long-term debt needs are slightly higher since we are accelerating reimbursement schedules for some of the larger components of the expenditure plan and we see slightly higher financing costs and a reduction in the capital reserve as we get closer to the end of the program and when you put all this together, we see a modest increase of $11 million to funds available for projects over the life of the program. which is less than half of the% of the total funds available for projects. attachments two n32 the memo, you can see the funds available per category and you can also see which categories are running out of funds. with that, i can take any questions. >> thank you. are there any questions for staff? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, is there a motion to adopt the 2019 prop kate strategic plan? made by commissioner cohen.

we have a different house yet again. rollcall, please. >> on item seven. [roll call] >> we have first approval. >> next item, please. >> adopt the final freeway corridor management study phase two report and author his executive director to amend cooperative -- cooperative agreement numbers with the california department of transportation for the u.s. 101 i to 80 managed lanes for an additional 150-2,000 and a total amount not to exceed $27,000 and approve a local partnership program for an exchange of funds for the u.s. 101, i to a deep managed lanes project. this is an action item. >> good morning.

i am a senior planner with the transportation authority. i am here with a final update on the phase of the transportation authority effort to test the feasibility of management strategies on the freeways to help with more people in the same or fewer vehicles as demand for travel continues to increase this project was last discussed at the april 10th board meeting where we brought initial results. as we all know, congestion on the freeways is bad and getting worse. because this trend of more congestion a slower travel times is only forecasted to continue without taking action, carpools and buses will be stuck in the same traffic as solo drivers, giving them no incentive to take transit or share the ride. the authority decided to approach this problem by exploring strategies to give high occupancy vehicles time and reality -- reliability advantage and incentivize more people to take the bus and ride together making better use of the freeway capacity. phase one of the study said -- set up goals for an evaluation

of options to address freeway congestion in san francisco. as we consider solutions, we keep the studies was just goal in mind. i won't read them all to you, but we believe they reflect the values around san francisco transportation efficiency, reliability, air quality, health , and supporting communities. phase one of the study provided for a focus on travellers beginning or ending their trips in downtown san francisco and eastern neighborhoods. we consider these goals when evaluating options to reduce travel times on freeways. the management strategy includes more than just changes to the physical land out of the lanes on the freeways. much like we wouldn't implement a red light on city streets without an investment and best service that uses those lanes, we shouldn't and could it -- couldn't implement a carpal lane the lane and policy about who can use it and when are the platform and that sent -- in that centre box there. while the service we can provide

, whether that is transit , low-income services, or carpal matching, they are in the right-hand box. these policy decisions must go with the lane. together these come together into a holistic free wait management strategy. the freeway corridor management study focused on testing the feasibility of that platform while identifying the needs to scope the work required to implement the policy. so the study focused on testing the feasibility of the platform or defining what the project could be by identifying free wait services with potential benefits in developing alternatives for them. making good assumptions about the travellers in the corridor and analysing the potential operations. meanwhile, the study focused on identifying needs and beginning scoping of the policy pieces through community outreach, feedback and coordination with agency partners in the bay area and beyond. let's focus on what the project could be. as a quick refresher, at our previous update, we shared a

potential confederation of how to address this challenge by real -- real copyright -- reallocating existing free wait space. not widening the freeway. we believe the idea that widening freeways would harm the communities more than it would help them. the health implications increase greenhouse gas emissions and allowing more vehicles to travel in these corridors into san francisco would be too high. on top of that, it is worth noting we have made a commitment not to widen the freeways and the general plan. this lane diagram offers a closer look at what the proposal entails and was previously shared at the april board meeting. highlighted in yellow are changes to the existing configuration. potentially striping a new lane from the existing shoulder to allow buses and carpools to bypass the backup at the end of the freeway at the traffic light at fifth and king. finally, at the last update, we share the initial results of the feasibility analysis of how this

