presented here, this is where a lot of the frustration begins for me. i' i'll just admit i'm frustrated because of the lack of coordination with this body. you came to us and asked us for a permit for unshared scooters. without an ordinance passed by this body, all of the continuing operators would be allowed to continue to operate in san francisco, is that correct? you needed legislation from the board of supervisors to halt what was, i guess, arguably a loophole in the system in san francisco, right? >> well, supervisor, my interpretation was this board asked how we could get what was deemed a scooter problem under control. >> supervisor safai: right. you would not be able to regulate the sidewalks or the

dumping or putting of these shared power scooters -- i think we established that supervisor peskin put that forward. our body unanimously passed that. and then, we didn't hear from you again. you created a program and a permit. did you come back to this body -- did you work with any members of the board of supervisors to create this program? >> so we had a hearing here on the 24, when this body created the program, and one of the things that we heard was that moving quickly to get an effective pilot program in place was a high priority for this board. >> supervisor safai: i know that myself -- i know that supervisor peskin asked for technology -- what -- what was -- deputy city attorney givner, there was a reference in there to a conversation that you and i had with supervisor peskin before he left. was it -- >> mr. givner: privacy? >> supervisor safai: privacy,

right. is that part of the permit currently? >> yes. all permit -- anybody receiving a permit under this pilot is required to sign onto a privacy policy as part of the terms and conditions of the pilot. >> supervisor safai: okay. so that's good. but this body was not asked to review the -- the proposed permit before it was set out, is that right -- or the proposed application or the criteria, is that right? >> that's right. my understanding was the legislation that you passed unanimously setup the violation but also directed the m.t.a. board to move quickly to create the pilot program. >> supervisor safai: i don't know if it says quickly, but it says that there would be a violation and you should create a permit program. it said no one should operate these without a permit program. yes. >> supervisor safai: okay, so you never came back to this body and asked for our input, i would say. was the scoring criteria, was the structure in which everyone would be able to apply for these, was this published in

advance? did you promulgate how these would be listed? >> yes. it showed up in division two of the transportation code which the m.t.a. made when it created the pilot program in april, so the m.t.a. board's legislation specifically refers to some of the issues around safety and equity. secondly, the application itself includes required responses from any of these criteria. and thirdly, there are the emerging principles which were passed by our board and the transportation authority. >> supervisor safai: did you put the criteria in advance? was it promulgated this is how many categories you're going to be judged on, this is how much weight each one is going to have. was that's put out in advance of the application? >> the criteria we put in the

application, it's a good question about the weight. we did not publish -- this was not a procurement -- like a request for proposal where we were asking vendors to come in and score five points on this, ten points on this. that were certain issues, like accountability and safety, for which a poor rating would not have been acceptable, no matter how they would have scored on the other criteria. for that reason, we didn't publish a specific criteria, where if you get, like, 26 points out of 50, you get a permit. >> supervisor safai: usually, if you've got a permit process, applicants need to know how much weight in each category is going to be given so they understand. i'm -- again, i don't want to get into any specific application. i understand that there's appeals in front of the body. i'm just trying to understand the larger framework on which -- so we've established that we setup the ability for you to -- for there to be a violation for

these to operate without a permit. we said there needed to be a permit. we gave you that authority. you created that application for a permit, but were -- were the criteria published in advance and was there a clear direct on how much weight each category would be given? it sounds like there was not. >> i think we built a pretty good public record of what categories and issues needed to be responded to. we did not give a specific weight or scoring at this time like you asked. >> supervisor safai: okay. another ordinance that we passed was put forward by supervisor yee. it was emerging technology. resolution for guiding principle, and the city administrator was asked to put together a working group. did you ask that working group to weigh in on your permit process? did you ask them to review or weigh in at all on the application for this particular permit? >> we did not share the

applications. >> supervisor safai: not the application, but what you were putting out as part of the actual application process. did you go to that group and ask them to weigh? >> no, we asked the joint committee of the m.t.a. and t.a. >> supervisor safai: but you didn't go to the emerging technology working group that supervisor yee setup specifically to cover all types and forms of emerging technology? >> we did not review the process with them, no. >> supervisor safai: okay. and did you go out to community based organizations or neighborhoods that are currently under served by alternative forms of transportation before you put out your documentation? did you get any input on the actual application for the -- in

