new beds that are being created in the situation. and that while technically, and we can check more, that cpmc was greatly instrumental in assisting in this subacute studies that we still need to continue to respond to the need of the city to have subacute services and we want to encourage that cpmc participate in that. because they completed the study, i don't believe that while technically to be considered in compliance that that should be the end of the relationship in terms of any further looking at a subacute solution for the city. we do recognize that it isn't one is that cpmc itself has to come up with. they should be a part of this

solution and that just assisting us with the first level of study in regards to understanding the problem does not absolve either cpmc from having to continue to participate. i believe that we are continuing to have dialogue with cpmc on this and i don't want to say they just walked away and out of the poor but i'd like to have continued i do a log in that and also in regards to resolving the sniff. as they have closed the sniff, there have been no added beds as also been pointed out by the public in regards to the sniff. so, we have kind of a conundrum here. yes, they have complied with the development agreement but there are a lot of areas while

complying we are loosing services that ar are and if we e the opportunity to be able to continue encourage that in the development agreement, we could continue to help influence and work together with this and i'll have some final comments and later after we conclude everybody's discussion, what we would hope from our department that we would be able to do to continue to service the people of san francisco. and in collaboration with cpmc. i think at this point, we should hear from our planning colleagues. >> thank you. >> commissioner fong.

>> i thought the planning commission was complex. you guys certainly have a complex job and i appreciate it. i just wanted to ask, after hearing all the public comment or the community input, it's cpmc had some responses to some of them maybe in particular the subacute care f. there was any reaction to that or things that are in the works that are addressing some of the community comments. >> specifically to the subacute care, as commissioner chow described, those patients have been transferred to the davies campus in a new unit there. the staff are credentialed and trained to handle those

patients. in introduced some of the other schematic things that were brought up, we've got retention numbers here. i'm sorry for the oversight if that was not included in the submission packet. i think the notion of transitioning to these new hospitals, everyone can appreciate is a complex and fluid process. one of the examples and came up around orth a speed i can is a good example of understanding how physician decided that that moment to move cases to a new location. services that support that work also need to follow. we would have loved to have had that decision happen a year ago, six months ago, four months ago, maybe not exactly when it did. but that is when it happened.

our commitment to safe, patient care, especially through these transitions, is the first priority. thousands of hours of training and preparation have gone into this. while i understand there are always going to be differences of opinion or concerns that happen when you get into that acute moment around the transition, our commitment is to absolutely quality, safe care, transitioning these patients from one hospital to another. we do have people here who can talk about some of the h.r. issues. we have someone here who can talk about all the work that's going on to promote the transportation subsidy. scheme atticly those were the things i heard. >> from the planning commission

side, if you don't mind just someone addressing about the transportation and the network system how that might play out. >> i'd like to give you background. i'm a san franciscoan for 50 years and i've worked for cpmc for 41 years. i'm proud to have worked there and continued to work. i have a tremendous amount of colleagues that are committed to cpmc. one of the areas that is complicated and dr. grown knows very well about it is parking. what we have done since last year in january when we started the subsidy, we had put that

information out to employees ever month. on their paycheck there's a by weekly letter that goes on the internet. we hold four transportation a year. this year we're having 12, which four were already completed last month and the next one will be in october and the point of one will be december. our push is to remind employees that the city first is to reduce the s.o.v. when we got the survey returns, a lot of the employees' comments were that they, why they didn't take public transportation. some of them claimed that they work at night and they come on weekends and public transportation is not available for them. amount of the responses were a

lot of especially with mothers, they would have to pick up their kids right after work so their time was consumed. it was necessary to go from one place to the other. we have made tremendous progress from last year, i believe we're now about 850 employees that take the subsidy. we're committed to get the goal much higher. another item that came to concern was that bart and itself is a scary for them to take that and muni was a concern. i know that the city is doing quite a bit of work to resolve those issues. again, we're committed. any other questions? >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you so much. first i wanted to thank city

staff, cpmc, members of the community for coming out to share your perspective and my fellow commissioners, i have just learned so much from you already. like my fellow commission or fong just said, this is a great introduction into your world. [laughter] >> first, it's great to see a community agreement played out in real time and i'm grateful for this opportunity to be able to have a community conversation on what is happening so we can see what is working and what's not and what we can do to make sure we achieve our ultimate goals of providing excellent care to all san franciscans. i wanted to touch on health disparity which is a issue i'm passionate about in relation to the report out on culturally and linguistically appropriate care. this is in the news and several fronts. yesterday president cohen announced a duel a care program