configuration might perform under various policies. we analyse the lane that you just saw with an operating policy every two person carpal. a third person carpal -- carpool it is worth noting the express lanes are carpool lanes or transit vehicles meeting the minimum occupancy requirements. they always travel for free. while there is an option for others to pay to use the lane if capacity remains with that price of varying depending on how much capacity is available. in addition to the operating policies on the lanes themselves , the analysis assumed increase transit service on ongoing work to add my bus service on the 101 corridor between san francisco and san jose and adjustments to routes to take advantage of the lanes. these included seven new routes between san francisco and the peninsula and assumes the changes to many mobile services that included the introduction to the park expresses and modifying the service to run all

day in both directions via 280. this included continuation of the existing 14 x. service that uses the core door. the final note is it is important to remember that the proposed lane addition recommends an alternative south of the airport and was in place. how did the scenarios perform? the chart on your screen summarizes the performance of each of the alternatives across the goals we mentioned earlier. when we compare the results with our goals, the carpool only scenarios were either in no better than doing nothing -- nothing or in some cases, worse. many of the challenges of the scenarios come from the fact that involves converting an existing lane. at two person carpal rearranges the lanes the vehicles are using without being able to provide any advantage to carpools or transit and while it results in a underutilized carpal and that while it is great for the few vehicles able to use it, it

squeezes the rest of the traffic into the remaining lanes and cause a substantial additional delay for those who aren't using the carpal lane. the express lanes and error performs better than the no build across a majority of the project goals as if able to balance the need for a reliable and free-flowing express lane with minimizing impacts to the remaining lanes. based on those results, what do we recommend and why? the two person carpal looked promising initially as demand modelling showed it has the opportunity to increase the amount of people moved in the corridor of the most out of all the scenarios. under closer examination, we showed that lane would be approaching capacity on opening day leaving no room for growth in the core door. when we previously showed these results along with our caution in that capacity at the april meeting, the board provided some feedback and concern about how t.n.c.s the impact of these modelled results. on closer inspection, we

determined when trips like t.n.c.s with single driver and single passenger, in addition to carpal cheaters, which are usually about 20% in the bay area, the lane would, in reality , break down and be congested on opening day, offering no more incentive to use transit or carpal than doing nothing at all. as a it showed promise and we approach this caution. hov three, or three person carpal divided travel time savings of up to eight minutes over the others. is very poorly utilized. even taking into account the new transit service and carpool. delays or significant. this configuration also moves fewer people than any other alternative, even fewer people than doing nothing at all. because of the underutilized carpal lane and congested

general-purpose lanes. as a result of this poor performance, the this scenario is not recommended. finally, the express lane alternative represents the middle ground between the hov two and hov three scenarios. we can use a variable price as a mention based on demand to ensure the lane is all right -- always about utilized without becoming congested and allowing three trent -- transit and three-person carpool lanes and first. the analysis results bring this middle ground up. enough vehicles are also pulled out of the remaining general-purpose lane to maintain or improve the travel time in the general-purpose lanes. the scenario also saw the number of people moved in the corridor increase by 40%. as a result, they meet the goal of the study and is the staff recommended alternative in the final report. let's return to the policy of

how hard of a strategy. as i mentioned earlier, the implantation side of this study was based around identifying needs and exploring potential strategies. we want to make sure that we build the lane on the needs and desires of the communities impacted by the freeways. this process starts with us. we have held over 30 conversations and meetings with leaders and groups and free wait -- freeway adjacent neighborhoods to introduce the concepts explored in the study and asked for input on what types of questions people would want to see answered going forward. this represents only beginning of what we need to be a concerned city each should their project advance. we have also engaged with agency partners as well as other regions who are already operating these types of lanes, like los angeles metro are in planning process for other projects. want to learn from our peers about the best practices to achieve the goals of the study by moving more people and fewer vehicles and we want to make sure we are engaged in multiagency solutions for the

