process is that it has been largely divorced from the reality of the changes that we all made to section 415 that were in part what i was asking the mayor about earlier in this session. and i want to take stock of the fact that what we're trying to do with section 415 -- and this does not preclude the d.a. in a large development may be different and may have extenuating circumstances, was to create some predictability and security and stop the case-by-case negotiations. and i think when you hear about the amendments, which i am supportive of and are not net before us, we will find there was a whole bunch of stuff on the table, and i would like to absolute the process here at the board, the sponsor, supervisor and president cohen, and the push back that various members of this board have been

concerned about that have actually shown that the sponsor and yes, with all due respect, the office of economic and workforce development, had we not pushed back, would have left all sorts of community benefits on the table. what you'll hear is yeah, we brought the structure with tiers and with levels and with higher fees. it's really, frankly, outrageous that you guys let them write this own lesser in lieu fee into the legislation. how the heck does that happen? i would like to use this as a learning experience, but respectfully to the development community and more particularly to oewd, don't leave that much stuff on the table. bring us a deal -- 'cause i

don't like sitting in my office and hearing this is the maximum feasible thing. you've got to take it over leave it, and over the course of two weeks, the developer comes in and says yeah, we can bring it down from an average of 110 to have a lower ceiling on affordability, and yes, we can pay the higher in lieu fee, and we can phase the project so you get the affordable housing when you're supposed to get affordable housing so -- pardon my language -- so you don't get screwed in the end. let's have this to the board of supervisors doesn't have the role what additional benefits the project can actually sustain, so that's what i wanted to say. >> president cohen: thank you for those general comments. i'd like to circulate the amendments at this time. i believe the city attorney has them to be circulated so that we

are all on the same page. and as these amendments are being circulated, i'm going to pivot to ann topia to just briefly walk us through the development agreement, and once we have the amendments in front of us, we will talk about the changes. before you do that, i'd like to recognize supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. we did ask the city to bring us the relevant parts of the d.a. that memorialized the parts of the amendment, and we have not been given -- >> president cohen: i think that's what's being circulated

now. >> supervisor ronen: okay. >> president cohen: they're doing it now. >> good afternoon, ann to 3id a from the office of economic and workforce development. the four amendments required a 25% availability on the 1575 units that are being proposed on the site. there's an additional -- the project sponsor's actually providing a large open space area, including the development of six acres of currently private land that will become public park, permanent public park. they will be making improvements

to the india basin open space that is existing with parkland, but improvements will be made by the developer. we will end up with a -- over 12 acres of permanently public open space on the project site, and it will be in conjunction with about 1.5 miles of shoreline open space, extending from the ocii project to the south all the way to herron's head park to the north. in addition, there's a 3,000 foot child care center that will be built on-site and a $3 million -- 3-to-4 million endowment associated with the facility, possibly scholarships to community children in need.

i'm sorry. there's also a c.f.d. that will provide $43 million towards future sea level rise outside of the project boundaries. in addition to that, $1.5 million annual pay goes to c.f.d. that will provide enhansed operation to all of the public parks, including the rec park parks, as well as construction of an open air community market, potential first grocery store, first source job opportunity for both construction and permanent on-site job, local hire on infrastructure and city streets and park, and an 18% business target. and finally shall the city reserves an option of 5,000 square feet of commercial space for future community space, such as a reading room, library or other community space. so that's sort of the overall

project benefit package. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you, president cohen. and i just want to appreciate you and your office for working with a number of the concerns that i had brought up at land use committee. as someone who coauthored or inclusionary ordinance with supervisor peskin, then supervisor breed and supervisor safai, it's incredibly important we remain consistent with the policies that we have set. a number of things that i think are just important to point out, i'm not going to continue to be on the board of supervisors, and i think it's important that as we look at -- as we look into the future at housing deals, that we understand average median income banding, and we understand average median income rent or ownership income prices. when this deal first came to land use committee, the project

sponsor was proposing that studios renting at $2,900 or two bedrooms renting at $3,729 should be considered part of their affordable housing contribution. and the reason why i put so hard on that 140% of median income, pegging the rent prices, i don't believe that should be part of any housing developer contribution. i want to acknowledge the project sponsor agreeing with president cohen and bringing those down to 110% of average median income. it's important we separate that out from income banding because we talk a lot about who get to see live in affordable housing, and it's talked a lot about that those that are middle-income don't get to be eligible for low-income how's wilusing.