to protect mothers, particularly women of color and their children. in this city black babies are 5% of birth but 23% of infant deaths and 13% of black mothers, 10% of pacific islanders mother and 9.1% have pre term rates which is 50% to 70% higher than white women in this city and that coverage has received national coverage. specific to san francisco and so when we talk about culturally appropriate care, we need to be talking about racism, stress, systemic health inequality and equity as part of those conversations. making sure that people can get care in their community and it's affordable, and you are working specifically not just in making sure that those populations get care but that we're working on reducing bias both in the hiring and staffing processes and our fork worse, which is also

diverse and also combating bias in the industry. i know the cpmc foundation was part of that duela care effort, which is awesome. i love to see other efforts that you are combining with your work force investments to really reduce bias in the industry. we know that it goes from hiring to how the care is actually delivered. on workforce development, another issue i'm passion at about. it's not enough to get people in the door. as my fellow commissioners have said, you have to create the conditions to help them thrive in that requires tracking retention, creating programs and support. so, you know, when we hear that number of 277 folks hired over five years, the number of 128 folks being terminated, that begs to question of someone would worked in workforce development what is happening with training and support for those workers. i have just looked up the average turnover in healthcare and it's about 26%.

those numbers don't mirror that. i know it's a different population but i want to know the average in relation of the workers in relation to the retention of those workers. it's been disheartening to hear about the lvn and rn and cna staff talking about their working continues. this population of the workforce tends to be diverse. they're also vulnerable and crucial to providing quality holistic care. and so, you know, i echo the concerns of the community. we want to better understand kind of what, how you are supporting those workers and that staff and then also, i wanted to address charity care patients. which i hope we can come up with a different phrase for that. really tracking where people are coming from in different zip codes and their ultimate

outcomes and whether they're moving the needle on their outcome. that's what we're trying to get to. if we're not slicing that data by race, location, it's hard to achieve goals if you are not measuring for that data. i grow with commissioner sanchez that i think that going to a deeper level of bet understanding of the data will provide all of us with an important opportunity to make sure that we're having impact, which is our ultimate goal. even perhaps inform the city about what is happening in our workforce pool and what are the best practices on retaining this type of workforce and ultimate

ultimately. >> it's convincing, however, the public testimony, including the questions that i associate was from the health commission themselves, seems to not fully substantiate the highest success rate of the data as been presented. and then comes the public voice which raises issues and anything with can communicate and that is where i feel my primary questions are. i like to basically stand with the san francisco for healthcare housing and jobs and justice questions raised about the seven issues. you have those issues in front of you. i do not want to spend time going over them but each and all of them individually and

together. the matter and require further and in-depth examinations including the strong infusion of the the human voices which testify to the fact that there is a big gap between the words and the deeds. the other points that i was raising is and i'm reading them off as i take notes. they're not necessarily listed in the order of the importance but i would say if i could speak at all of them at the same moment they're leaky as important. the issue of the chinese troops. a transition to new facilities and the lack of coordination at note giving, preparation and training. there is the ever-important nursing staff testimony that i have witnessed now for the entire time that these two commission have had a dialogue about cpmc and changes. there's a patient care testimony

which each of us could find ourselves in in no time. and there is the hiring and job creation and retention issue. those were the ones i wanted to summarize and stand in the room knowing that they were most likely be echoed by all of us. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> thank you, again, to all staff involved from all the departments, all the companies. again, good to see the health commission here as well. i do have multiple comments regarding to the construction site of this project. >> rebekah gregory: i'.i'm not e hospital side. i'm an electrician by trade. before i got into this position, while still working in the field, i worked at multiple of the cpmc campuses on california

campus and pacific campus and later on, it was fortunate enough to work on the building of the new general hospital. i clearly remember the day where i was capable of filling out my local resident paper work and photo copying my driver's license and submitting that end. and it is a big pride for build like hospitals and we frequently see hows and commercial projects but hospitals are a essential corner stone to a well-functioning city and it's something we take seriously here at the planning commission and i'm sure the health commission does as well and i wanted to acknowledge ken and josh. with the office of economic workforce development and their continuing efforts to keep city build an extremely successful pipeline for all types of minorities from disadvantaged