entire peninsula corridor. we also know it is critical to learn the best and most successful ways of people -- are people approaching it equitably. where are we in the overall process and what are the next steps? this slide illustrates our progress so far and we are exiting the feasibility stage and engaging with caltrans to outline a potential environmental clearance document should the study advance, it would come back several times throughout the various phases with updates and to request approvals, funding and concurrence at each step. throughout, we would maintain a robust outreach strategy and will perform increasingly detailed analysis including a thorough equity analysis to address some of the questions that have already arisen. so the actions before you today are the next steps in that roadmap. i will provide a summary of the items recommended actions. first, adopt the feasibility study report for the freeway corridor management study phase

to watch what which lane conversion express lane as the staff recommended alternative. additional recommendations include continued and more robust studies about how a program may operate including detailed socioeconomic equity, transit, and traffic analyses. second is approval of an amendment to an agreement with caltrans and the amounts of 100 to $50,000 to reimburse their staff for review and oversight as we continue to develop and review these improvements on their highway system. this amendment is fully funded by a previous prop k. finally, approval of a find exchange between prop k. and the local partnership program. to be able to find those additional detail studies that i mentioned and regal -- eager to begin. we have heard request on this board and in our outreach. that is this transit service detail analysis that i mentioned staff has proposed a prop k. fund exchange. this action would approve the exchange of funds allocated to

public works with an equal amount of prop k. dollars resulting in no reductions to street resurfacing. then up to 4.1 million of the lp p. funds would be made available for future phases of this, including those detailed analyses that i mentioned. the exchange is necessary because there is no expenditure plan line that could result directly found this work. staff will return to the board in early 29 teen -- in 2019 to amend it. street resurfacing five-year prioritization program would allocate the funds for the project. staff also expects this project to be competitive for future rounds of corridor funding and our m3 toll funding. that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> speaker-01: is still with us. thank you to the voters of the state of california. with that, i assume that there are going to be a number of questions from commissioners. thank you for that presentation,

which we have received in the past and now we have the study before us for adoption. with that, commissioner fewer? >> thank you very much. thank you for the presentation. my district does not border this area, but i wanted to know, do we have any current data on how many vehicles -- how many people are eating vehicles now? how many cars have two people in them and how many cars are single rides and how many have three or more people? did we do any analysis of that? >> yes, we did. in the corridors in san francisco, 20% of the vehicle to date me that what a person or more requirement including transit, buses, vans or more. it depends on where you look on the freeway system. three or more people is about 3- 5% of the vehicles today. >> and then the rest are single people in cars?

>> correct. >> thank you. have you done this analysis along this corridor? >> yes. >> okay. those are the numbers for this corridor. >> those are the numbers for san francisco on 101 and 280 in san francisco. >> did you take this on a weekday or did you do it on a weekend? >> tuesday, wednesday, and thursday. >> and during commute hours? >> correct. >> thank you. >> commissioner brown? >> thank you. thank you for the report. i have a couple of questions. the sites -- besides enhancement of bus services for the three line serving communities of concern, what are some other things that can be done to promote equity for the folks who are in these communities of these proposed lanes that they travel through? >> that is a great question. as i mentioned, part of the work we are doing is partnering with partner agencies. that has come out of the outreach discussions to retweet

where one of the first things people ask for is improvement in transit service. that is why we lead with that. we have done great work around other programs that include using the revenue that is collected from the pricing to either provide toll subsidies to low income travellers who aren't able to use transit or fund even more transit beyond what would otherwise be available in the lane. >> something like helping people with fast track? >> correct. los angeles' program has a monthly maintenance fee that is a barrier to entry for a lot of people of limited income. l.a. has a program where if you are eligible for any state assistance program, you can get a fast track at no cost, preloaded with $25 that has no monthly maintenance fee. additionally, this is open to everyone, not just low income houses. if someone writes frequently, they are rewarded by receiving total credit for free onto that fast track. if they usually take transit but

they need to be with their kids after school or have an important meeting and need to drive that day, the options available to them are there to take advantage of this facility. >> thank you. >> commissioner he? >> thank you. when you did this analysis, did you look at the impact of whether any of these scenarios would increase or decrease in vehicles coming into san francisco? the one that was recommended, i could make the assumption because of the better flow, that we will see even more vehicles driven into san francisco. i don't know if you did any analysis in that regards. >> yes, we did. and the changes, for all the scenarios are small. within half a% overall for each one. i think part of it is because we are not building a new lane.

