this is one of the last meetings we get to be with our colleague. i want to thank you for your tremendous work on this over a long period of time. and i think it's one of the most meaningful pieces of legislation that's ever passed and it's time to fund it. >> supervisor mandelman. >> i want to express my thanks to supervisor kim for your work

on this program, for your determination to do big things with your eers -- ears on this board and leaving with us a big thing with free higher ed as far as san francisco can provide it. i'd like for prop w to have passed in 2016 and the city college to have been able to come together and work out an arrangement that actually made good on the division of the voters and the vision you offered and i think something like 10 or nine supervisors signed on to in the summer of '16. i still from the frustrating memories of negotiating the program with a city that didn't seem to fully accept the vision of prop w.

with help from folks like you we inched towards something that maybe recognizes that but always felt extremely tenuous. that's why i feel the charter amendment is necessary and i'm supporting you and happy to be a co-sponsor and again i want to thank you for all you've done. >> >> >> supervisor kim again. >> have a long list of thank yous i will not say because we're in the passing this today and there's folks i'll recognize when we timely pass this. this is just a vote on the amendment. >> to recap all that transpired on item 24, there are two separate amendments on the floor. i think we need to take the supervisor kim and safai amendment first and i saent

>> it's the amendment or 20 years for supervisor yee's dprand -- grandchildren and others and it allows the board of supervisor a super majority vote to adjust the baseline year by year after year five audit. >> thank you. colleagues, can we same same house, same call. without objection as amend. thank you.

>> there's contribution to the fund will be suspended in any year city college fails to produce the record by the deadline said forth in the ordinance. this is what i think is a common sense amendment and standard practice with the city's other set asides and ensures city tax dollars are used responsibly and i want to follow-up that it's never the intention to be the last-dollar program and no one should have to not be able to dedicate themselves because of forms or because it's difficult. i agree i don't think anybody should be overwhelmed by having to fill out forms where it's an impediment to receiving an education but i want to make

sure what steps students are taki taking before they don't get pel grants and do they have help with that type of aid? i think it's important we take a look at that and i think developing an ordinance with reporting requirements is something that is a logical thing to do on a set-aside and to supervisor learner's point and i appreciate the fact she says there are two sides to that set-aside debate. the city of san francisco nearly 19 set-asides and it's $1.5 billion. when you compare l.a. county has two, san diego has one, san joée has none. it's unique in san francisco we have it and we may have it for a reason supervisor ronen thinks is a good idea but it hampers

our ability to do it wisely and a have my colleagues' support. i don't think it hampers supervisor kim's ability to have city college. >> thank you very much. i see names on the roster. is this to the amendment? supervisor yee. >> i want to ask the city attorney, in regards to this amendment, is it necessary? can we pass an ordinance to have the same effect, i guess? >> deputy city senior, john

gibner. it's a provisional call to have it in the charter. the board cannot adopt an ordinance that requires city college to provide reports because city college is an outside entity. so this charter amendment would explicitly tie the reporting requirement to the city's funding with the amendment. if the board does not adopt supervisor stefani's proposed amendment, you can still request reports from city college or hold hearings and ask city college to attend. but the board couldn't withhold fund from city college because city college didn't provide adequate information to the board. >> unless this is in the charter? >> correct.

>> supervisor mandelman. >> there was a question of the oversight committee and if we want to have an oversight committee the thought was we'd have to have an ordinance we'd work on in the spring. this seems parallel or similar to me. >> the board has adopted an ordinance creating an oversight committee or approved an m.o.u. and could outside of the charter amendment, create an oversight committee. you cannot require city college to appoint people to the oversight committee but i think you've reasonably expected they would. the oversight committee itself doesn't need to be in the charter amendment because it's not tied to potentially withholding funding from the college. >> it seems to me there's