neighborhoods, parents with or without children or parents that are going to have children, and we're definitely keeping an eye on increasing we're taking it to the next level. something i have honestly nothing to do with. we have been noticing a higher acceptance of the lgbt community within our trades and since this increase of diversity, this created the electrical workers minority caucus which has, proud to say, had a float in the pride parade for the last two years. the building trades is really making it strong effort to diversify, stay inclusive and what we've been doing specifically with city build to increase access to all residents, is workout partnerships and deals, for

example, a lot of people cannot pass the entrance exams to get accepted into apprenticiship programs. about what we've done is workout a deal with city build where if you have perfect attendance and a b average, you are able to buy pass the entrance exam and go straight to the interview stage of an prentice ship acceptance process. it gives access to a lot more san francisco residents and all the other zip codes but it's just giving people a chance to reap the benefits of organized labor healthcare benefits. prevailing wage. i'm up here today because i was accepted into a trade. i lived here in the city. i was interested in construction. it took me three times to pass the exam and actually gain acceptance into the electricians programs.

it's no easy task for anybody. the building trades and city builder are working tirelessly to increase the diversity of our construction workers and also the employees that work for the construction companies but off site in the offices. it's something we all take very seriously. if i could just address some of the project-specific notes i wrote. exceeding the proposed timeline almost never happens. this should not be overlooked. the fact that construction, i always look at organized chaos and so many things were scheduled on top of each other that if one small thing goes wrong, the whole entire project is pushed back sometimes months or years. and i i was lated to go to the

cpmc project of the there was a time line of projects that was a one, two, throw step where ucf mission bay was the first one to begin and all the of the residents from that job were supposed to go to the job and those residents were supposed to go to the ctmc of van ness and gary project and it was helped up by a year. things were playing to work in those residents and the hold up at van ness and gary threw a wrench into that. i do know that -- to make sure as many residents are working on this project in the office and on the job site as possible.

so, 30% local hire are considering that this is literally the busiest times the construction industry has seen in their existence and over 130 years, 30% local hire for the van ness and gary and st. luke's is in full compliance as far as i'm concerned. i can't help but emphasize that this is a model project that ideally we can duplicate on other projects with more development agreements. you've got san francisco contracting businesses, building a hospital project in san francisco and employing san francisco residents that attend apprenticiship training centers in san francisco they're paying payroll taxes to the city. some people have said in the past that local hire and local

contractors are bringing a higher cost to the project but when you think about it, we're just reinvesting i in ourselves and we're paying a wage where they might be able to stay in the city. buy a house in the city. stay here in the city and not commute four hours each day. that's just the way i think it should be done and this is the way it's being done on this project. so, again, as far as i'm concerned, from the construction side and the office and on the job site this project is in full compliance. >> thank you commissioner bernal. did you have something else. >> yes, thank you. for the opportunity to just add. i'd like to speak to the responsibility of serving residents the tenderloin. i understand this partnership is only less than a year in existence but when you look at the numbers, 180 versus a goal of 1500, that's only about 12% of that goal. and when you look at the residents of the tenderloin,

serving them alliance with the priorities of the department of public-health and i'll use a presentation that we just received the other day about san francisco's getting to zero initiative. san francisco is exceeded in radically reducing the number of h.i.v. transmissions over the past several years far out pacing the rest of the country. we're about to see a leveling off now. where we're seeing the new infections continuing to happen, is among many of those populations. people who reside in the tenderloin. people who are marginally housed or homeless. people dealing with mental illness. people who use injection drugs. the data shows not only that even if someone does become infected with h.i.v. that if they are able to be retained in care, and get into treatment right away, it reduces, many in cases, eliminates their ability to transmit h.i.v. data shows

that being marginally houses is your adherence to your medication. these are communities that really need to be served and we would like to see better numbers in terms of the community members that you are ability to engage in the tenderloin through saint anthonys. >> thank you. so, i am not going to repeat any of the other comments that my fellow commissioners have made. everybody has had ever point that i have. the exception that i do want to stand with healthcare housing and jobs and one of the particular things that i would expect at our next time reviewing this item is a much deeper analysis in the areas where we're not hitting the numbers. i hear you that, hitting the 30%