terms of under served communities? >> yes, we did. we got that input in this chamber on march 24. we got that input on the our -- at our board on april 27. >> did you go out to the community other than the one meeting with our board. did you go out to underserved communities to solicit feedback? >> so m.t.a. staff had met with some community groups in under served communities. for instance, united save the mission. i do not want to suggest that that group or any group has endorsed the process, but we've done some of that outreach. >> supervisor safai: okay. so it sounds like the answer to that is no. i had a particular interest in the issue -- one of the speakers spoke about this, some of the companies that were operating or some of the practices to some of the companies were to pay to do piece rate in terms of the collection process, and we had asked there to be a labor piece provision. is that included in your permit?

>> yes. we've comm we've committed that no scooter permit will go out until the vendor has signed a labor permit. >> supervisor safai: and i guess my land question, i'll hand it over to any other supervisors that want to ask a question -- so your body, there's been some debate, and this might -- there's been some direction given about past practices of companies. we've gotten differing results, and i'm only refer to what i've read in the paper, but there's been some confusion about this. as part of your criteria, was it past practices of the business as it pertained to the scooter business or was it past practices of the business in general? >> so actually -- would it be okay if i take a second to quote

the transportation board? because the board gave us some specific direction, and i don't want to misstate it. >> supervisor safai: sure. >> so there's a section in the division two changes -- that the division two ordinance that was passed that said in evaluating a permit application, director may consider the extent to which an operator has the capacity to meet the permit terms based on past experience, including compliance with applicable laws and its efforts to ensure compliance with its users with applicable laws. so i -- again, without going too far into the how we evaluated specific applications. >> supervisor safai: so that's an existing section of your transportation code. >> no. our board added that to the transportation code to govern the pilot program. >> supervisor safai: when? when did that add that? >> that was on may 1. >> supervisor safai: so your board added that specific

language on may 1 as it pertained to this specific application permit. >> it's in the section of the transportation code governing powered shared scooter program, so it applies specifically to this program. >> supervisor safai: can you read it one more time? >> in evaluating a permit application, the director may evaluate an extent based on past experience, including compliance with applicable laws and its efforts to ensure compliance by its users with applicable laws. >> supervisor safai: i don't hear anything in there specifically about refining to the scooter. you're saying it's a broad statement of past practices? >> that's -- that's right. >> supervisor safai: and that was authorized by your board. >> that's right. >> supervisor safai: actually, in the beginning of that statement, it says scooter.

>> that text appears in the section entitled power scooter share permit issuance. >> supervisor safai: so i'm assuming you would be talking about past practices of shared scooters, not the overall universe of how a company behaved. i don't know. can -- can i have an interpretation from the city attorney on that? it sounds like if it's under a section of power shared scooters in that section of the code -- >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. i agree with mr. mcguire that this is a law that was adopted by the m.t.a. board governing the powered shared scooters program. i am very reluctant, given the timing here of giving this body interpretations of the code. >> supervisor safai: that's fine.

that's one we'll leave. it sounds like it could be up to debate. i guess my last question is can you talk a little bit about there's this conversation about five permits were authorized by your body, but you chose to only issue two. can you talk about that? >> right. so our board gave us the ability to issue anywhere from zero to five permits with a total cap of up to -- >> supervisor safai: when you say up to five, would might not have issued any permits? >> we met with most of the applicants in the permitting process, and so we were given that latitude by our board and told to make sure that we offered the permitted to the applicants -- permits to the

applicants who scored the highest. >> supervisor safai: so why only two? why didn't you issue all the way up to five? >> maybe i'll just answer that question generally. >> supervisor safai: yeah. >> in the matrix, our scoring sid that there were clearly two that out scored the rest. and as a result, we thought that issues those two permits to the applicants that made the strongest showing would deliver the best service. >> supervisor safai: were there any other agencies that were involved in the evaluation process? who was involved in the evaluation -- was it just completely m.t.a. staff? >> well, obviously, we worked very closely with our city attorney, and as i said, we're building on the principles that

were developed jointly with the transportation authority staff. [inaudible] >> we also got feedback from the department of the environment. we worked with the department of public works to make sure that we were equipped for, you know, the potential confeiscation issues, and we have consulted with the police department, as well. >> supervisor safai: okay. i'll hand it over to supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: so a couple of things that i wanted to say, and it's a little distinct from supervisor safai that i was actually very impressed how quickly you crafted a permit program and how quickly you are now issues them.