i would definitely agree that would be a real concern if we were are proposing to add a new lane like a san mateo county is doing south and putting additional capacity into the city. wet all three of the proposals are planning to do is reallocate the existing capacity. there really isn't additional room for more vehicles to come in, but we are giving priority to those vehicles that have more people in them. either way, across all three scenarios, there is not a significant difference in the total number of vehicles travelling in the car door. >> thank you. >> commissioner cohen? >> thank you for your presentation. i appreciate it pretty greatly. this is a dicey topic and it is one that needs to be delved and with some level of sensitivity. cultural awareness, from my perspective, i am viewing this from my environmental justice, social justice as well as public health blends.

as a reminder to everyone, district ten has two freeways. 101 and 280 bisect through the neighborhood. i am particularly interested with a lot of the particulate manager and dust that is emitted , because of traffic. i'm interested in decreasing traffic. unnecessary traffic. however, i'm also cautious about the cost of putting a fee on travel through a neighborhood. this is what i mean when i say dicey. it is very sensitive. i was fortunate to go down and do a tour in southern california and learn a little bit more about how their tolls are working. one of the things i am interested in particularly as i'll be voting yes on the site and because i think we need more equity studies. we need to be paying very close attention and i am grateful that the t.a. has demonstrated that level of commitment to paying

attention to the details. to making sure that whatever we pass, or whatever moves forward, we are not leaving people behind and we are not paying careful attention to the people who are most closely effected that are living in and around freeways. your district is not far from the freeway. supervisor can post us district, there is something that really connects and unites all of us around this study. i am grateful and i will be supportive. i hope other colleagues will be supportive. this is a contract to continue to oversee the continued study for equity. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other commissioners who have questions or comments? seeing none, are the members of the public who would like to testify on this matter, please come forward to. this is your chance. go ahead.

>> i live in district ten. i just have to watch for short points because i'm very concerned about this project. it seems like its a project catering to people who do not live in a city that want to pass through back especially the tech company shuttles and what not to and i also wanted to add on about the effect it will have on low income people. i know you mentioned there will be some type of subsidy for those who qualify for government assistance programs, but that doesn't help people who are one step above that in low income and don't qualify and are one paycheck away from being homeless and things like this will affect households dramatically. especially in district ten.

and as far as well-being, who is the well-being for? the district ten only wanted to get over to the main parts of the city where it serves the 101 and the 280 and until that district is represented and those types of considerations are done, i think that is what should be the priority. we do not have three people that can fill a car in our district to ride over to city hall or to the hospital or to go shopping. so i would like that to be a priority and not people who want to pass through real quick and not deal with the problems they incurred when they brought these businesses in and were not held accountable for our infrastructure. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning.

we are a transportation and land use organization in the bay area and we support the motion on the table here today. we believe that, as was mentioned with the report today, traffic is getting worse. it's not good for anybody. buses as well as carpools that are stuck in traffic. moving forward, it is only going to get worse for traffic and congestion. we believe that managed lanes can move more people with fewer cars and help alleviate congestion and promote equity if done well or done right. we believe they could provide a model for the region. of something we have been advocating over the last decade at transform at the regional and local levels. as far as a multipronged approach to getting managed lanes right. first and foremost, conversion. going with the three plus hot approach, as you saw through the

study, is going to produce the best results and coupled with the rich provision of transit and mobility strategies to make sure we move way more people with fewer cars. and finally, the equity piece being important, as already noted today. and with three key components that we see. one is access and making sure that folks have equal access to the lanes and there are no barriers. affordability, and the provision of rich transportation. we are about to release a report on pricing and equity and we look forward to sharing that with you as soon as it is released. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. public comment is closed. colleagues, can we take these together, or would you like me to do them one by one? there are three actual actions that are before us on item number 8. i'm happy to take them as a whole if someone wants to make a