in a time of all-time high construction is good. i don't -- i wasn't satisfied with the level of analysis of the numbers that we represented, particularly around th the decre of apprentices so i would like a newance analysis of why that is happening and what we're doing to rectify it and under the purview of the planning commission, especially at the public transportation benefits and what the plan is we are seeing a decrease in car ownership in san francisco. and a major employer with 43% of its workforce living in san francisco is that those public transportation numbers would be higher. i'd like to have a deeper analysis presented of what we're

doing about it and how we're going to see those numbers increase. thank you very much for the presentation, and for the staff, the presentation was clear. for the members of the public who continually come out to keep tabs on this project on making sure that the public benefits that were negotiated in the development agreement are being held. so thank you very much. >> i would just like to also conclude with a few remarks and what i hope we will also troy to carry out some of our obligations from the health commission and the department to try to respond to some of the questions and answers and clearly in one area i did not actually get to go into, also i

think it's the same issue that we've raised here and while we can check the boxes, for example, under the cultural and linguistic standards, we don't have an understanding of what those actually meant in terms of i.d. and analysis, i did a study, i did this and what were the results and findings? to also then, i think coming back to that question, just as an example of -- if we're using people who came to the diabetes clinic at st. luke's, it doesn't seem to capture the -- an analysis needs to be done if the question is should there be that type of service. of course, since it's now been

moved to the foundation, i'm glad to hear the foundation has those services but we would now and that's another example of moving these services from the public side of scrutiny to the private foundation that we then really count on the good will of cpmc. just to conclude then, what i have heard and what i believe that our department would be able to do to help respond to some of the concerns that both the public and our fellow commissioners have raised, i first want to indicate that i think i'm one of the members here who have been through this entire process from even before the construction started. not too many people remember

that i sat even on a blue ribbon committee in regards with what to do with st. luke's and prior to that, there was all the issues also of the rebuild and how big the rebuild should be and where the rebuild should be so it really is wonderful to see that a new community heights area has been built. that is part of fulfilling the public-private partnership in order to have a healthier san francisco. there is no way the public itself, the public side, can actually handle all of the needs that will create a healthy san francisco to respond to the disparities that as another example, st. luke's has been doing as commission sanchez pointed out. and the development agreement in its spirit called for a continuation of that commitment

to the city and that while yes, and it's wonderful that the project has brought $300 million to san francisco, it is not without the needs also to continue to remember the obligation then that as a non-profit hospital, and even just using the historical basis which is why so much was written into the development agreement, to try to be sure that it would not just be a facility to treat those who could afford it. but to be able tol to participae with us. i want to acknowledge that i think cpmc has been working with us. but you know, it seems that we always have to actually keep asking for that to happen and it would be so much nicer if we had hey willing proactive

collaboration, even at our commission meetings when we were looking at the potential of changes, it takes almost that public hearing in order to make some of the accommodations that were needed in order to respond to the needs of our residents. i found that the sutter model of we and you was very interesting. i think at the moment, from what we can hear in the testimony, there's a lot of we and very little you. and instead, i suggest to cpmc that we could have a true we and you if we really didn't look at this as we versus you but we should be we and you. there's an outreach to the community that really is needed, continues to be needed and along that line, we as a department, specifically would be looking at

the issues that i believe the coalition has raised validly and has been also brought up by all commissioners here in terms of -- we're going to only look at the health side. we'll leave you to look at the workforce and all. i believe that we're going to ask our staff to actually try to look more in depth into understanding that not only is it technically done but what was done. i commend san francisco foundation report that is in here that showed you what was done when they received the money? who actually got help and how it happened? i think it's also important we try to where the issues are at saint than on' an anthony and te tenderloin. it's been a year this happened

and we only have this small up take. is it transportation? is it access even at a primary level. welt review this again and try to see if we can also be continuing to be helpful in the partnership that has been put together. again, the center of excellence is certainly something that we would all be concerned about. that could be something and with working with cpmc in terms of the understanding where the issues are. dr. barnes has also outlined his vision obviously the vision is one that needs to be developed by cpmc but i think the consideration is a very good example of working with the community could get a farber far

acceptance and product that meets the needs of the residents in that community. so in conclusion, our department does continue to be eager to work with st. luke's. i will get the new name one day. but with cpmc and sutter. you are very important part of the city. sutter is with the assets that could be placed to great use so that we can continue to enhance the public-private partnership that we've been enjoying between all the hospitals and providers in san francisco with the public sector as we achieve our goal to improve the health of all san franciscans. i do want to thank everybody who participated.