ensuring that households of four that makeup to $165,000 a year are eligible for these very units. but what is important to me is that they are pegged at affordable prices. so i -- i'm happy to see that there has -- there's now symmetry with section 415 on both the a.m.i. rent prices and the banding. i -- i'm supportive of president cohen's priorities that we build more middle-income housing, and so setting aside a greater percentage of the units to be available between 80 and 110% of median income, but allowing households that makeup to 130% being eligible for those units i think absolutely meets those goals. but what i do really want to counter is this narrative that i've begun to hear in this chamber, which is that building

a lot of housing at 55% of average median income is concentrating poverty in districts six and ten. let me tell you what the rent price is at 55% of average median income, and this is the vast majority of inclusionary housing that's being built in the market rate developments in san francisco. if you are building at 55% of average median income, you can rent your studio at $1,140. if you are renting a two bedroom, it is pegged at $1,465. these are not poor residents. poor residents can't afford to pay $1,000 for a studio or $1,400 for a studio. when i moved to san francisco, that was generally the market rent prices of rents of studios and two bedrooms. that is the point that we have gotten to here in san francisco, so i think it's really important to dispel the myth that when we

are building at 55% of average median income, we are building for the poorest. we are become for middle-income, people that are in nonprofits, people that drive our muni buses, that is what 55% of median average is, and we that e

do rehab in district ten, i'm happy to support the current levels. i am also happy to see that the language was included, so there's actually specificity, ensuring that the in lieu fees will be use today rehab and

stablize projects by mohcd within two miles of the district. i just haven't been part of many of these deals as much specificity as possible is really important. these deals can take 10, 20, 30, 40 years to build out. in fact my first year on the board, we approved a little known project called treasure island in 2011, and we're still waiting for the first unit of housing to get constructed there. we have no idea how long these development agreements last for, and it's important to have at much specificity as possible. my final point, i'm going to bring this up because the comparison to mission rock keeps coming up. i'm not sure why we want to compare these two because they are two vastly different projects. mission rock will build as much housing as india basin in the

sense that it can build a maximum of 1500 units. this project, india basin will build exactly 1,575 units if it is all built out. it keeps being brought up that the average of mission rock in terms of affordability that was guaranteed was higher than what is being guaranteed by india basin, but it's incredibly important for this board to understand that you can't just look at one single factor, whether that is the average of the affordability of all the units being built, or the percentage of on-site versus off-site. mission rock, if it builds out to the 1500 units, which is the maximum that we permitted, will build 600 units between 45 and 55% of average median income. this project, india basin, will at maximum build 319 units on-site. and not only is that half of the affordable units, only 78 of

those will be offered at the most deeply subsidized rate, which is the 55% of average media income, meaning mission rock is going to build twice as many affordable units, and a little over two times the number of the most deeply subsidized units, which is between 45 and 55% of average median income. they both come with a lot of acres of open space and park. mission park committed to building one and two bedrooms, ensuring that families would be able to live on that site. it's not just about the average affordable. if india basin had commit today 45% affordable housing, they could commit to a higher average of affordability throughout those units. but being that they've committed to 20 to 25% on-site, it's just appropriate that they provide deeper subsidies to those residents. any way, i'm happy with where

this project has landed. i want to recognize that actually several colleagues had to read through this p.s.a. to tease out a lot of the details that have come before us, but i do just want to agree with supervisor peskin. we can't have to do all of this work. there should be consistency in the development deals that come before the board of supervisors, and we shouldn't have to be looking under a microscope at every single word coming out of these development deals. however i'm happy this is where we've landed. i think we have a good project moving forward. i do want to recognize a lot of the concerns of the residents. i didn't speak during the peal, but i am sympathetic to much of the concern about us continuing to build when we haven't addressed air quality issues, and supervisor ronen, mandelman and i got to visit the great city of los angeles which was quite a bit of air quality issues in that city. and supervisor safai, and i know