motion to that effect. is there a motion to adopt item number 8, all three of its parts made by commissioner cohen. and seconded. we have yet another different house. on this item, a roll call, please. [roll call] >> we have first approval. >> next item, please. >> item nine is awarded two your professional services contract with design consulting in an amount not to exceed $420,000 for planning and technical services for the connect s.f. streets and freeways study. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am a senior planner here at

the t.a. we issued the r.f.p. on august 30th of this year. earned the freeways project will develop projects and policies for streets and freeways that will meet the needs and our vision and goals by the year 2050. we took steps to encourage participation from small and disadvantaged business enterprises, including advertising in our local newspapers. we received two proposals for -- in response to the r.f.p. and we are recommending msa design services to receive the contract excuse me. the m.s.a. exceeded the goals of 14% and they are including two teams that will meet a 34% goal. the contract will be funded by state and transportation --

federal service present -- transportation funds as well as prop k. funds and the c.e.c. recommended this item at the october 24th board meeting. >> thank you. are there any questions from commissioners? if there any public comment? public comment is closed. is there a motion to adopt -- aboard the two year professional service contract made by commissioner fewer and seconded by commissioner brown? we have the same house for once. same call. the item is approved on first reading. next item, please. >> item ten is award promotional services for options to extend a three-year additional one year. to consulting in an amount not to exceed $480,000 for computer network and maintenance services this is an action item. >> will you present?

>> good morning, commissioners. i'm sorry. i do not see the deputy director for technology data and analysis here to present this item. >> he was here. >> he was here a moment to go. i am more than happy to present if the commissioners will have me. this is a proposal for i.t. services. we have utilized a consultant instead of utilizing staff as we found it has been more cost effective and beneficial for us to have someone on call versus having a full-time equipment position. we really -- we release the proposal back in the summer. i am happy to report we had five proposals come in for the services. we are looking to extend services for a two year agreement with three amendments. the percentage was approximately 15% and we received -- the proposal came in at 84%.

staff included on this panel were a mix of t.a. staff with multiple divisions. this is funded by all prop k. funds. this e.a.c. provided a unanimous support for this item. i am more than happy to answer any questions. >> any questions or comments from commissioners? seeing none. public comment is closed. is there a motion to award this contract? >> same house, same call. the item is adopted on first reading. his are in the introduction new items? is there any general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed and to the t.a. is adjourned.

>> the hon. london breed: well, i know the road to get here wasn't easy, but we all came together to make sure that we provide the support that will make hopefully a difference in what you receive in your paychecks. this discussion started over a year ago at the board of supervisors and it's one that i'm committed to. thanks to the tireless work and dedication of everyone here today, we now have an ordinance that will create a path to success for those who take care of our most vulnerable communities. this starts first with our in home support services workers.

these are people who support our seniors and persons with disabilities so they can remain in their homes and in their communities. they help with tasks that we often take for granted, like getting groceries or taking a bath or going to the doctor. i know personally about the importance of this difficult work and how challenging it can be. it was in home support services workers who took care of my grandmother when she could no longer take care of herself. we have more than 20,000 workers who support 22,000 low-income seniors and people with disabilities in san francisco. and if it was not for this important work, these individuals do every day so many of our seniors and difficults living with disabilities would not be able to stay in their homes and get the care that we know they need. in addition to our in home

support services workers, we have many nonprofit organizations who provide essential services in san francisco to those of all income levels and backgrounds. this ranges from homelessness to workforce development, housing, domestic violence prevention to child care and so many others. these workers are on the front lines of taking care of our most vulnerable communities, our in home support services and nonprofit workers provided tremendous support and care for so many throughout san francisco, but they often are paid the least and, like so many of our residents, are too often struggling to get by in an expensive city like san francisco. san francisco has always demonstrated a commitment in supporting our lowest wage workers. when the governor significantly

reduced financial support to counties for in home support services programs, san francisco stepped up to fill in that gap. we have led the way in raising our minimum wage to one of the highest in the country, and we are continuing that leadership today with this legislation. the negotiations were difficult, very difficult, and they were long, but that's because we all knew the importance of making sure that everyone had a seat at the able in this conversation. as a result, we have an ordinance that reflects our commitment in taking care of what are the lowest wage earners in san francisco and moving them to a better place although we know they deserve a lot more. our in home support service workers will see a wage increase of $3.75 from their current wage over the course of next five years.