addition additional work approving the m.o.u. with city college which i hope will be an improvement on the existing m.o.u. and imagine creating an oversight body and i think may include at least a request for data that would inform our decision-making going forward under the charter particularly after year five. so i am comfortable though i take the spirit ib which the amendment is offered and recognize that i do think there's additional thinking that needs to happen around this stuff so i'm inclined to vote against the amendment. >> supervisor: supervisor kim. >> i do ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment while i don't think there's anything wrong with requiring an annual report for the program to

allow the city to be able to suspend contributions is not in spirit with what this charter amendment was meant to do, by the way, i wish we didn't have to introduce this charter amendment. in fact, when we went to the voters in 2016 we specifically did not pair it with set-aside from the get go from january 1, 2017. i felt with the strong support of the board we'd able to fund the program and the board did try to expand free city. but the pot we get to play with on june 15 is incredibly small and not large enough to fully fund the program. i'd not want to put the provision in. i'm fine with an annual report. i'm sure supervisor mandelman will make that happen with the passage of the oversight

committee ordinance. >> supervisor: supervisor yee. >> so the amendments would have to be implemented by march of 20120 20 and i know that we're having a discussion on the m.o.u. and i have concerns on the m.o.u. and we need to negotiate a good m.o.u. that deals with all this stuff. and we need to do that soon because in many ways the m.o.u. doesn't support some of the things we desire, don't forget

the election or this for the vote nor -- for the ballot measure is in november. i feel we have leverage in terms of getting what we want from city college. otherwise some of us might -- never mind. >> if they call their name off through the department of elections it does remove the charter amendment and you have until july 26. and so i understand what you're saying there. it is mourn. the m.o.u. has to be adequately negotiated and a lot of that will happen in the next month and a half. i just saw another error in the year of the report i'll make that after we vote on supervisor

kim's amendment. >> supervisor peskin. >> can i get cliff face -- clarification. >> the board can remove a charter amendment once it's been submitted once adopt motion with six votes. if the board in january between january and july wants to change the terms of this charter amendment a board member would introduce a motion to remove the charter amendment from the ballot and also introduce a new charter amendment creating a modified city college set-aside. and then at some point before the end of july the board could adopt the motion removing this version and a motion placing a new charter amendment on the ballot and would swap out. >> so the may introduction date is satisfied by the introduction before 2019? normally, an inform -- a

november charter amendment has to be introduced in july. >> if a board member wants to amend this by swamp out a new version, the board members must introduce the new version by the may deadline as well as introducing a motion to withdraw this charter amendment from the ballot. >> thank you for that clarification. >> all right. seeing there are no other discussions, let's take action on this amendment. we should do a roll call vote. >> clerk: on the amendment offered by supervisor stefani seconded by supervisor tang. [calling roll]

>> clerk: there are three ayes and the seven nos with supervisors mandelman, peskin, ronen and brown in the dissent. >> supervisor: the amendment fails. okay. supervisor kim, you mentioned you found another error. do you want to make an amendment now on the floor. >> i just notice the report i didn't change the year to the right year on page 5 under

subsection k year five of the program, the controller shall produce and follow the board of supervisor as a report on the fund. >> that's the form of an amendment. is there a second to that amendment? seconded by supervisor mandelman. colleagues, can we take that amendment without objection? all right. madame president, we can take that without objection. now for clarification, supervisor tang, this needs to sit until the next board meeting. >> wasn't to be supervisor tang. it must be continued. >> i'm sorry, supervisor kim. could you make a motion, supervisor kim, please? >> a motion to continue. >> i'll make a motion to continue to december 11th as a

committee of the whole. >> thank you, madame clerk. >> supervisor: without objection. without objection objection. >> who was the second? >> hilary ronen. >> clerk: thank you. >> as amended without objection. all right. madame, i believe it brings us to item 25. >> supervisor: >> clerk: this with us heard and an ordinance amending the police code to aplow cannabis businesses to allow 35. of the new hires should be enrolled in apprenticeship programs with a memorandum of understanding or m.o.u. with the

