allowing this. >> supervisor: thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor brown. >> yes, thank you. i want to thank supervisor kim for this because i think this is really important for the city and i'm a co-sponsor of this legislation because i firmly believe education is a right. basic college education is increasingly important to earn a decent wage. i believe government should ensure this level of education to be available for all. with the sky-high soft -- cost of san francisco many folks cannot afford to attend legislation and if this is ratified it will provide a leg up that all san francisco people deserve. the last couple of years i've asked and worked with city college to actually be able to come out and sign up people in neighborhoods for free city

leng. and i also have been i think the stipended are really important. we have right now the old yoshis and new heritage center that's opened and have housing events an workforce academies an i've asked to sign people up for free college and the lesser addition. if we're going to have a strong and vital economy, everyone has access, we must provide additional educational opportunity for folks especially for low income and people of color. the skills we can acquire at a free community college will help them succeed in business. a trade or university and it allows folks to get vocational

training to help secure well-paying jobs. as we face an income gap that gets wider every day, i think san francisco should consider providing the increased opportunities so more can be a part of the growing economy in the city. i just thank everyone for your support. >> thank you, supervisor brown, before we continue i want to acknowledge, supervisor kim has made a motion and there's a motion on the floor. is there a second to her motion? seconded by supervisor rafael. >> i washington the opportunity to work with supervisor kim. i know we had some pretty -- over the course of the last 48 hours there's been some intense conversations. i think normally the conversations would be spread out over a six-month period or at least a three or four-month period but out of respect for my colleague who put in such a

significant amount of time into this, we wanted to accelerate things and move it forward in a timely fashion. i think the amendment that we came to an argument with today working with aft2121 and the coalition of free city college is the right amendment as supervisor kim says, in the event that we have additional funding come through, this program would be allowed to make the adjustments. i know it was just announced today that some introduced something in sacramento to provide for full-time students but let's be clear, this is free for everyone so there's a whole host of students that would not be covered by that and if that were the case we'd have the ability to make the necessary adjustments while respecting the reserve and respecting the goals of the program in no way shape or form would there be any cavalierness or desire to zero

out the program. the program would always be respected but that level of having some additional adjustment without the voters i think was important. i appreciate supervisor kim for her willingness to do that along with the coalition. i'd like my name to be added as a co-sponsor and what it means for the citizens of san francisco and we can send a message to the state of california of what this means for all working families and those immigrant, newly arrived, continuing education, seniors, which essentially is how you would describe my entire district. i know many of you feel the same way so thank you. thank you for supervisor yee and others for their leadership as well over the years on this. thank you. >> supervisor: okay. supervisor, . >> thank you. 10 years, 20 years, for me my

grandkids are 2 years old and in 20 years they could benefit from it. what the heck. i know the program will be so great by the time we get to 10 years i'll extend it so i'm not afraid it's not going to exist when my grand kids are old enough. i accept the amendments and have no reservations about it. >> thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor stefani. >> thank you, president cohen. i want to commend supervisor kim for her legacy on providing free city college for all those who need it and something i believe in deeply. and also a member off the budget

and finance committee and at the county clerk i can't divorce myself from my responsibility to what are the taxpayers and the general fund and i want to reiterate i believe all people from san francisco deserve access to quality affordable education. i believe free city college say vital and invaluable program for every person who wants to further their knowledge and academic opportunities. i do want to see this continue in perpetuity. however, i want to see it done in a way that maximizes federal and state support for our students and creates a physically responsible and economically sustainable city college. i recognize there are students who cannot use federal or state aid and these the students for whom free city college is most important. we all know the voters approved

city policy regarding set aside is not in line with this and set asides restrict our ability to handle changes in our economy and the sacramento b recorded california college made the opportunity for an associate's degree free for many. with the set-aside we're limited to respond to a change such as this or any economic downturn. i am supportive but before i do, there's several questions that have not been answered and it's been accelerated through the rules committee and the latest financial aid report showed 40% of getting students to apply for financial aid. on the same report it shows the number of awards is down 50%. i don't know why that is. in july 3, presentation it shows

a similar pattern from fall of 2016 to fall 2017 before and after free city college started. i want to know why the number of students seemed eligible for state aid dropped while enrollment increased by nearly 4,000 students. here's my worry, we're leaving $8.7 million on the table of federal and state aid and i'm supportive of free city college and a do not think there should be any barriers at all to someone receiving a free education but i do worry about the set-aside. i approached supervisor kim earlier today about an amendment i'd like to see in this charter amendment and she said it was too late but i want to put it forward and ask my colleagues to consider it. an amendment that would have the board of supervisors adopt annual reporting requiring.

say we would develop any reporting requirements by ordinance by march 1 of 2020. i have this amendment for people to take a look at. i think it's a common sense amendment. standard practice with other city set-asides an ensure tax dollars are used responsibly. i'd like to pass it out and ask to have it moved forward. i'll ask for a second. i don't know i'll get it but it's important for me as a member of the budget and finance committee to make sure our tax dollars are spent wisely and we're not leaving $7.8 million of federal and state ate -- aid on the table and we're doing it in a way to take responsibility for every dollar we have to spend at the board of supervisors. i'd like to make a motion to move that amendment forward.