[applause] >> the hon. london breed: the minimum ordinance will also raise the wages of our cities, contracted nonprofit workers for $1.50 over their current wage effective july 1 of 2019. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and we should also mention the minimum compensation ordinance and how it's impacted the airport workers and their increase. this is part of my commitment as mayor to make sure that all san franciscans have equal access to opportunities and can live in the communities they serve. san francisco has some of the highest paying jobs in the nation, but we need to make sure that our economic success doesn't leave low and middle-income families behind. by harnessing our thriving economy, we can lift up those communities who have been left behind for far too long and give them opportunities to succeed.

this includes investing in why we are here today, and i am just really grateful for your hard work and the work that you continue to do to take care of so many of our elderly and disabled folks throughout san francisco. and at this time, i'd like to bring up supervisor sandy fewer, who was a lead sponsor on this legislation. [applause] >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mayor breed. i'd like to thank a couple of people here today that actually helped to make this happen. of course our labor partners and their leaders here today. suiu 1021 and 1015. without their urging and direction, i don't think this would have happened, and their tenacity, actually to stay at the table. i'd also like to thank my cosponsors, supervisor ronen, yee, and kim, and to recognize

with us today supervisor jeff sheehy who actually started this conversation. [applause] >> supervisor fewer: and then, i would also like to take a moment to thank our mayor, mayor breed, and her wonderful staff who came back again and again and again at the table to come to an agreement to serve these workers in san francisco. i am honored to have helped create this legislation and to be part of this historic moment. this legislation is important for three reasons: one, the immediate relief that it will give to over 20,000 of our low wage workers. these workers who take care of our elderly, our disabled, people who staff our nonprofits, they are struggling to make ends meet in this city, and who are they? they make $15 an hour in our city. the average age of 58 years old, and 78% of them are women, and

almost 80% of them are people of color. they are on the verge of homelessness themselves. second, this legislation demonstrates that we value this workforce. they do important necessary work that binds our community together, at that allows our seniors and disabled to age in their own homes and with greater health out comes and also to greater mobility. and so i think it's so important that this legislation actually lifts up the work that they do, and the city as a whole recognizes how important that work is. and third, this reinforces our commitment to seniors and people with disabilities, children and their families, and we are planning for the future of our senior population that will increase 69% from 2010 to 2030. this, to be frank, is not a living wage in san francisco. this will give workers some relief, but this is definitely

not a living wage in san francisco. we are experiencing the largest wealth gap that we have ever had historically in san francisco, and these workers will continue to struggle as they do their hard work. this legislation today actually gives them some relief, but let's just be frank. it is not a living wage here in san francisco. i think it's important to do this, because this is the right thing to do. in a city where the economy is booming, where some of our low-income and moderate wage workers wh workers should have a piece of the pie. we don't leave anyone in this city behind, people who makeup the fabric of what san francisco is and who we are. this is a bold statement, and i just want to honor everyone who was at the table and thank you to mayor breed and her staff once again for coming to this agreement. i'd like to take a moment, also, to introduce my colleague,

hillary ronen, who was so instrumental working with me on this legislation. supervisor ronen? [applause] >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much, supervisor fewer. i just wanted to make two quick points. thank you to the mayor. one of your biggest budget commitments that you've made to this workforce says a lot about your values, and we just want to thank you so much for that incredible, incredible commitment. and then, number two, this piece of legislation really shows and reminds us what san francisco is all about. not only do we do the morally right thing by our incredible workers who give so much love and support to our seniors and our homeless population, and so many who are struggling to survive here in san francisco, but this legislation is smart planning. we have an exploding senior population in san francisco, and