that president cohen expressed a lot of interest in figuring out how we've reduced congestion in our cities that contribute greatly to air quality for our residents. in fact, the five of us who went all represent the districts where the 80, the 101, and the 280 lie, and this is exactly -- when you look at the map, the overlay of where we have air quality issues in districts 6, 9, 10, and 11. and i think that we as a city really need to look at mobility management and congestion pricing. we have to relieve the air quality issues that we here in the city are addressing. it is not simply a housing development issue, we have to look at both -- we have to look at how we provide mobility alternate tif alternatives for all of our residents if we're going to continue to grow, and i look forward to this board of supervisors really engaging in those policy debates in the

upcoming years. >> president cohen: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. i just wanted to thank everyone that was involved in these conversations. i think we were able to push this forward. i will say, however, it's very different -- there's not many 1500-unit developments that come before this body. so i personally am okay with putting it under the microscope. i agree with the supervisors that we would like them to be as close to resolution as possible, but sometimes that's not always the case. i will say that it was a little bit frustrating to continually ask the same questions and try to get extra clarity in areas that i think were really important to this body. this body spent a lot of time -- i think everyone kind of grew tired at one point, that we would finally get section 415 updated, first time in 15 years, but it took us almost an entire year to get that done. part of why we all put so much work in that is so we would have

certainty when we were approaching these deals, so i appreciate the work that the office of economic and workforce developing as well as planning and lewd use and supervisors through the leadership of president cohen, we've been able to get this to a good point. i want to emphasize a point, and i appreciate what supervisor kim said, it is apples and oranges, mission rock -- for the public out there, mission rock is city land. it is port property, it is negotiated and exclusively negotiated with a franchise that is -- we're asking them for a significant community benefit. but essentially, in many regards, it's free land versus this is private land that we're negotiating a very different set of circumstances, similar in the sense that significant infrastructure needs to be improved, but the idea that we could push this even further, we might end up in a situation

where some of the projects that have come before this committee over the course of the last year, where we negotiated and pushed to a point, and the construction costs have risen, the labor costs and risen, and so the deals that we negotiated will actually not be realized, so we also want to be careful for that. i think it's very important because the community and those that are in the surrounding community in bayview-hunters point have been waiting for decades, decades, literally decades for certain areas of enthuse community to be invested and realized and one of these investments to come in. this is one of those areas. i know the shipyard is another area, but there's not many areas where you do 1600 homes in one pop. i'm okay with the level of scrutiny that we did. i do also want to say one more thing in that -- and i agree with supervisor kim. we always need to champion tax credit units and those at 55%

a.m.i., and there is some flexibility in the amount in terms of the a.m.i. that can be eligible for those, but there is a hard cap. and ultimately, as you point to the rents that are there, for those that are making between $60,000 a year up to 150, $160,000 a year, however they are at individuals or single parents or partners or whatever they may be, there is no financing -- there is no financing for that targeted a.m.i. and that's why it's so important -- at least that's why it was so important to all of us in these conversations to push the envelope as it pertained to those making between 70 and 130% a.m.i. because we cannot subsidize those. the only which that can be done after the abolishment of the

redevelopment agency is with negotiations with private developers. i know as supervisor kim said, we're talking about teachers and bus drivers and nurses and janitors. janitors sometimes do not qualify for our tax credit units because of their combined income, two person household with children. that is something that is punt amoupunt -- fundamentally wrong. i for one am happy we're able to push that envelope, at the same time respecting the need for those to have additional units in the lower income categories because that's where the tax credits, that's where the money, that's where the financing is. i'm very happy to push this deal forward, and hopefully we'll see this realized in the next few years. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you, supervisor safai. in addition to what supervisor

kim and supervisor safai laid out, there's also a small site acquisition, and i think that's important to highlight, to note. because it allows us to stablize people in transition, or in crisis of losing their housing. we were all contacted last week about a family that was being displaced out of the bayview. that particular house, i used as an example was in a two mile radius of this project, would be able to have moneys available to help stablize a family. there's no better way to mitigate gentrification than to keep families inside their home. supervisor ronen, you have a few remarks? >> supervisor ronen: yes. thank you. i want to thank you, president cohen, for working with all of us to get this deal to such a good place. and i definitely want to associate myself with supervisor