the staff who did such a hard work and analyzing this but i think in our next review, i believe that we've heard a lot more details should be also provided to understand what happened after the check mark. thank you. >> thank you. >> that concludes your agenda today. >> make a motion to adjourn. >> motion to adjourn. >> second. >> should we ex back at 1:30 maybe? >> for those members of the public who are here for the 1:00 meeting of the planning commission, i imagine the commissioners who have been here will wanted to take a quick lunch break so we will convene no sooner than 1:15. >> 1:30? >> very good.

>> thank you. >>

>> good morning, everyone. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the september 12, 2018 rules committee meeting. my name is >> supervisor safai: to my right is norman yee. senior self-sti /* i'd like to thank sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. madame clerk, any announcements? >> would you like to make a motion to excuse supervisor stefani? >> supervisor safai: sure. so moved. >> the announcement today, make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices.

speakers cards to be included as part of the file be submitted to the clerk. >> supervisor safai: great. ok. thank you, madame clerk. today, items 2, 3 and 4 are out of order. >> item number 2 is motion appointing supervisor rafael mandelman, term ending june 30, 2019 to the association of bay area governments executive board. >> supervisor safai: great. unless there are initial comments from committee members, i don't know if anyone from the staff is here, but if not, i think -- oh, you are? if you'd like to say something... satisfy >> supervisor mandelman regrets

he cannot appear in person. he is created to committing regional solutions to our biggest problems and feels that his service to the association of bay area governments and the bay area air quality management district will allow him to work with leaders across the bay area to solve these problems. he will work with each of those bodies to make sure that san francisco gets its fair share of regional transit dollars to move forward projects that address our city's needs. he's looking forward to working to serve the folks of this city, to address the issues, including homelessness, transportation, economic development, where the impactful solutions are going to have to be regional. thank you very much. >> supervisor safai: madame clerk, can you call item 2, can we do 2 and 3 together? >> yes, item number 3 motion

appointing supervisor rafael mandelman term ending february 1, 2021 to the bay area air quality management district. board of directors. >> supervisor safai: seeing none, public comment is closed. i think that was enough presentation for both 2 and 3. can we entertain a motion to appoint supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor yee: i'll make the motion to -- what am i doing? motion appointing supervisor mandelman to the a bank with positive recommendation. >> supervisor safai: and the bay area air quality management. can we do that without objection? great. that item is ordered. >> item number 4 is motion appointing the supervisor vallie

brown to the golden gate bridge, highway and transportation. >> supervisor safai: we're joined by supervisor brown -- wait. oh, actually -- >> deputy city attorney, for this appointment, supervisor, you should recuse yourself or the committee vote to excuse you from the vote. at which point, would you leave, the committee could vote. you will come back in. there is a local law -- >> supervisor safai: she's not sitting in for supervisor stefani. when she's done -- she can't speak at all? >> it's better to allow the committee to make its decision. >> supervisor safai: ok. so she can't say anything on her own behalf? no? got it. ok. so probably better you recuse yourself. great. thank you. so we'll wait for you to leave and then we'll continue. we'll take public comment. any members of the public wish

to comment on item number 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor yee: i'd like to say that vallie brown would make a great commissioner on the golden gate bridge board. [laughter]. >> supervisor safai: i think you're right. so let's make a motion to appoint her. >> supervisor yee: i will make a motion to appoint her. >> supervisor safai: great, thank you, we'll do that without objection. madame clerk, please call item number 1. >> ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the early care and education for all initiative to be funded by the appropriations from the babies and families first fund, including proceed you'res and concerning a spending plan. >> supervisor safai: actually, can you call item number 5.