we don't have the infrastructure to take care of this population. we have a homeless crisis raging in our streets, and we depend on nonprofits who aren't able to hire the workforce to take care of those struggling the most. this legislation is so forward thinking, and that's what san francisco is known for. we have the heart but also the brain to do the right thing and to think about our future. so congratulations, everyone. this is a wonderful, wonderful day, and a huge round of applause to my colleague, supervisor fewer, who is a fighter through and through. and it was so fun to work with her on this lemgislation. >> supervisor fewer: and now i'd like to introduce from the labor council rudy gonzales. [applause] >> good morning. i have to tell you that there are a lot of things that are left unfinished. it's important, coming from the labor movement where miners and

long shore men were murdered in this city for standing together. wow, is it a sign of the times that our workers were able to stand together from electricians to teachers, airport workers, everybody stood shoulder to shoulder to make sure this important legislation was realized. i want to take a moment to recognize the leadership of our labor council. without their leadership and mentorship of this council, we wouldn't have been able to do this. we're used to be attacked, or used to being the resistance in a moment of resistance. it's okay to celebrate these wins. we have a lot of thing that we disagree on policy wise, but this is a statement of value, and a time to celebrate because the lowest paid people in our city are getting the attention and commitment of this fine government, and this is an example of people coming to a table with leadership, an

initiative that was started 18 months, when some people weren't even in elected office at the time and coming together and saying we're going to pick up the pieces, we're going to do our hard work and commit our staff, our hard work, our budget, and our values to the people who need it the most. when i say the people who need it most, i want to talk about the clients. we talk about our ageing population, but there are disabled children that need care. some of the most null verbal in our city who need -- vulnerable in our city who need addiction treatment and housing services and supportsive services, they're being supported not only by our city workers in our city, but our nonprofit workers. i want to take a moment to recognize the incredible leadership of our mayor, mayor breed, who took this issue head on. [applause] >> supervisors fewer and ronen and supervisor yee, and everyone

who voted to support this. supervisor kim, obviously. without people at the team and everybody in the supervisors' office who are dedicated to seeing this thing through, and all the courageous workers, that would not have been possible. i want to introduce you to one of the courageous workers, one of the people who gets this work done, claudia, will you join me? claudia is a 25 year inhome health worker, and i wanted to let her say a few words about what she does. >> yeah. [speaking spanish language]

>> yes. as rudy was saying, my name is claudia, and i'm an in home support care services worker. i've been doing this work for 25 years. of those 25 years, i've been involved in the union movement 22 of those years. i'm so excited to be here today. this is a historic moment today as mayor breed signs this legislation that will have a huge impact on our lives. >> yes. [applause] [speaking spanish language] >> i also want to recognize the incredible and fierce leadership of several boards of supervisors

who because of their leadership, we were able to get to this final deal. i feel like as a home care service worker that finally our work is being recognized, that we do have dignity and respect. [applause] [speaking spanish language] >> i remember when mayor breed met with many of us workers of home care, and she actually has a home care story, as well, and she understands how difficult this work is, so i was not surprised when she made a decision to support this legislation.

[applause] [speaking spanish language] >> and i just want to remind everyone, without a doubt, this has a tremendous impact on the roughly 20,000 home care providers here in san francisco, but the day after the election, this also sends a message that the city and county of san francisco has created a new standard for home care providers. that message will be sent across the country, across the region and throughout the state of california. thank you, si se puede. [speaking spanish language] >> thank you, again, mayor and supervisors for your support and for your understanding and valuing the important work that we do. thank you. thank you. [applaus [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you all so much. and i'd like to also recognize other supervisors who have joined us today.

it was a unanimous vote at the board of supervisors, including the leadership of the president of the board of supervisors, malia cohen is here. along with supervisor safai and supervisor yee. thank you for joining us. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: now, let's get to the important task, and i'm going to ask former supervisor jeff sheehy to join us as the original sponsor of this legislation as we sign this very important piece of legislation to guarantee the commitment that we are making as a city for inhome support services workers and nonprofit workers in san francisco. thank you all so much for being here today.

[applause]