getting r.p.'s out that we approved on june 30 sometimes don't get out until april of the following year. i just wanted to congratulate the board and the staff for moving so quickly. i'm very impressed that we are ready to issue permits on october 15. i do want to clarify that while the ordinance that this board unanimously passed gave sfmta the ability to permit these types of scooters, the department of public works already had the authority to remove these unpermitted scooters. and so even though m.t.a. didn't have that ability to permit them -- not permit them, we already had a city agency that was removing them under our current code, and that was the conflict that we were trying to address for. so there was no ability for the

city to legally permit these scooters that city was just picking up because they were clutter on our sidewalk. so i think that's really important to note, that this process had to happen, that we couldn't just have these scooters out there because they would get cleared out by the city, by a different agency. there is a different type of hearing partly because this board of supervisors pursuant to the city charter doesn't have authority to make decisions around contracting. mr. givner, i was hoping you could clarify the roles of the different branchs via contracts. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. the board of supervisors does have the authority to review and approve the sfmta's contracts

that exceed $10 million or 10 years or bring in $1 million of revenue. but a permitting program like this is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the m.t.a., so that the m.t.a. board plays the role that the board of supervisors would otherwise play adopting the program. and the m.t.a. staff has authority to implement the program. and the board of supervisors because of its separate role from the m.t.a. under the chatter doesn't have decision making authority on either front. >> supervisor kim: i do just want to say because there are these clear authorizations of power, i don't think it's -- it is just a very awkward hearing because while i'd love to given put to you on what i'd like you to consider, i don't want to provide input on who you finally

select or how many you select. i feel like that's a distinguishing line, and maybe that's just more of what's culturally appropriate versus what is permissible. i just want to say a couple of things. i did look up that article after one of the members of the public talked about kind of what is happening in other cities with this gig economy job through many of these e-scooters, and i read the atlantic article and i was disturbed to see what type

of -- i do think it's our best interest to ensure that all of these workers are city employees versus outside contractors. let's create real jobs with benefits for employees. i've always said when i get these great economic studies on how many jobs we're creating or not creating that i would rather create 100 good paying jobs with benefits than 300 jobs barely paying minimum wage. i appreciate mr. walsh's statements that scoot hires all of its employees in house, ensuring that they get the compensation and benefits that all their employees do. by the way, i know scoot also runs the moped program, and i do think they run a great program. not commenting on who you should award contracts to, but that's

just my comment, to the best of sfmta's ability that we should be encouraging these businesses to be providing about benefits. again, i just want to thank you for moving so quickly. there's clearly -- you heard a lot from members of the public that they'd like to see us pilot this program and see if it works, and if it can be a last mile connector, and see if it gets people out of private vehicles, including uber and lyft. i think the public's out on that still actually. i'm personally open to public biking rather than scoots, but i78 i'm open to see what's happening. but i just wanted to comment thus far. >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor. are you going to say something, supervisor tang?

so i just want to come back to an important point, and i always appreciate the conversation and debates that we have and in this chamber. normally, supervisor kim and i are in agreement. but on this one particular point, i am not in agreement because i hail from a part of san francisco and live in a part of san francisco that is dramatically underserved by emerging technologies. the way sometimes speed can help in the way rerowe roll out prog, and yes, there's been a lot of debate on speed and how quickly we can get them out. but in our neighborhood that has not been served by this, it would benefit to have community input in this process, and that is what is frustrating to me. there is a lot of areas in my district that would be greatly served by this. so if we would have been asked to have input in this process, i