>> ordinance amending administrative code korir labor peace agreements between employers operating excursion vessels under the port lease and labor organizations. >> supervisor safai: unless we have initial comments, we're joined by a representative of supervisor peskin's office. >> thank you for scheduling the item. supervisor peskin would have loved to have been here, but he is serving in his capacity as the coastal commissioner. brief background on the legislation, supervisor peskin represents the northeastern waterfront, which is at the heart of the bay's very robust tourism industry. which is historically an industry built on good, working class and blue collar union jobs. they have a car check ordinance that requires workers engaged in projects with a significant impact to the economy, including

on property under the port jurisdiction to enter into agreements providing an expedited car check process. meaning a bargaining representative, where they act as alternative to the formal election procedures outlined in the national labor relations act. and if they can't agree, they go to binding arbitration, which of course, has served the city well in terms of staving off economic disruptions. so this ordinance would require that employers agree upon request by their employees labor representative to enter into a peace agreement with a clear path to resolution, including an option to negotiate more terms, when and if the union is recognized. although the legislation is broad enough to give the parties space, it does require that the labor peace agreement at minimum, one stave off disrupting the employer's

economic activity, and two, require that second step of mediation and arbitration if they're unable to reach agreement during the first phase of negotiating the contract. in terms of application, it was important to define eligible port operations as ones that have a significant impact on the city's proprietary interests, so that the ordinance applies to employers or their subcontractors with 40-plus employees that operate excursion vessels under the lease of port property, under leases entered into after the effective date. i know that peter daley is here from the port and can speak to the technical aspects of the port. i'm also here to answer any questions. i thank you for your consideration this morning. >> supervisor safai: wait. so, does the gentleman from the port like to come up and speak? >> good morning, i'm peter

daley, director at the port of san francisco. we have reviewed the legislation and can answer questions regarding its implementation. the idea is to protect the city and the port from any disruption of our monetary opportunities from these excursions operations. they're an important part of the portfolio. i'm here to answer any questions. >> supervisor safai: great. i don't think we have any. any members of the public wish to comment on the item, please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor yee: i want to thank supervisor peskin for introducing this legislation. it's important that our city support our workers and making sure that the operators and contractors and companies actually follow the wishes of the city in terms of having some

harmony and peace. i would like it make a motion -- you want to say anything? >> supervisor safai: i would add to that, i agree it's important that we solidify our labor agreements with regard to private interests that are benefitting from their agreements with the city. so it's really important that we respect the men and women of labor and write that into these contracts. and it seems as though we're doing a lot of this more recently as it relates to this particular economy that we're in. we have another hearing on monday in land use committee with regard to shuttle drivers and their fight for retirement. this is about ensuring that, again, the men and women that work in these excursions, maritime businesses, are also respected. we have many men and women from labor come up yesterday with regard to their treatment in the security and shuttle business,

health care workers, along with those -- some of the lowest paid workers at the airport, nonprofit workers and others. this is a recurring theme, so we appreciate labor and supervisor peskin's office for bringing this forward. >> supervisor yee: so, if it's ok, can you ask supervisor peskin that i be added as coauthor of this? i would like to go ahead and make a motion to pass this out with positive recommendation to the board. >> supervisor safai: and we can do that without objection. please add my name as a cosponsor as well. thank you. madame clerk, item number 1. klô >> clerk: item number 1 is ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the early care and education for all initiative to be funded by the appropriations from the babies and families first fund.

>> supervisor safai: supervisor yee, i hand this over to you. >> supervisor yee: thank you very much. let me start off by saying that this voter-driven initiative was passed in june of 2018 with the san francisco voters. and it is called the early care and education of all initiative. also known as prop c. prop c was a precedent-setting ballot measure. for the public record i want to state that voter initiative means that thousands of voters' signatures were actually submitted and approved. the signatures are then verified by the department of elections to qualify and plan and place as a proposition on the ballot. the passage of the early education for all initiative is the largest local investment nationwide and i think san francisco should be very, very proud of that.

