i'm told that i'm a citizen. i have all the burdens and responsibilities of a citizen. i'm a tax-paying citizen, but i don't have the same rights as a citizen. i have no say in what elected representative represents me, our district, nor do i have any say on how mitacs dollars are spent. so i just want to say we are all aware of this country's history. it's marked by successful struggles to expand voting rights for different classes of people, race, gender, class. this is an opportunity to continue to build on that expansion. so we all have an opportunity to send a message to californian citizens across the country that voting is a cornerstone of a democracy and we will not tolerate any type of voter suppression no matter how you disguise it. so i'm asking this board today

to support yes in support of the rules and regulations for aca-6. thank you. >> thank you. next i want to call up brendon woods who is the alameda county public defender. >> good morning, members of the committee. thank you for allowing me to say a few words about this important pieces of legislation that is being considered in sacramento. as you heard, aca-6 will allow the voters to decide whether people on parole should be given the right to vote. as i said earlier in a rally today just to provide some context, 21 countries, 21, currently allow people to vote if you are on parole or if you are in prison. 21 countries. those countries include spain,

switzerland, sweden, germany, and even south africa. south africa. in april of 1999, the constitutional court of south africa declared the universality of the disenfranchisement is important, not only for the nation and democracy to vote for each and every citizen is a badge of personhood. in south africa they literally said every vote counts. in south africa they recognize that people in custody lose their liberty, not to be stripped of other fundamental rights. the number of people who have been stripped of this right has risen dramatically with the rise of mass incarceration. in 1976 there were 1.7 million people disenfranchised. that those to now today 6.1 million. 6.1 million.

in 2016 november election, there were 6.1 million citizens who were ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction. for context 4.# 7 million were not incarcerated. 4.7 million were on the streets. due to overincarceration, this has a devastating effect on black and brown communities. black people are four times more likely to be disenfranchised. 1 out of 15 black opposed to 1 in 56 non-black voters. 2 #.2 million black people are banned from voting in this country. aca-6 will address this and it will also increase public safety by welcoming returning citizens. research conducted on this topic

consistently finds that harsher voting restriction laws results in higher rates of recidivism in those states. higher recidivism laws equate to more disenfranchisement. so in 2012 a study posed by uc berkley. if one has no stake in his or her community, then one has little incentive to involve in a social manner in order to avoid punishment. this is important to rehabilitation and reintegration. in a recent study, 76% of parolees said that voting would help them stay out of jail, 76. furthermore, i'm going to end with this, people who are incarcerated or on parole are uniquely situated to offer

solutions on how we can prevent incarceration and promote public safety. voting would give them and allow them to have a voice in important policy decisions. so it is time that we in california stop telling our neighbours they don't belong, stopping telling them they can't participate. let's put that rhetoric to an end. democracy needs everyone. we need to fix this. we need to patch aca-6. we need to free the vote and i urge you to support the resolution. thank you. >> thank you to all three of our experts and to the many experts who i see also in the room here with us today. we can open it up. >> chair ronen: sure. we'll now open this item up for public comment. anyone who would like to speak, if you could line up on your right this side of the room. mr. wright, would you like to

start us off? >> this is very important and by the same response he has numerous demonstrations, demonstrating how it affects people of color, but i want to highlight that everybody here is fair and equal opportunity abrogater and speaking up for the race they're standing up for, but also i want to point out i believe everybody is like me fair and outside the people of colour as well because, see, there are whites too who are in the same type of position as people of colour who don't have the opportunity to vote as well. so all of you who are caucasian nationality white people, when you see us speaking like this, we're not just speaking up for ourselves, we're speaking up for you too because you're on parole

too and you can't vote. this is not a situation where we want differential treatment. we're equal opportunity abrogators, and we want equal protection under the law and due process. don't think we're being biased against you because we're not. getting everybody to think that is the way to be and applies to the housing opportunities here in san francisco and it hasn't been fair. some of you touched spaces on housing while you're talking about the voting situation. all of it is a derivative of each other. [ bell rings ]. >> is that clear? i also want to point out that when you paid your debt to society, you should automatically have a clean slate to begin with. when you get sentenced for that amount of time, that time is completed, that's why you're released. you've been on parole or probation is just a way to make

sure that you don't fall back in the system and the situation where you're behind bars again. [ bell rings ]. >> chair ronen: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm very nervous. excuse me. my name is louis hammonds. i'm a member of the united players and i support all or none. i'm a formerly incarcerated inmisstai inmai inmate who is a returning community member. that's something that says to us as a whole that we're stakeholders and we have a moral obligation to make a difference in our community. i also work for the division of parole as a navigator. i help those returning home to navigate their way through the system to be a success. many restrictions as they were talking about rely on trying to

try to help us protect ourselves, make sure we're doing the right things. we have motivation tempered with patience and we're renewed back into the recovery of life. this restriction actually is an opposition to that. it does not promote harmony, productivity, pro-social justice, and so i would say that i have to just speak for myself. there's nothing that i could ever do to repay society for my incarceration or the acts that i've done, so i don't come here to say i've done my time, i deserve that right. it's going to take a lifetime for me to even try to mend those things. but what i do say is as a leader of this community that i ask that we be stakeholders and brought to the table. they say every vote counts -- [ bell rings ]. >> what i here is every life should count. i respectfully request as a son of a mother who retired with the u.s. army spending 38 years and