would have said let's ensure that one of the criteria for selection would be that there's going to be a robust and well laid out plan to serve and employ -- to your point, supervisor, because i care deeply about it not being piece rate employment, and that's what i care about, when people are paid by the number of items or individual units that they produce for a company. i do think that that is important, and i appreciate the fact that you're saying that there is going to be a labor provision. but in terms of the creation, it is important, because if we had had an opportunity or if the public had had an opportunity to have input in the overall process, there might have been a slightly different criteria, and that rite real estate could have been weighted, people could have weighed in. it might have slowed the process down slightly, but we might have had a different result. ultimately, the selection is

your body's job. but i do want to end on another point, that this body went through the process -- through or legislative process to create a conversation, and we were very close to going to the ballot to have a different process that this legislative body could be involved in and influence and have more say over the transportation process and transportation policy in san francisco. i've only been on this body for 1.5 years. i know supervisor kim's in her eighth year, and i'm going on finishing up my second. but there is no agency that we receive more complaints, inquiries, advice, suggestions, than the sfmta -- in my opinion. and it is frustrating beyond belief to have to say we are bound by the charter, we have no influence and input in the policy making. so i -- i am going to continue

to hit that point. i think it's an important point. i think the citizens in san francisco deserve to be involved in that conversation and need to understand that it's not just five members of a body that are appointed on a four-year term that have the decision over policy power in this city. i know you saw yesterday in the paper, paris came out and is rolling out powered scooter. they're not limiting the number. they're offering as many permits as they can, and i would argue they're leaps and bounds above san francisco in terms of providing a world class transportation system. we are making a lot of progress. this is not to undercut or undermine or demoralize anything that you are doing. i know that we have made a lot of progress, but i am using that as an example to say that is a world class transportation --

you can go to any neighborhood in paris, underground, above ground, and they're still not limiting the number of companies that can be involved in that delivery system. what i care ultimately about is delivering a system in san francisco that will serve the citizens of san francisco in the best way possible. so i don't have any other comments. i don't -- i would just say i will follow with up you all with my additional concerns, but this is what i wanted to layout today. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i just want to say that i agree with supervisor safai, that there should be robust community outreach in terms of a permitting process. i didn't mean to say that -- >> supervisor safai: oh, no, i figured you do. i know you care deeply about that. >> supervisor tang: all right, colleagues, questions, comments? do you have anymore. >> supervisor safai: did you want to say something? >> supervisor tang: sno. i have comments around bike share versus scooter share, but

save that for another day. we've been here many hours now. what would you like to do with the hearing? >> supervisor safai: we can file the hearing -- tapping tang okay. so we will file the hearing, and we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: all right. madam clerk, is there anything further before us today? >>clerk: there's nothing further before us today. >> supervisor tang: all right. thank you. we are adjourned. ♪ >> welcome to hamilton

recreation and aquatics center. it is the only facility that has an integrated swimming pool and recreation center combined. we have to pools, the city's water slide, for little kids and those of you that are more daring and want to try the rockslide, we have a drop slide. >> exercises for everybody. hi have a great time. the ladies and guys that come, it is for the community and we really make it fun. people think it is only for those that play basketball or swim. >> i have been coming to the pool for a long time now. it is nice, they are sweet. >> in the aquatics center, they are very committed to combining

for people in san francisco. and also ensuring that they have public safety. >> there are a lot of different personalities that come through here and it makes it very exciting all the time. they, their family or teach their kids have a swim. >> of the gem is fantastic, there is an incredible program going on there, both of my girls have learned to swim there. it is a fantastic place, check it out. it is an incredible indication of what bonn dollars can do with our hearts and facilities. it is as good as anything you will find out why mca.

parents come from all over. >> there are not too many pools that are still around, and this is one-stop shopping for kids. you can bring your kid here and have a cool summer. >> if you want to see some of the youth and young men throughout san francisco play some great pickup games, come wednesday night for midnight basketball. on saturdays, we have a senior lyons dance that has a great time getting exercise and a movement. we have all the music going, the generally have a good time. whether it is awkward camp or junior guard.

