's importance to so many different assets is how we've come to understand the

urgency of the need in the first place. in 2014, under the leadership of then-mayor ed lee, the city introduced the lifeline's interdependency studies to study the interdependency across the region. the seawall was identified as one of the most critical interdependency issues that could impact emergency response efforts and the safety of our people and property following a major earthquake. once we understood the magnitude of the risk and the need, the seawall rose to the top of our capital planning priorities. the seawall bond before you and hopefully placed on our november 2018 ballot is in the amount of 425 million, which was recommended unanimously by the capital planning committee earlier this spring. i'll wrap up here by saying that as city administrator, it

has been graduatifyig that we e kept our eye on this issue and we need to make the seawall stronger for our residents, and our visitors, and with that i'd like to introduce elaine forbes, port director. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. >> thank you so much, city administrator kelly. i'm elaine forbes, port director. first i'd like to thank you, chairman cohen and members of the committee for having a hearing on this item. i would like to thank director kelley because she has provided a lot of the funding to keep the seawall project going. i'm very proud to represent the port staff and commission in what's really a milestone day for the port as we work together to protect our city by strengthening the embarcadero seawall. i ask that you place a 425 million general obligation bond on the november ballot to support the seawall earthquake

safety and disaster prevention program. and if i could please move to the overhead. the seawall, as city administrator kelly said, is unseen, mostly. it's 100 years old and it's served our city and region very well over the last decade, but we now must make significant investment for the seawall to protect the next generation. this bond will strengthen the seawall, to protect the city from earthquake, address flood risk and provide current adaptation for sea level rise. staff has prepared the geobond describing the port program and the need for the funding. we'll make final edits to this report once the committee takes action today but before the bond legislation is introduced at the board of supervisors. so members of the public may be asking what is the seawall, and i'll say you're not alone.

because it is unseen infrastructure. we all don't know about this work horse for us. it's three miles long. it stretches from fisherman's wharf in the north to mission creek in the south. the state of california built this infrastructure between 1870 to 1910, turning mud flats into a vibrant deep water port. during the construction, we reclaimed 500 acres of land in san francisco. it provides flood protection to the reclaimed land and our san francisco neighborhoods and provides critical regional buildings and infrastructure. in fact all the buildings between san francisco bay and first street are made possible by the seawall. however that filled land was created way before modern engineering standards, and that land -- that filled land is subject to liquefaction during

a major earthquake. city director kelley describes the seawall being on the city's lifelines of critical infrastructure in 2014. we were described as one of the most critical lifeline engineering study. we found in a major seismic event, the land behind the seawall will liquefy, causing many problems. quite simply, it is an unsafe condition which we cannot stand by. in addition to this earthquake risk, the embarcadero faces current flood and future flood risks. we're already experiencing annual close you ares of the embarcadero during king tide. we know that the muni and

b.a.r.t. tunnel is at risk today in a 100 year storm flooding. we know that sea levels are expected to rise as much as 24 inches by 2050 and 66 inches by 2100. and with just 18 inches of sea rise, flooding on the embarcadero will be a regular occurrence and will have flood problems in sections of the downtown. we need to bolster and protect our line of defense. why is this so critical? the lifelines council report raised alarms regarding the seawall because of the important role it plays for the city and the region. first, it's a key piece of the city's response in case of disaster. in an earthquake, d-e-m expects the waterfront to provide emergency response to people, to get people home in the region and to get goods in. it's a major place of evacuation, delivery of disaster workers, equipment, and supplies. the seawall protects our

regional transportation hub. 440,000 people arrive by boat, b.a.r.t., muni every day. over half a million people board muni trains on a daily basis. it provides infrastructure facilities, and it enables 25 million of economic activity and protects over 100 billion of property value. this is what's at stake if we do not act. if we do not act and let disaster strike, the project could cost much more and would harm life safety. what will the bond fund? the port seeks this geobond through a variety of actions, project implementation, protection, mitigation and enhancement. through the course of the program, the port will engage a broad range of stakeholders and

constituents, especially our city departments, private and public industry, port tenants and interested parties. because this is our first major sea level rise project to endeavor, we must engage not only ourselves but young people who will be coming up and dealing with this issue into their lifetimes. this bond will fund seismic improvements to the seawall. current concepts come from initial studies and similar projects elsewhere, including seattle, which replaced their seawall. potential approaches to seismic retrofit include ground improvements, seawall replacement, structural replacement to utilities, walls, and piers, and utility replacement. similar to seismic improvements, strategies to combat sea level rise will vary depending on the different sections of the waterfront. some sections are relatively open and will allow fore more flexible strategies with