>> supervisor: there's a motion on the floor. supervisor tang made a second. supervisor tang, i see your name on the roster. >> thank you. i too echo my thanks to supervisor kim and her staff and ivy lee now a trusty at city college for their work over the years on this. i had supported it back then when this sent to us and i'm sure we'll try to find the answers. one is we did receive a letter from the chancellor's office which did state after nearly two years of administering the free city program in its current form, they're keenly aware it's not serving their students including the most vulnerable students and dig in to what that is to ensure all students are

actually served by the free city program. again, i just wanted to look into that a little bit further. i had similar questions around the maximizing of resources for students whether it's through financial aid or other grants. i wanted to look further into that data and make sure all students are able to access whatever resources they need so they don't have barriers to attend city college. and i feel personally about that. i family members who serve as financial aid counselors at city college here in san francisco. the other thing brought to my attention is there may be a new funding model as well for city college. so wanting to understand that and how that plays into the amount of money we as a city million will be providing.

i support the program and concept i just wanted some questions answered. i'll take some offline with supervisor kim. thank you for your work on this. as i said to supervisor stefani and brun, i know both had suggested amendments but it was not time for me to work with our coalition and have them see it. we didn't have time to vet it with them. what i will say is this board via ordinance can do many things and we'll have to have an oversight committee to make sure the dollars are constantly being sent down and supervisor mandelman will take the ordinance and they can go into

the oversight committee analysis. keep in mind, the charter amendment guarantees we'll fully fund the program. we won't understand fund as we have in the first two years of the pilot program. this is the reality. there's different competing means in our buckdget and the mayor was only allocating $5.4 million to the program. >> mayor lee at the time only felt comfortable contributing $5.4 million of the $28 million of the program. this board through its very limited budget was able to add $1 million. it's a huge sum of money considering the $20 million we get to play with but it will never be able to add another $5

million to $01 -- $10 million. and we fought or the revenue. it's not revenue we're asking you to give. we fought for this revenue in 2016. however, it was so important to get our foot in the door and start free city we accept the lower stipend and still the cost is probably closer to $8 million or $9 million according to csf or the controller's office and we have a provision on unspent spent funds and if the state bill passes, the controller shall maintain the fund separate and any amount in the fund unspent or uncommitted at the end of the fiscal year shall be carried forward to the next fiscal year subject to the budgetary and fiscal limitations

an appropriated thereafter for the services specified. we also say we will put into the city reserve a total amount of 20% of the fiscal year's annual baseline and any funds in excess will be returned to the general fund. so in the first five years if the bill passes and see the cost has gone down from $15 million to $14 million, it won't be that much actually if you talk full-time students. the money will actually come back to the general fund once we filled the reserve. that was a precaution understanding that any formula and trying to understand how much the program costs cannot be exact. partially because enrollment goes up and down every year and two because it's a new program. if there's concern the dollar amount is too high, know it will come back to the general fund.

after the audit, the board will have visibility with the two-thirds majority to adjust out up and down if major policies or programs pass at the state or federal level. finally, on the scholarship issue, the topic makes me uncomfortable too. free city was never intended to be a lifestyle program. a last dollar program is every other scholarship must be fully expended before our program kicks in. that wasn't the intention. we know the last dollar scholarship programs always hurt the lowest income students. i can barely understand my own pension and health care. i have staff that haven't even signed up because they were so busy working and these are folks with means. how can we expect the most vulnerable students to apply for every scholarship.

it hurts the lowest-income students the most and middle income students can apply for fafsa but the lowest-income will not apply and attend. i want to help city college fund counselors and do everything we can to streamline the process because i don't want to leave dollars on the table but i also don't want to make it a requirement of the program. we have a lot of work to do to make it as easy as possible for students to apply but we shouldn't put the most vulnerable students in a hanging area and hanging free city college over their head when we know folks with more resources will always be able to go through all the processes and programs. i would love for the supervisors to pass the amendment that i've put forward and we can take a

separate vote on supervisor stephanie's amendment. >> supervisor ronen. i want to chime in on a couple points. first i love free city college. i think it's one of to the few policies the board of supervisors have passed in the history of this body that has the potential to profoundly change the inequality we're all battling with here in san francisco. the possibility that exists in the program is worth funding. it's worth funding with a stable source and worth funding over a long period of time. it's worth making that choice of priority here in san francisco. i want to chime in on the ongoing debate on set-asides.

i get both sides of this debate. it's a hard one. what ultimately -- what usually what i usually end of fight the set-aside side of the debate, the board of supervisors has an limited budget of $11 million and the mayor's budget office is responsible and the departments for setting the priority. and we have a month to review $11 million and then we battle between 11 of us at the end over a paltry part of money given the size of the budget. if you want to promote, create and see a big ideas become successful, it's really hard to do that through the budget

process with the set aside. 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,