pre-apprenticeship program if a relevant program has such an m.o.u. >> i have a question for you before the opening remark. >> i'll make a motion to continue the item for one week. >> supervisor: all right. i still a question for you though. my question is for what reason is this in the police code? >> i would defer to the city attorney but it's where the code governs how mandates are for hiring practices. >> supervisor: deputy city attorney john gibner. >> it's the section of the municipal code where we place ordinance regulate private conduct that don't fit into any other codes. it's an exercise of our police power which is why we put in the police code. >> supervisor: thank you. and supervisor safai, why are you continuing the item? >> because we would like to provide a little more time with

the california growers association. they're supportive but want the opportunity to sit down with us one last time. also, the state is getting close to finalizing the state apprenticeship program at the state level and could happen in the first week but for no other reason than that because we're very confident this is going to be a successful program. >> thank you very much. colleagues, can we take it without objection? a motion's been made by supervisor safai to continue for one week to the december 11. is there a second? supervisor peskin made the second. without objection. this item is continued to december 11. madame clerk, item 26. >> clerk: ordinance amending the police code by making a number of changes in the regulation of commercial cannabis activity, including, among other things:

1) defining ownership >> i introduced this legislation note year had passed and i want to thank [speaking french] -- thank supervisor safai and thank nico nicole elliot and we have finished and we're done and we don't have to worry about this anymore. i cannot say that. i do think tase good legislation and we need to go ahead and pass it out but no sooner are we finishing this than dealing with items for 2019. the cannabis story continues. >> is there a motion? >> i'd like po move approval. -- to move approval. >> okay. supervisor yee. >> i'll be supportive of this

motion but there seems to be a loophole for how many you have which at this point is it four? if the limit is four what's it mean when it comes to m.c.d.s. because they almost have a pass if they want to go retail and does that mean whatever number of their m.c.d.s they turn into

retail also? does that count towards the four? if not, one might have seven or eight and it seems like it's not very equitable. >> supervisor: supervisor mandelman. >> i will do my best to address this but i think it's supervisor peskin's amendment but that limit of four will apply to our new retail storefronts. the existing dispensaries are operating under the grandfathers where they continue to operate until we come up with the new rules. but going forward as new applications come in, they'll be subject to the limit of four. and i do think it makes sense given the program has been going for a year and people have made decisions and reliance on the rule in effect we make the rules prospective.

>> supervisor safai. >> we tried to have a conversation in the last couple weeks on the spread of growth, no pun intended of the industry and how it will expand and there's a desire to preserve and enhance and encourage the ability for equity applicants to grow under this ordinance and this new permitting requirement. also preserving opportunity for as many people as possible. i don't think supervisor peskin grandfathers in. we proposed limiting the number to expand opportunities in terms of equity. we decided to change it last hearing public comment and

working with supervisor peskin and his office. it states no matter your economic interest whether small in one, large percentage owner in another, whatever they are across the board, exclusive to retail it's limited to four. i don't believe there's anyone now in the city or county of san francisco that has more than three dispensaries but i could be wrong. >> hold on, we have to recognize you, sir. you're recognized. >> there are about a handful of players that have three or two now. there are people so if they get four more, they'd have seven. >> can you say your name for the record? >> [indiscernible] from the health department. >> it's not to add to additional ones they already own. i could be wrong.

it's four additional not counting the existing ownership. >> may i interject because i share supervisor yee's concern how the prospective versus retrospective clause and i believe we'll continue to work on the language, is it four additional or total because new information has been brought to light so we'll get the answer to you. it's not quite done yet. we hope to vit -- have it done in the next couple weeks. >> the other piece was to talk about people after they've owned at the smaller level we've adjusted that and we had the conversation on adjusting

percentage of ownership in terms of helping to raise equity in terms of investors but retaining at least 50. % of ownership. we raised that we talked about being able to add some point after a 10-year period to be able to cash out of your business. this say cash heavy business so being able to deal with the liabilities and we talked about the ability to move from temporary to permitting process for those in the pipeline. there was only a few there. we tried to deal with every aspect of this. i'm glad you brought that up, supervisor, yee. i was not clear we were allowing for not counting the existing ownership and four on top of that. we might have to work on that more to clarify. essentially, we encouraged and promote the equity and enhance