peskin's comments. i think he very eloquently expressed the dilemma that we're in. you know, the small sites program doesn't currently have any money in it. we can't add any small sites to the city, and there's no plan to refill that fund in the near future. the housing trust fund, almost every cent of it is encumbered for the foreseeable future. there's no adding new sites to -- to -- to the queue. almost every dollar's spoken for. of course we know that redevelopment has been gone for a long time, so the money coming from the state for low developable housing is nonexistent. one of the only areas that we

have left in the city to get that, whether it's working class housing or workforce housing or middle class housing, any of that housing at all is through these development deals. so having our city leave any money on the table is a big deal right now. we have to strike this right now, and we have to push, and push where the line where the product remains feasible. i just want to echo -- i can't say it morale quently than supervisor peskin, but i want to echo those comments that we really need to look to oewd when you're getting involved in these individual projects, so help us get there. you're supposed to be the department with that expertise on how far can we get to that line before the project becomes

infeasible. i can't bring that enough. i also want to mention that supervisor cohen's, you know, impetus for originally veering from section 415 and accepting a lower rate of the fee out money for off-site units was for her desire to be able to have some funds to help residents around the developments when they're in danger of being displaced. we know that pressure is going to become greater as we look at what's happening in the mission when these luxury developments go up, when this new infrastructure comes in, which we need and is exciting, but what that does is puts pressure on the existing housing that's there, where the value of that housing goes up, and then, rent controlled tenants are, you know, often times displaced and

evicted. and so that desire of supervisor cohen to have that funding available to stablize those small sites and to push building to want to use that off-site option made sense to me because of this problem. and that's why i think we so need to find stable revenue sources for these programs in the city that currently we have nothing left. so i just wanted to make that point, but i'm happy that i'm going to be able to support this project today, and i really do think -- thank my colleagues on the board for all working together to the place that it's in today. >> president cohen: thank you. seeing that there are no -- oh, supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yeah, thank you, president cohen. and i also just want to say that i really commend you. i know that this has been a project that you've worked on

for a really long time for your neighborhood and for your constituents. and hearing from your constituents today, they want the project to happen. they just kind of had a disagreement around the environmental effects of what happens during the project. i also want to thank my colleagues for lending their expertise for making this deal, i think better for the residents of san francisco, but i also want to just explain a little bit why i am voting in favor of the project, and i voted not to affirm the final environmental impact report. i feel as though the elements of this plan are good, and it -- it's actually, i think, better than first proposed, and i think what we heard today from many of the residents there is that it's time for a revitalization of that area and also to support more growth in that area. and so i want to commend president cohen and to thank her

for her hard work, and also the rest of my colleagues who actually had much more expertise in this than i do. >> president cohen: all right. seeing that there are no other names on the roster, there's a couple things that we need to do here in order to move this agenda forward. first, we need to make a motion to accept the amendments to incorporate the new findings from bacmd. i understand we need to clarify items 50 through 52. the amendments simply refer tot incorporated -- refer and incorporating the planning department's october 10 memo regarding the air quality mitigation. that is what we discussed just pry irrelevant to -- that's what -- prior -- that's when we

discussed in the hearing. so i would like a second to my motion to accept those amendments. thank you. these are the mitigation that bacmd presented. we're going to accept them into the plan. thank you. that second was made by supervisor tang. and then also, the amendments that you have before you, too, i'd like to make a motion to accept those amendments. is there a second? seconded by supervisor safai. these are amendments made to the development agreement. we all on the same page? all right. seconded by supervisor safai. so colleagues, i'd like to call this without objection, same house, same call. all right. without objection, these ordinances are passed on the first reading as amended. >> madam chair, you need to take the first amendments on the legislation, items 50 through 52 first, and then take the second amendment to the d.a.