>> from more information, visit >> good afternoon, everybody. the commissioner will please come to order and the secretary will call the roll. >> commissioner bernal. >> present. >> commissioner sanchez. >> present. >> commissioner greene. >> commissioners please note i put a revised agenda on your desk. it has the consent calendar. the second item is the approval of the meeting of september 18.

>> so let's take each one up separately. a motion for the minutes of september 6 is in order and that was the joint meeting of the planning commission and the health commission and so i motion to approve. >> second. >> okay. are there any corrections to the minutes? seeing no corrections offered we will then vote on those. all in favor say aye. supposed? okay. the second is the minutes of the commission of september 18. a motion sin order. >> to approve. >> second. >> are there any corrections to the minutes? seeing none offered all in favor say aye. those opposed? the minutes of september 18 have been approved.

thank you commissioners. i'll note there was no public request. the item three is the directors's report. >> good afternoon, commissioners, craig wagner, acting director. a couple issues on the report to highlight. on september 22 the trump administration announced it will be proposing a new rule to change public charge policies that governor how to use public manifest to affect individual's immigration status. that could have some significant changes to the use of public assistance programs including medical so we're looking at that very carefully. the human agency and other agencies are examining the potential impact of response.

we'll have more as that develops. as you probably heard, the governor signed recently sb 1045, which is a bill to allow san francisco to allow a new type of conservatorship for those with health needs and we're happy about that. that's one thing the department and city had advocated for and we're in the process of working with our fellow city agencies to develop implementation policies and legislation that would go to the board to specify how that would be used. we have dispatched the ddm and police department deployed a team of four north carolina as part of the emergency management assistance compact team through the state.

that is an effort to provide support given that part of the country has been through and we're happy to do what we can there. on a state scan of shipyard parcel a there was an object where they were through 90% of the areas and it's called a deck marker and used on navy ships at a point in the past. there's no safety risk from the object. it's been removed and contained. so that process showed that the additional scan has been effective in identifying that and we're continuing to work with the other agencies and cdph involve in the ongoing work at this site.

i will leave it athat -- leave it at that in the interest of brevity. with that i'll submit the report. >> commissioners, questions to the director? >> from the shipyard parcel a, we've noted we will continue supporting and looking at the area. as recent news discussed the issue that it is so close to parcel a they thought it needed more scrutiny.

what is our position of -- or what is the department working with the state in regards to that? >> i'll have the doctor come up and tell us about that. >> good afternoon. so first of all, i do want to acknowledge the community residents and the environmental justice activists that have been advocating for testing. we know that after tetra tech did fraud on the shipyard, there was pressure to do scanning of parcel a. and parcel a did not have historical use of radiation. now the testing which was a scanning, hasn't found anything except for this one deck marker and the deck marker was outside and 50 yards away from any housing and underneath and the amount of radiation that was

coming from the ground is a very small amount. to give you an idea of how small the radiation coming out, you'd have to be next to it for 39 hours to get the equivalent of one flight to the east coast and because it was fenced off and no house construction, it was the other road, there was no chance of anybody being exposed. so what we're advocating is to continue doing the scanning because it's providing the reassurance to the residents that the area is clean and they've done all the outside areas and we're advocating they go ahead and do the inside areas on the surface. they're working out the technical issues. the california department of public health has also agreed to do desk swipes because people are concerned. and the last thing i want to point out that provides reassurance to us is if you think of parcel a being right here, it's right next to the

shipyard right next to the shipyard, and people are concerned, if there had been radial dust coming to parcel a, these instruments would find it. it's been completely clean. which means there is absolutely no activity and that provides assurance to the community there's nothing radio active coming over. these instruments are very sensitive. we're fortunate to have the health physicist doing this work for us. >> any further question on the director's report? thank you, acting director. four, general public comment.