the opportunity to expand the business through investors and preserve the market in that regard. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor yee. >> you answered my question. i thought there was a loophole when i started thinking about it. and i raised the issue and i'm glad people are agreeing we need to address it. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madame president, colleagues. first of all, i wouldn't characterize it as a loophole as much as i would kauscharacteriz as a grandfather provision. the sentiment is given the fact we're in this ever evolving area of public policy post prop 64 and finding our way through, it was a recognition of reasonable investment backed -- the people

who went through the system did so with investments an were changing rules in the middle. that's the reason it was an additional for. it's not very different than what the committee voted on unanimously last wednesday which is i two storefront per owner cap from a policy perspective would provide more diversification at the storefront level and do what we all want to do which is to prevent chain stores from gobbling the industry up. yesterday at the rules committee, the members unanimously approved a modification which eliminate the shown ownership and expanded from two to four permits for any beneficial interest and any percentage of ownership interest. it was done with the notion it would be prospective. but i'm happy to have that conversation. we need to get this thing moving today and we can continue to tinker in the months and weeks

ahead. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor mandelman. >> yeah. i do think the issue of making these limitations retrospective was discussed some at the committee. i also think there's going to be opportunity perhaps as soon as january given the duplicative file remained in rules that required additional work and i'm imagining on other issues, i think there's going to be a little bit of a christmas tree in terms of further amendments there. my desire would be for us to go forward and approve this and if there are additional things we need to work on in the new year, do that then. >> all right. supervisor, mandelman, thank you. this is item 26. we've had a lot of discussion on

this. i don't think there's any amendments made. supervisor safai. >> i'm sorry, one quick point. i want to point out we had extensive conversation about limiting the amount of permits but it was more in the context of the equity applicants for sure in terms of the overall limit, i think there's confusion on prospective or retroactive. that's all. >> thank you. colleagues can we take same house, same call? all right. we can. without objection this ordinance is passed on the first reading. madame clerk, item 27. >> clerk: item 27 was recommended as amended an ordinance to amend the administrative code to extend the sunset date. without objection the ordinance is passed on the first reading. madame clerk, item 28.

>> clerk: ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the african american arts and cultural district in the bayview hunters point neighborhood; to require city departments . >> supervisor: your aid has helped my aide in assisting me on this to where we are today. for those that have not been following the discussion, this establishes an african american culture district in the bay view hunter's point community. and as we heard in the rules committee, this neighborhood is home to a vibrant community. the purpose of the legislation is to honor and recognize the contribution of the african american community past residents as well as present residents and setting up a

cultural home for future african american people from san francisco. it serves as a response to establish something tangible and that will preserve the legacy of the african american population in san francisco. i'd like to take a moment to thank the staff of oawd and thank larry mcclindon who has joined the team and hit the ground running, thank you, larry. and twient recognize there's been 15 community members who have come together to form the working group. eloise patent is here and sherry miller, devin richardson and thank you for being so steadfast and commissioner ransom is also

here being apart of all of this. i forget your name from oawd next to you, tyra. erin. you have also been apart of this from the beginning. i want to say thank you and recognize planning staff from the historic preservation unit in assisting my office and creating the legislation. with that i'd like to propose a couple humble amendment. first intersection 1078.2 pertaining to required reports from the department of public work. on the printout on page 7, the amendment begins on line 9. i'd like to make a motion to accept those amendments. is there a second? seconded by supervisor ronen and can we accept these amendments? great. without objection, these amendments are adopted. colleagues, on the ordinance --