>> president cohen: i'm sorry. i can't hear you -- i'm sorry. my speaker's not working. i can't hear you. [inaudible] >> so on the first amendments to accept the seceqa findings -- >> president cohen: okay. can we do that without objection? >>clerk: and the second amendment, can we do that without objection? >> president cohen: all right. we'll take the second amendment to the d.a., and we'll take the first -- the first item that she called, we'll take without objection. the second amendment to the d.a., we'll take without objection. thank you. >>clerk: and on the ordinances as amended on first reading. >> president cohen: and on the ordinances as read, colleagues, without objection, passes on the first reading. all right. thank you, could you please call the next item, committee reports? >>clerk: do you want to go back to item 35?

>> president cohen: item 35, yes. >>clerk: item 35 is a motion to appoint graciela eye liens hernandez so the citizens committee development for terms ending january 1, 2020. >> president cohen: colleagues, can we take this same house, same call. all right. without objection, the item is approved. next item? >>clerk: item 36 is a motion to approve easter residency requirement -- [inaudible] >>clerk: terms ending march 19, 2021. >> president cohen: same house, same call. next item. [agenda item read] >> president cohen: same house, same call? all right. taken without objection, this motion is approved.

next item. >>clerk: item 38 is a motion to aappoint mike petricca and waive the requirement to the graffiti board. >> president cohen: colleagues, with we take this same house, same call? without objection, this item is approved. next item. >>clerk: the next item is committee report, was considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on october 15, 2018 and was forwarded as a committee report. item is -- [agenda item read] >> president cohen: all right. colleagues, we can take this same house, same call. seeing no names on the roster without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. next item. >>clerk: next item would be

roll call for introductions. >> president cohen: all right. supervisor yee, you're up first. supervisor brown? >> supervisor brown: yes. today, i'm sad to announce that last week, we lost a beloved member of our community, norman tanner. on friday, october 12, norman heartbreakingly fell victim to his injuries as a result of a hit and run collision. he passed away, surrounded by his dear friends and family. mr. tanner, known as stormin' norman to his friends touched the lives of hundreds of individuals and changed those lives for the better. in 1990, norman was diagnosed with h.i.v. and given six months to live. instead, he out ran doctors' prognosis and cofounded black brothers esteem, and the san francisco aids foundation. in a time of incredible stigma,

norman founded a program for lgbtq men who are african american. norman also served many years on the ryan white care council, on the board of rams, and also serveds aa residential director of the haight-ashbury recovery program. norman also worked extensively with people recovering from addiction. earlier this years he celebrated 11 years of sobriety. he also mentored city jail inmates struggling with addiction and was a long time member of glide church. norman acted as a recovery group if a till tater to hundreds of folks, many of whom were among the most marginalized in our community. he served as a sponsor, friend and true role model for the community. his unfortunate passing reminds us as we -- reminds us we are as a community -- we as a community

can do better. he's survived by his family in southern california, including his mother, sisters, nieces and nephews. he grew up in chester, pennsylvania and moved to san francisco when he was 19 years old. after the accident, and it really wasn't an accident, it was a san francisco police department is working to identify the suspect in this hit and run. our office is working to review the intersection of oak and baker and discuss solutions with sfmta to reduce such incidents in the future. norman was walking on -- across the crosswalk and someone ran a red light and hit him. together, we strive to have no more pedestrian fatalities. we'll miss stormin' norman and we're grateful for him and his legacy will live on. i'd like to conclude this meeting in mr. norman tanner's

name. the rest i submit. >> president cohen: thank you, supervisor brown. >>clerk: thank you, supervisor cohen. you're next up. >> president cohen: i'm introducing lemgs lation introducing legislation to declare november 6 domestic violence day in san francisco. yesterday marked the one year anniversary of the #metoo movement. it's come to signify not only the experience of sexual assault survivors, but also how we treat and believe survivors in our society. it represents how we conceptualize sexual assault and what americans, particularly women, what they experience on a daily basis. we've been grappling with these issues here in these chambers through the leadership of supervisor ronen and the creation of the sharp program. the united states department of justice just reported that an american is sexually assaulted