i did not receive any requests. we can move on to item five. back from the planning committee. >> the finance and planning committee met immediately before this meeting today and you'll see the items approved on the consent calendar. the first is to the contracts report for october 2018 approved by the committee with one note on the last page the amendment to the contract was approved to extend the period of the contract and if there's anything that needs to be approved with regard to the level of funding that that will come back on next month's report. the other two items were approval of new contracts with afl, enterprises. it provides a pilot program to expand access to den tool care

for children ages 0 to 5 working both within the public health system and with private dental providers. the second was a new contract to provide professional consulting services by health center and both were approved by the center. >> thank you. commissioners, any questions in regards to the report? i would add to clarify that on the impact the system's request would be to proceed to extend the contract which is to request the exact amount be looked at again annual $4 million because there was a decrease of covered california. so when you come to vote for that the committee would then hear again if a modification was

needed in order to align that to more current costs. is that correct? >> yes. >> okay. >> with that we can move to item 6 which is the consent calendar. >> motion to approve the consent calendar. >> the committee has motioned to approve the consent calendar. along with the two other items for the new contracts. is there an extraction of any items off of that consent calendar including the contracts report and the two new contracts? i would like to point out that the new contract with the afl enterprises is one for training on dental practices. and highlight the move for children oral dental care will

then be impacted with this educational effort to dentists in san francisco including the private sector to be able to feel more comfortable in working with children. i think that's noteworthy because it's a brand new effort here in regards to oral health. commissioner green. >> commissioner: it says 0 to 5 but are we starting with children who don't have teeth is there something about the gum or jaw or is it for children beyond the teething stages? i'm curious when it said 0. >> it said 0 to 5.

it's my understanding they're talking about the early teeth that are potentially impacted by poor hygiene and lack of fluoride. someone else might be able to answer that. >> i'm not sure they're here. >> that's what i remember from the work i was doing. >> anybody else want to speak to that? >> could you please come up and speak into the microphone so the

hall could hear what you were saying for us, please. >> this is a preventive dental care initiative and our director would be happy to come answer questions. she's also the principle investigator on the dti. >> the original question is we're also talking about the 0 to 3 as being very important. >> doctor, can you say your name? >> i'm the director of ambulatory and health care for the network. >> dr. sanchez. just a comment and question. i don't know what the state of the art is now pertaining to children's dentistry but i know years ago the key pod models on

screening and prevention was done by the ucsf school of dentistry. many were recruit to work south of market where the kids have the major problems. a lot of immigrant of latin america and train at the general and in other places. when that dean left that helped recruit this unique team, most transferred to ucla where they were involved in these protocols working in east l.a. and other places. i know they had established a model, even come going to the health science campus colorado where pediatric a prime movement in that area. when i see our group is coming

from colorado i wonder if any of our people who were involved in setting up some of these things for the state of california and then moved to ucla and other parts of the nation, if this is part of their afterburner. the uniqueness of the program. we're a port city. kids come in from different places. some are moved in midnight and put into tents like the military. these kids need astounding training for those who take care of them. i think it's a really important protocol so hopefully we'll have unique outcomes on the prize being awarded and they're probably good but i was

wondering if perhaps this is part of all that efforts that went on in the school of dentistry to really focus on the needs of kids coming to port cities like san francisco and moving all over california and the nation. end of comment. >> thank you. i apologize to the commissioner. i kind of violated my own rule here. it looked like i just pulled that one off for discussion. i thought it was really important. just to conclude and respond it was a collaboration. it began the question in how we

work with this in the state and it's something of particularly involved with the minority and vulnerable populations. so we'll do that and bring a follow-up. so i'm sorry. because i don't extract it we still have the entire consent calendar. so it is the entire calendar. anyone who wants to officially extract any other items? >> so moved for approval. >> it is already moved. we're prepared for the vote. all in favor say aye. the consent calendar has been approved. thank you. >> thank you commissioners. there were no public comments. request item 7 is the draft resolution honoring barbara garcia and honoring her contribution to the san francisco department of public health.

as the first of two meetings discussing the resolution. today's just discussion. >> commissioners, we have a resolution before you and normally we have two meetings on it. as you know barbara had left us about a month ago from the department and the commission has asked we create a resolution to honor her life and the resolution is before you for further discussion and for final vote on the meeting of october 16. any public comments on the resolution at this point.