we're not done yet. that's just accepting the amendment. thank you, i appreciate the enthusiasm though. hold on, i'm on a roll. colleagues on the ordinance as amended can we take same house, same call. without objection the ordinance is passed on the first reading. there it is. madame clerk. please call the next item. >> clerk: time to introduce new business, supervisor mandelman. >> thank you. i'm requesting we adjourn in honor of kamati makalka. we lost her to lung cancer and was born in honolulu, hawai'i in june of 1966. after a brief period of living in france they settled in boston where the graduate from bookline

high school and as an active and engaged student, she join the dartmouth community for divestment campaign to urge divestment from the apartheid, south africa. she went on to become an editor, writer and book seller, elevating the voice of women and list beens -- less -- lesbians and their works include a number of collections. she worked for lamda rising book store in washington, d.c. and was one of the first authors for the lamda book review. after moving to san francisco in 2001 she worked for lonely planet before taking an editing and web production jobs at kaiser family foundation where she worked the last 12 years. she also volunteered as a member of the march organizing

committee. she was a passionate bird watcher who watched hawks from hawk hill and dedicated countless hours from the observatory where she identified and counted migrating hawks. she is survived by her partner laura thomas in the chamber today. they met at a friend's lesbian wedding and they were married four times. the first in february, 2004 during the historic months when thousands of couples flood city hall to get married. and in january 2005 they traveled to vancouver where same-sex marriage was already legal to once again exchange vows in a book store called little sisters. they were married once more in the berkeley hills and in 2008

they married for a final time before the passage of proposition 8. her illness was sudden and heartbreaking for those who knew her and hospitalized in may and diagnosed in june and went through chemo and transitioned to hospice in october and died november 10 with her spouse, laura holding her hand surround cats and friends and she is missed by all those who had the fortunate to know her. laura thomas is here. i've known her along with her good friend and san francisco treasure mike schriever. i've had the privilege of knowing law ray -- laura more than 10 years. i got her to learn during her advocacy of hiv and drug policy and as the past president of the harvey milk organization.

she made so much of her civic life and community work possible. law rashgs -- laura, thank you for being here today. your community love you very much. the rest i submit. >> supervisor: supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madame clerk and my condolences to laura thomas. i want to take a moment to reflect on the profound election on november 6 not just on the candidate side but on the initiative side. as we celebrate the community-led passage of proposition c but also president cohen had tucked into her proposition d ostensibly a provision called the wayfair provision which at one point the

chief economist of the city said might be worth some $50 million annually for our general fund. we'll see what it does over time. after the election i asked the city controller to help us look for what additional revenue may come in to the city coffers with that revision with hope of having bridge funding for proposition c. as you all know, the controller reported extraordinary news and that was the sudden influx from the state's educational revenue fund of $450 million. so today together with supervisors mandelman, fewer, yee and kim, we're introducing a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $181 million the balance of some $234 million

with the baseline set-aside in the rainy day fund we were all discussing. i want to thank those supervisors for your input and co-sponsorship and there's been a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $181 million. the good news is i think we all understand that given the uncertain nature of future eraf shifts we should treat it at one-time money. i'm glad the mayor's proposal adheres to the physically prudent policy and we're focussing on one-time capital investment and bridge funds. i want to break down the three buckets the supplement appropriation has, $121 million to the mayor's office of housing and community development for affordable housing, construction, site acquisition including s.r.o. acquisition and

behavior health facility acquisition and $10 million to the office of early childcare and childhood education for a low-wage worker bridge fund. what we used to call cares plus. i want to thank supervisor yee for that suggestion and of course that's in addition to the set-aside that the children's fund will be getting. and finally, i hope this is music to many of our ears, $50 million to the san francisco public utilities commission for a fund to create a down payment on the fulfillment of a long held vision for green energy acquisition of infrastructure facilities. i think there's going to be a lot of work to be done.