every 98 seconds. according to the rape, assault, and incest national network, one in three women in the united states will experience some sort of sexual violence in their lifetime, and one in every six american women have been victim to rape or attempted rape. by declaring october 6 sexual assault survivors day, we recognize not only -- rerecognize not just the power of the survivor experience but the importance of that citywide and national conversation in making change. the 6th marks the day -- the last day of the first week of domestic violence awareness month. the number six also symbolizes nurturing, healing, compassion. it's a symbol of responsibility and service to be achieved through love, care, and

delicacy. i want to thank my friend, mina harris, infofor creating this concept. with this day, i believe we can have an annual reckoning, a continued conversation, and a way to look forward and move forward through compassion towards a more empathetic society that believes survivors and creates a truly safe space for all americans. and i also would like to invite any member of my colleagues that would like to join on board with declaring october 6 sexual assault survivors day. thank you, supervisor ronen and tang and fewer and brown and kim and stefani and peskin and mandelman. and i'm just going to add yee. i'm not here, but i'm just going to add him in. all right. thank you, colleagues. finally, i have another piece of

legislation -- i think supervisor kim might be interested in this one. today, i'm introducing legislation that prevents prior education institutions from -- this is taking the band a box application a step further, and asking an applicant's criminal history in the application acts as a significant barrier to education for millions of americans with criminal records. and undoubtedly, increasing access to education for individuals with arrests and conviction records improves public safety, it promotes greater financial stability, and it strengthens our communities. in 2016, the obama administration encouraged higher education institutions around the country to take a fair chance, higher education pledge, and to develop practices to provide formerly incarcerated individuals with a fair shot. san francisco believes in second chances. we passed the fair chance ordinance in 2014 to regulate

criminal history inquiries in employment and housing. by addressing rod blocks that exist in the pathway to achieving a higher education we will provide adults that have been involved in the criminal justice system to revitalize their lives and realize their full potential. this will provide them with an equal chance to learn and to make a positive contribution to society. thank you, and i hope that you all will also join me in consideration for cosponsoring this historic legislation that will be one of the first and most strongly written pieces of legislation across the country. and with that, i would also like to recognition my legislative aide for assisting me in drafting this legislation. madam clerk, the rest i submit. >>clerk: thank you, madam president. supervisor fewer? thank you. supervisor kim?

>> supervisor kim: well, because president cohen has announced her introduction of dedicating october 6 sexual assault victim day, i thought i would start with a hearing request that i am requesting, along with supervisor peskin, brown, ronen, fewer, and president cohen, with the national conversation on the #metoo movement, and recently with the brett kavanaugh hearing, it has become unconscionable to turn a blind eye to the sexual harassment that we see everywhere, but particularly within the workplace, especially in the city and county of san francisco. the city and county of san francisco should offer the gold standard to our employees in emergency room its of protecting our workers and their human rights and dignity. we brand ourselves as a progressive city, yet behind the scenes, this board continues to

see litigation and settlements against the city for unlawful sexual harassment and creme nation. we as elected officials often stand against the statements we hear from the white house, saying that the city stands for women, immigrants, lgbtq and people of color. we have to make sure that culture exists up and down through our city, as well. this past month, and this board is familiar because this settlement has come to this board today, there is an exceptionally dusting lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and discrimination within the san francisco fire department. the only female firefighter at her station was the target of many egregious acts, including having her colleagues urinate on her bed before she went to sleep and smearing feces throughout the women's bathroom's wall, knowing that she would be the only member of the station to actually see the human feces. despite the egregious acts that

were documented, no one was held to account for what happened. there was not a single firing, there was not a demotion, there was a slap on the hand and people were transferred to other stations around san francisco. i think on ensuring that this culture would be pervasive in other stations, as well, instead of addressing what actually occurred in this fire station. in this most recent fiscal year, the department of human resources received eight cases based on harassment from members of the san francisco fire department. so i'm asking for a hearing with my colleagues on the government audit and over sight committee who have heard the settlement, asking for a discussion on these allegations of sexual harassment and sex discrimination, and the city's policies and practices for responding to such allegations and requesting that the fire department and

department of human resources report to this committee. this hearing is aimed at giving voice to all of our city employees, both women and men, who have experienced injustice in the workplace as it pertains to sexual harassment. we have to do a lot more than make people watch videos. that is not changing the culture here at city hall or beyond. we must bring light to the egregiousness of these cases and establish a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual harassment. we can't just talk about it at press conference, we have to make it real for our workers, as well. second, i am introducing a charter amendment today for the ballot -- for the next election here in san francisco. many of you remember that in 2016, i authored with nine other members of this board of supervisors, to raise a modest