the $140 million will grow and further develop the san francisco early care and education system. and will impact literally thousands and thousands of san francisco children and families, working parents and early educators. the legislation before you today is cosponsored by my colleagues. supervisor kim, ronen and cohen. what it is, it directs the office of care and education to create the 5-year spending plan in the process of community engagement, and the creation of the plan. however, before i go through the legislation, i need to highlight there are forces, namely the jarvis taxpayer association, and the builders, owners -- building owners management social who have decided to sue the city to

overturn what passed in june. this is appalling and unacceptable. for literally decades, advocates and people from the community have been sharing their stories. the press wages of the early educators desperately sharing the challenge and having severe shortage of retaining quality early educators. highlighting research about the brain development in the first five years of life, and making millions of dollars in budget request. the community requested last year was more than $300 million to address the needs and gaps in san francisco. the voters of san francisco heard the cries, recognized the benefits of investing in early care and education, and passed this ballot measure and yet boma

and others want to silence our residents' vote in the name of profit. it is a gross example of big business attempting to use their power to overthrow the vote of the voters. this revenue for -- this measure only generate through a tax to the largest commercial landlords in the city, who are currently paying some of the lowest gross commercial tax rates in the country at .04%. large commercial real estate benefitted from the trump tax breaks and rather than paying their fair share, they're now using the city. instead of seeing this as an opportunity to be a true partner in the community and leveraging the benefits of early education for all for their tenants and their employees, they are suing to take away your votes.

i will not stand for this, that will impact thousands of families in this first year of implementation alone. as a city, we will fight, not only to invest in early education, working families and our educators, but will work to uphold the will of the san francisco voters. we will not allow the largest commercial landlords to use their money and power to take away our votes. this is why without hesitation we're moving forward with the legislation for implementation. before i call the director of the office of early care and education, i want to share the details. the premise of this legislation is that the office of care and -- early care and education is really pretty straight forward. we just want to move on making sure that we have a strategy when we start, actually implementing the program. so there are two major parts to

this. we're asking the office within 30 days, will submit a report on their procedures for the development of the spending plan. this is a tremendous investment and we must ensure that there is substantive community engagement process, including input from the office of ece advisor committee, early educators, parents. working parents of young children schedules are impacted. this is why this legislation ensures multiple avenues of engagement including community meetings, surveys online and in person. currently i have in the legislation, and i'll talk about some amendments in a second. but currently within six months,

the office will submit a five-year spending plan that includes a ramp-up plan for how to clear the wait list of the lowest income families, increase our early educator wages, expand access to our middle income families. the spending plan directs the office to create a reserve for times when there is an economic down turn to ensure that the continuity of the care and programming for children and families. i think before i actually call the director, i want to talk about some amendments that we are proposing today. most of it is over -- has already been written into the revised version that i'm going to hand out. so there is only a few amendments that i'd like to make.

on page 2, lines 10-12, in the community bodies to be included in the spending plan discussion, i would like to amend it to include the first san francisco, and the childcare planning to actually write in the first childcare planning and advisory council cpac. it's a mandated planning council that plans for the childcare and development services based on needs of the families in the local community. then, i also in this -- within what is handed out, currently the minimum starting point to increase wages is 10%. and again, i want to stress this is a minimum. this is not enough. this is merely a stated minimum and though the spending plan analysis and through the sending plan analysis of the funding, i'm expecting this percentage to

grow. this is guidance, but i motion to add the language for the ultimate, which is compensation -- i would like to add the wording, compensation go having parity with k-12 educators commensurate with experience. so that would be on page 3, line 6-8. again, this is -- i'd like to say that some of the language we have in there, we want to include to be aspirational. we want to make sure that we know where we're heading and at some point, maybe soon, or it could be later, we actually reach these aspirations. and the other thing that i added on there was to delete page 3. on page 3, line 16-23. subsection c. as proposed, the language in the

ordinance is a little bit confusing. so rather than trying to word smith it, i think it's easier to take it out. it says that the priorities of the early education for all initiative are laid out in the propositions language. so we don't need this, the language there. the cleanup language makes it more clear the office of ece to retain discretion, to allocate resources. that is the intent. and i think taking it out will not change that intent. i want to say that what is not in there, that after thinking about and listening to, not only the community, but also the people that need to implement it at the office of ece and speaking with the mayor

recently, that right now we have the implementation or the plan to be completed within six months. and when thinking about it -- there is an urgency. that's why we put six months in the first place. but let's be realistic about all this. six months, we may not be ready. not only because maybe the plan isn't ready, but i think when we're talking about many of the issues that we're dealing with in terms of lawsuits and so forth, i don't really see us necessarily being able to spend six months. and one of the things i didn't take into consideration when we were thinking about six months, is that we know at city hall that actually during the months of -- end of november when thanksgiving starts and through the li