benefits. the port expects that these vital improvements will provide the foundation for future adaptation measures. when selecting both seismic and flood mitigation projects that this bond will fund, we will apply a vetted set of criteria, including considerations of the benefits to life safety and emergency response as well as factors such as project length, risk avoided and community and environmental benefits so that we are spending our dollars as wisely as possible to protect the public. to replace the overall seawall and prepare for sea level rise what we're predicting for 2100 would cost up to $5 billion. we expect it would take about 30 years to complete all these improvements. given the size and scope of this work, we're biting off -- we're breaking this project into phases that really make

the most sense for the risk we're facing. phase one will address immediate life safety risks. this is what's before you today, and emergency response and recovery needs and will develop the next set of seismic and adaptation projects. phase two -- and this is into the midcentury will continue to address seismic retrofit and will address more projects to address sea level rise. phase three, which we expect 2050 to 2100. that envisions a real long-term vision for the waterfront, creating a new line of defense for future generations. supervisors, what is before you today, addressing the life safety risks and a down payment on the future projects. we are continuing to work with our engineering consultant,

c.h. 2 m hill to final lies our phase one graphic. we've begun a multilevel seismic graphic, testing out different ground strengthening techniques. in 2021, full blown construction will begin after we've completed permitting and environmental review and is expected to be completed in 2026. the port estimates that this first phase is 500 million, as i've said. of course the primary source is a proposed geobond for 425 million. we also have secured 10 million from our federal partners from army corps of engineers and we are securing 55 million from the state. currently ab 2578 is pending. assembly members chiu and ting

and state senator weiner are working for us to capture these funds. what is our pact? the port commission approved this plan, we are recommending this to you. we are asking you to send this to the full board today. deputy city attorney givner has some recommendations relative to a split file, and you'll be hearing from supervisor peskin's office about future amendments at the board, but otherwise, this is our path to a november question in front of the san francisco voters. the proposed $425 million seawall bond, again, is a first step in a generational long program to strengthen and make safe our embarcadero and to protect our city. we cannot wish these threats

away, and with your leadership, with the leadership of late mayor lee, he was such a great supporter of this project, mayor farrell, president breed, supervisor peskin, with all of you with our state and local -- our state and federal delegation and our community stakeholders, we can build the future we want to see and prepare the framework for our children, and so we urge your support today and we're here to answer any questions. thank you so much. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, miss forbes. i appreciate your presentation. thank you, miss kelly, for your presentation, as well. i actually have a few questions for the city attorney, and then, we will hear from s sonny angulo. could you explain to us the

change in the state rule that is expected to affect this legislation? >> mr. givner: sure. deputy city attorney jon givner. last year, the state legislature adopted a bill that requires that any time a ballot measure is proposed to the voters that could increase taxes, it has to have certain information in the measure, including how much will be collected each year, what the potential rate of taxation is, how long collection would continue. and so going forward, all tax measures and geobonds must include that information. the legislature is currently considering a bill that would not apply that new rule to geobonds, so it's a little unclear at this point whether the state law will restrict how we define the question for this bond. in the current ordinance before

you, there is a proposed question for the geobond. >> supervisor cohen: right. >> mr. givner: because the state law might change, our recommendation today is that you can pass out the ordinance onto the full board, and the ordinance -- and the board could even vote to place the ordinance on the ballot over the next several weeks. but before you do that, we recommend you duplicate the file and amend the duplicated file so that you keep a version of the question in committee, so that in july, once we have a better sense of where state law's going, the committee might need to take up the -- the question ordinance again and tweak the language of the question and then, the board would change the question by the end of july. >> supervisor cohen: will we then know about the state rule? when will we know about the state rule? >> mr. givner: we're talking to the state lobbyists about

exactly when we'll know. if -- if there is no resolution by july, no change in the state law, then, we will advise the board to -- to amend the question. the question currently in this ordinance is anticipating that the state law will be changed to give us flexibility in how we draft the question. >> supervisor cohen: okay. so procedurally, if we duplicate the file, and -- well, if we duplicate the file, how about that affect the election timeline? >> mr. givner: it won't affect the election timeline. you can duplicate the file so then you have two ordinances. one ordinance, you can pass out of committee today, and the full board can consider it on june 12. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> mr. givner: the second ordinance, you would amend to basically strip out everything from that ordinance other than the question itself. and so you'd have a very short

ordinance that stays in committee that just has the question so that in july, say july 5 or -- july 5 committee meeting or july 12 committee meeting, the committee can take that ordinance up that's sitting here before you, and pass that ordinance, and the board could pass that ordinance later in july. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. next want to hear from sonn sonny angulo. >> thank you, supervisor. we have been talking with the board about some more explicit language in the ordinance that captures some of the acknowledgement around mitigation as well as the most feasible preferred alternative for construction along the embarcadero so that our voters who have this measure before them understand what our good government policy is and what