i know each and every supervisor has ideas about acquisitions of small sites and s.r.o.s whether in my district there's been incredible things like the recent acquisition of 637 clay street and there's more of that to do. i look forward to the ongoing conversation that we have. but i also wanted to focus on the $50 million bucket and speak about another measure proposition a the voters overwhelmingly passed given the p.u.c. to issue revenue bonds for clean infrastructure project. that's a powerful tool we can use to acquire distribute infrastructure and that's the first measure in trying to

address the delays and heard at hearings and closed-session discussions at the board of [speaki -- supervisors or in supervisor mandelman's district, as the been clear pg&e have been behind policies tantamount to extortion and to the taxpayers and make it clear we're serious in looking at proposition a and the rest i'll submit. >> thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor safai. submit?

thank you. supervisor staph -- stefani. >> i'm introducing an ordinance requiring commissioner and department heads to take an online implicit bias course. san francisco prides itself on its inclusion and we still have so much work to do. this legislation will ensure the leaders of our city know about implicit bias and reflect on our biases when making decisions. as a member of the rules committee, i that'd opportunity to ask several of our police commissioner candidates about implicit bias training. i think we should not only have our commissioners engage in implicit bias courses and our department heads. as a department head as county clerk i took the two-day course

and feel everybody should have the opportunity to do so. the course i am recommending is just an online course. it's not the two-day. i was so impressed with the course i did take, the day after i called micky callahan i said it should be mandatory for as many city employees as possible and part of school curriculum and believe everybody who take the course will be happy. i hope to have your support. it's not onerous. i think the course developed by d.h.r. is profound and eye-opening and life changing. i look forward to your support. >> clerk: supervisor tang will submit. supervisor yee. >> thank you, madame clerk. >> both supervisor peskin and myself would like to close this meeting in memory of emanual lund better known as manny.

he was the founder of the jeffery toy store on 45 kearny. has since then in 1966 and since then his son has taken over, his son mark. the reason i want to bring attention to this very generous human being, was in the earl '70s i actually went around trying to do a community christmas party and tried to give gifts at a time to mainly under privileged kids. i didn't see it happening too much in my community in chinatown. i went around and by the third year i had over 500 children come to the event. but one of the stores consistent

and this was before toys r us and jeffery's toy store was there and toys r us is gone and jeffery's toy store is still there. i have to say when i walked into jeffery's toy, not being a part of anybody or any organization, i said i'm from the community and i want to do this thing and i really need help. i don't have any money to do anything. would you be willing to donate and he was real generous in donating many many toys. he wasn't the only one but he was one of the first. i want to give praise to his generosity and remember him by. so that's that. >> colleagues, this year marks the 75th anniversary of the repeal the chinese exclusion

act. the chinese exclusion act of 1882 was the first and only national law restricting immigration of a specific group of people based solely on race and ethnicity. the chinese exclusion act reflect the widespread stereotypes and beliefs of chinese as inferior and exotic and heathens and competitors for jobs and wages. perpetuating this issue and the discrimination and violence towards chinese people in the u.s. kept going many years. it separated thousands of families causing damage between husbands and wives and their children. actually in 1943, then u.s. representatives warren

magnuson of washington state introduced the repeal of the chance exclusion act which was signed later that year into law by franklin rose very well. -- roosevelt. unfortunately in the year with trump being elected, he has introduced many anti-immigration policies such as the muslim ban as a result. we have scene an unsettling resurgence of white nationalism and hate crimes and phobia directed towards immigrant communities.

>> every immigrant needs to know san francisco remains a beacon of hope and refuge for immigrant seeking a better life and as a community we'll continue to resist and fight against any racist, bigot or anti-racism policies from the current presidential administration. i want to thank my colleagues, supervisors fewer, tang, kim, and peskin and ronen for co-sponsoring my resolution. since september 17, marks the 75th anniversary of the repeal of the chinese exclusion act i hope the rest of my colleagues

will support me in passing the resolution. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor brown. president cohen. >> thank you. now i know many of you are probably going to be surprised by what i'm going to say thinking it's the second to the last board meeting what could president cohen could possibly have on her mind to do? today i'm introduce hearing, yes, introducing a hearing on the municipal bank task force i'll be scheduled for thursday next week. now, 18 months ago i create the task force to study the feasibility of establish mune s is -- municipal bank in san francisco. there was a group of expert to assist us in thinking through how to build local control.