increase on our buildings and homes that are sold for $5 million and above and establish a new category at $25 million above. the campaign was to make city college free, and to make san francisco the only city for free tuition at all. san francisco use today have free tuition at all of our colleges until 1983. state law prohibits real estate transfer tax from becoming dedicated. on november 8, the voters of san francisco acknowledged the importance of education and funding our lifelong education institution bypassing proposition w at a rate of 62%. in the first year of implementation, this revenue brought in $28 million to our general fund. however, the administration at the time approved only $5.4 million peryear to the free

city college program in fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018 which ended up not being enough to cover the ex-presence of this incredibly s incredibly successful program. the enrollment at city college exceeded our most optimistic prediction of what we thought would occur after we made city college free, which is -- speaks to both the success of this program but also speaking to the incredible thirst of our residents to attend our only lifelong learning institution, city college. i am putting forward a charter amendment which would create a dedicated fund for ten years for the free city program set annually at $15 million from the general fund, so less than what proposition w brought in in the first fiscal year. this will be available to all san francisco resident does who are enroll or will enroll in the city college of san francisco and will also create a more robust financial aid program for

low-income students who are already eligible for free city previous to proposition w passing where they will receive a $500 stipeyd persemester if they are full-time and 200 if they are part-time. what we learns was low-income students still did not enroll in free community college because now books and transportation and child care costs more that be enrolling in classes, and that making the class free alone was not enough to get low-income students into community college. this dedicated revenue fund will ensure the success of this program for ten years, after which you will either have to come back to the voters or be allocated annually by the board of supervisors once we have provided security and ensured

the ability to tell the story of its success. a couple of stories i will read from students who were surveyed after city college became free. one student wrote, i am in college bought of free city and the opportunity it has to change hi life. another, i just thought i would never be able to go to college because i never thought i was good enough. free city changed my attitude. a third student wrote, when i was younger, my impression of school was you did it for a job and a career that you probably have to wear a suit, and it seemed that i didn't fit into that culture. i felt that anything that took away from making money was detouring me from putting food in my mouth. pursuing a degree now in arts related education at city college has been a long-term goal of mine, and one i never thought i could pursue. but now that city college has become free, and i'm able to --

and i'm now able to save money and able to navigate this complex system of education with the support of free city college, it's a no brainer. colleagues, this charter amendment will be on 30-day hold, and i look forward to talking with all of you about its importance, and i hope to gain your support when we vote on this before the end of the year, i do want to recognize our free city coalition who helped us craft this second companion measure, including our city college board of trusties, bridget did have ily, alex randolph and others, and recognize the leadership of a.f.t. 2121, the san francisco labor council, rude owe gonzalez, our executive director, and tim paulson, our city college students, and our city attorneys, janet clark and jon givner, as well as our

controller's office who spent quite a bit of time over the last two years on this project. i know one of them has moved onto dcyf, and my cosponsor, supervisor rafael mandelman. it is a pleasure to have a member of the college board of trusties on the board of supervisors, and he will be an incredible at row indicate on the board of supervisors. and the rest i submit. >>clerk: thank you. supervisor mandelman. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, first, i'm introducing a resolution urging support of the state water board's proposed updates to the 2006 big delta plan. i know the p.u.c. has been in all of your offices. i think they are well intended, but misguided. i think that they should

immediately get with the program and at least allow their science to be independently peer reviewed, but the bottom line is that san francisco should be at the table in a cooperative way with other water agencies as the fish populations are crashing as chinook salmon are all but going to be extincn in the san joaquin river systems. i want to thank the sew -- cosponsors of this legislation, and avail yourself of peradvice of people that have been involved in this process literally for decades. and i really want to encourage our public utilities commission to see this call and get them to the table to negotiate something because i do not want to be in a position where the city and

county of san francisco is suing the state of california and behaving the way the los angeles department of water and power did in and around the mona lake matter, which was eventually resolved, but only after the city of los angeles became a pariah in the state of california, so let us not go down that path. secondly, i am really quite troubled and disturbed about the "lax" accounting at the housing authority. we're not talking about a few pennies, we're talking about $30 million. how the blank that could happen is just extraordinary to me. this has been a plagued agency, but for them to have spent $30 million they thought they had in reserve, i mean, are they not the subject of annual audits? i mean, these people should be put in receivership.