questions. if anyone would like to assist with working with hip or -- >> she doesn't have it either. >> i guess i do have one question, how's this overlap with the supervisors' resolution at the event honoring barbara? is this similar or different content? i heard this could be more inclusive and i'm wondering we do something different weather we shadow the supervisors or what would be most appropriate way to express ourselves? >> okay. so i have the assistance. we have the assistance of the

executive secretary on helping to create the "where ass" and the board of supervisors. as i see it, we tried to create how we in the department envision what she has done. i don't actually have the exact wording of the board of supervisors. >> did i get their copy of the resolution because i didn't want to make it identical but there is overlap due to large projects ms. garcia worked on and we broke out things specific to the dph so it has it's own personality and more in to the details of what she did here. >> as i read it, i would also say the supervisor's

presentation listed about every -- just about all of these including some in more depth perhaps. the other thought i would suggest maybe you want to look at is our director wrote an unbelievable acknowledgement of barbara garcia's extraordinary contributions an leadership which was sent out you may want to review and look at because it sort of puts it adds to what in fact the qualities were of her as a human being and as a leader. i was looking for it, as we all are, as i said i just got this now but it doesn't have to be a repetition of what's gone on but if there's four or five different characteristics we can highlight and take with the

professionalism and dedication. it's like areas that are everybody's been work on our lean and highlight for our five of those and emphasize those as her benchmark in settiunique standards and she put everybody in the same level whether one is here or there and left a fantastic institutional mark. again, i thought this is

something you get from supervisors or whatever. just something four or five areas. can we work on a "where as" in terms of then trying to outline some of the skills she had whether it's intergrit and -- integrity and so forth and i'll have someone work with you on the "where-as." >> one more, barbara as a director has probably gone threw more comprehensive evaluations by the commission since she came aboard. at then of all the reviews, the commission always wrote unbelievable comments pertaining to her achievements.

i think if we looked at those and look at what we acknowledge for her unique contributions i think it would give us the four, five or six areas we want to highlight as what in fact she gave to the city and this department as a leader who excelled. something like that. and other than that, that's all i can think about. >> some performance areas are in here but we'll double check to see if we've omitted any in the last many years she was with us as director. that's the purpose for this to be a document that comes from

commission. any other comments at this time? if not then we will have this back at our next meeting. if there are further comments we will add some of the additional information we can gleam working with commissioner sanchez and if any commissioners also have another thought, we'll try to incorporate that to have a final resolution available for us at our next meeting. was there any other public comment? >> no public comment requests. >> thank you. >> item 8 is the sfdph director of health job description and your one meeting to vote on the draft. we had the meeting regard to the

public input for the description of the director of public health solicitation. this he's now been incorporate the in to the document we have before us and to proceed with the department of human resources, we will need your approval. the time lines are stated here. the staff has worked very word with the wording and the public's concerns along with those the commission has in terms of priority. i would ask for a motion for approval. >> so moved. >> second. >> are there any other discussions? any public comment?

>> i've not received any request for public comment. >> okay. so there's no public comment. it has been motioned for approval and seconded. are there comments in regards to the motion? if not we'll proceed then to the vote. all in favor say aye. those opposed? the description for the director of public health has been approved and we will move forward with the solicitation of interest on the part of applicants. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. item 9 is the 2016 public health and safety bond update. >> mark primeau. good afternoon. the last time we reported out on the bond was at your june 19 meeting. at that meeting commissioner

chow incorporated a baseline in the schedule to show current activity and then the previous quarter's activity. so joe chen joining us tonight as well will go through the schedules and show you how the projects are compared against the baseline. i'll give an overview on the bonds and talk about the expenditures and turn it over to teri to talk about the accomplishments. some of the major projects in

construction at zuckerberg as well as the clinics and joe will go over the scheduling. so this is just the chart we've been showing for several quarters showing the first bond sale that occurred in january, 2017 and the portion of the $176 million or $150 million broke joan down by program area. this is just the high-level version of the 272 portion of the bond that was $350 million bond in june 2016. this shows you we're spending just under $30 million of the $146.5 million which is a little under 17%. we should have been spending higher than that. one thing that slowed us down and teri and joe will get into it is the vast number of the enables projects to make room