of course, all while maintaining transparency about where our investment money is going and where it's going in the city. we've had a lot of divestment discussion over the last few years ranging from tobacco to firearms to the dakota access pipeline, to trump's border wall. name it, we've covered it. i'm sure i am not alone when i say i would like to see our money go towards improving our financial inclusion programs on socially responsible investments an supporting affordable housing and city college and for the last nine months the task force has met monthly to debate the issues. i warrant want to recognize the treasurer's office released their draft report. we will have a final meeting in

january this hearing will give the public an opportunity for this body to review the recommendations of the task force and give us an opportunity to offer feedback and provide marching orders where san francisco should go from here. supervisor ronen, i'm looking to your leadership and supervisor fewer as i administration >> i look forward to hearing the recommendations next week and hope we kill -- will have a spirited discussion and i want to thank sophia kitler on my

staff she's been the muscle. that's my roll call for introduction. madame clerk the, rest i submit. >> clerk: supervisor kim. >> submit. >> clerk: all items will be appropriately referred. madame president, that ends new business. >> that ends new business. so that means that brings us to item 30, public comment. our most favorite time of the day. if anyone would like to address the board, please step forward and line up and we'll start with you, mr. wright. >> 14th amendment of the constitutional and tupac says equal protection under the law. it's been violated by this administration and past administration and i object to this proposal of 8,000 apartment

unit complexes built in the city. in fact, it turns out it's 8,900 units. i object on the ground it discriminates against single people. that proposal was explained as only for family members only. so understood, -- so in other words, a single person can't put in and you're advocating you want to make the minimum requirement to be a tenant in the building at 1100% of the a.m.i. as a family unit you have to make $92,950 a year. that means people making less than $92,000 a year can't even put in an application to be a tenant to live in the

multi-million dollar complex being proposed. all these incomes are not being included in the inclusionary loan and it's another example of discrimination. i find it to be scandalous and woeful misconduct. for three persons you have to make $103,750 per year to qualify. everybody below this income bracket can't apply. it's an example of discrimination and gentrification and discrimination based on geographical location. in washington, d.c. there's an attorney filing a lawsuit based on gentrification where you give preferential treatment to white people and displacing colored people like you did in fillmore. >> supervisor: thank you, mr. wright.

>> it saddens know bring this to you but i just want to share with you an incident that took place october 25 at safeway super market in district 5. i was racially profiled by a security guard and cashier at that particular store. and the biggest thing about this is that i tried to go through the proper steps. obviously, if you stop, you're embarrassed and all these things happen to you but i showed the manager my reset and they finally apologized but there was really no follow-up on why this is happening at safeway and continuing to happen at many safeways across san francisco.

since then we've been trying to talk to the corporate office in pleasanton and talking to a guy named brian claiming he's doing an investigation but i want to bring to your attention since i did research there's safeways in san francisco and 1300 in california and 900 safeway stores in the united states. i'm getting calls and people are talking to me that the racial profiling thing is starting to pick up and you see it all the time at the stores with the security companies that's not trained well and usually pressured by the store managers to just pick people randomly or sometimes even follow people throughout the store. let me say to make a long story short, i'm asking you because i'm come to each supervisor that we need to have more maybe at the public safety level or maybe at a committee of the whole, we need to find out what's going on

with safeway including other retail stores in san francisco. thank you very much and i will be talking to you. >> supervisor: thank you, next speaker. >> thank you, president cohen. the san francisco superior court is adjudicating people from san francisco into out-patient and in-patient treatment and psychiatric treatment. they're being extremely secretive about this program. they will not reveal case numbers. those are supposed to be violating people's confidentiality. i don't know how you can find someone's identify from a case

number. if anybody knows how to do that, please let me know. as far as i know it's a serial number assigned by the clerk. [please stand by] .