but all of a sudden we don't have money for m.c.o., and street cleaning, but all of a sudden we have 30 million for this, even though we don't have money for street acquisition. this has been a bad month between leaning, sinking tours and transbay terminals. this is off the hook. i want to hold a hearing on that. i want to thank president cohen for cosponsoring that hearing, and i would like to thank you all for cosponsoring that hearing, and i would like to get the b.l.a. in there to audit them. this is just crazy. it's just nuts. so the rest i will submit, but i do, in addition to adjourning today's board memoeting in the

memory of dr. jack boatwright, i'd like to adjourn the meeting in -- [inaudible] >> -- he was beloved in the north beach community. he was a loyal public servant for 38 years, the recipient of the safe driver award, had 31 years of driving without an incident, and so i just want to take this opportunity to recognize milton's long time service to the city and county of san francisco and offer our deepest condolences to his family and friends. >>clerk: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor ronen? thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: well, i don't have as much exciting news as supervisor peskin, but i will be submitting something to reauthorize the graffiti advisory board. i know we're all big fans. the graffiti advisory board does

really important work, in all seriousness, and i think it's important to all the supervisors in this city as well as all the residents in the city of san francisco, so i'll submit that. the other, i would like to end in memory of a constituent of my community, frankie lee kennedy. she passed away september 21, and she was a beautiful spirit, and she will be missed. she was a devoted mother, a loving wife, had four children. by trade, she was a cosmetologist, later worked for the unified school district and was present again at balboa, she was an active members of the rose olivet baptist church. she moved to san francisco in

1955 and was a long time member and active in my community. she leaves 13 nieces, six nephews, and a host of grand nieces and nephews, and one daughter, one son and law, and others. we'd like to end the meeting in her honor. the rest i submit. >>clerk: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you. today, colleagues i'm calling a hearing on the coordination of services for individuals with mental health and substance abuse issues. this hearing aims to i'd fee potential gaps in coordination between city departments with a focus on the department of public health, the department of homelessness and supportive housing, and the san francisco police department. for too long, we have witnessed the neediest people on our streets end up in jails, shelters, and hospitals only to be back out on streets days or even hours later. i have called someone recently

when i've seen someone in district two in distress, and have watched them as they're taken to the hospital, only to see them back on the streets with their hospital bracelet back on. we hear stories of people being released after a 5150 hold only to injure someone there after or themselves. section 5150 allows peace officers and mental health professionals to hold a person for up to 72-hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention. after doing so much research on this, i want to know how our assessment and evaluation process works. what crisis intervention is being offered? where we lack resources to address the demand at our hospitals? i want to know where people end up after undergoing a 5150 hold, and most importantly, i want to know what we as legislators need

to do to solve this problem. if the average length of stay in the hospital has gone down over the years, why, and what can be done? if the inpatient beds are usually full, how many more do we need and what is the cost? where should we be investing to effectuate the change we need? if people needing admission have to be released because they need to wait three or four days to get a bed, what are we doing to prevent that happening. if we aren't keeping patients long enough to stable yiez thiz and how are we working with other counties to address this public health crisis? people have been suffering on our streets for too long, and we cannot let it continue. i look forward to hearing from our city departments to hear how we can address this crisis through suggestions. thank you, and the rest i

submit. >>clerk: thank you. supervisor ki supervisor tang? >> we had originally introduced or single use plastic ordinance to reduce plastics in our streets and in our oceans. we had an exception in our legislation already for people with medical issues, there were other concerns that arose, and so i am simply introducing another piece of legislation given that the duplicated file had expired or went way because the ordinance took event to address that very concern and allowing people from the disabilities community to access plastic straws if they need to, and so that is what i will submit to you. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. madam president, that concludes