the father of a son of a police officer in stockton, i say pleased allow us to come to the table as stakeholders and make a difference in our community. thank you very much. >> good morning and greetings to all. i am formerly incarcerated and i represent all of us or none which is a project for prisoners with children. parole serves as a vehicle of re-entry into society in which individuals regain their -- reclaim their full citizenship and which entails the right to pay taxes, the right to vote, and the right to serve on juries. it is my civic duty and responsibility to change the narrative as to who formerly incarcerated folks are. we are not inmates, convicts,

parolees, we are returning citizens. for the record, i am full support of aca-6. thank you. >> good morning, everyone. my name is paul conley. i was born and raised in san francisco, and i know that san francisco has a long history of not absorbing everybody in the population. this is another attempt to ostracise members of the society. the statistics that you provided are troubling that black people are less than 6% of the population, 45% of people on parole in san francisco are black. i'm from a community of color, and it's disappearing, almost every black neighbourhood in san francisco is disappearing. if 46% of people on parole are black, there's no wonder why, we don't have a say so on a local level, we're losing your

property, so much, our freedom and i would like for us to do whatever we can to make sure people from this city can remain in this city and have a voice in this city. >> my name is arian chekova. i am a resident of san francisco since 1992. i'm a public school teacher in san bruno and a parent here in the city. i am a sister of a man who served ten years under minimum sentencing guidelines. this caused our entire family to be imprisoned for those ten years, but it didn't end because there's 20 years -- he is out now at the age of 33 and he's out it now and he's got a 20-year parole sentence in which he cannot vote, he continues to not be a citizen of this country. during his sentencing, during

his imprisonment, my father and mother who were very poor, were unable to get him a good lawyer, therefore the long sentence, overly long, drove across the country. my father died of a heart attack. one could say he died of heart break to go and see his son. he never saw his son again. over the ten years he was imprisoned, my mother lost her job, lost all of her retirement. i spent thousands of dollars bringing myself, my son, my husband, my whole family out to visit my brother between two to three times a year in the south of this country. [ bell rings ]. >> it's a long journey for families. i saw a lot of broken families. i empathized with all the families, all the women, all the children, all the hiss and wives, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles,

of people who are incarcerated, it is a long, long time and we need to give every single person the right to full citizenship under the law and the right to vote as soon as we possibly can. everybody who has served their sentence needs the right. thank you very much. [ bell rings ]. >> chair ronen: next speaker. >> good morning. my name is michael sevadra. i'm also formerly incarcerated. i spent 19.5 years in prison. i'm now a pathway to law school student and also i work and pay taxes. however, i can't vote and i think it's very important for me to be reintegrated back into the community to have that right and also to represent my community because my community is being marginalized as well and their voice as well as mine need to be heard. so i urge you to pass this. thank you. >> good morning, good afternoon,

my name is wendy click. i work for hospitality house but also represent myself. i'm formerly incarcerated. the sentence i carried, i had to be on parole for five years. if it wasn't for the dorothy nones and joe wilsons, i never would have thought about voting. after my five years, this past november was the first time i was able to vote. i brought 34 people who have never voted here to city hall. we did a walk to windy and that was so liberating for me because it wasn't for all of us or none of us who gave that pamphlet out to vote, i wouldn't have had all 34 folks here. i'm going to continue this, but now at hospitality house, we have people, six with a life sentence. we are reaching out to the communities to say let's get out and vote. so i support this, hospitality

house supports this, and we all would love for this to pass. thank you. >> good morning, my name is michael mendosa, and i'm the policy director with the anti-recidivism coalition. we are in strong support of this resolution. we want to thank supervisor haney for his leadership and believe that democracy needs everybody. thank you. >> my name is kelly savage. i work for the california coalition of women prisoners with all or none and several others. as formerly incarcerated individual, i understand that no matter what choices we made then, today we're at jeopardy every single day we don't have an opportunity to vote. our safety is at risk. we're not afforded the same opportunities as everyone else. if we're harmed in the community, the da may or may not

decide if they want to prosecute that person that harms us because we're not full citizens until that parole is over. that is unacceptable. we're here paying rent, we're here paying taxing, we're here paying every other bill everyone else pays. with this vote, it will give us one more opportunity to get one more step towards that citizenship we deserve just as well as everybody else. once again, as others have talked about, it's not about negating the crime itself, it's about who we are today because we earn the right to be here. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i just wanted to thank everyone for coming out and your incredibly compelling testimony.

i could not be more proud to be a co-sponsor of this measure, this item. the fact is, and many of you expressed this very articulately and clearly, that in this country there has been systemic efforts to prevent black people from voting for ever, since slavery, whether it's, you know, violence in lynching, whether it's literacy tests, whether it's the requirement of i.d. cards, i mean, every tactic that you can -- that any system could think of to prevent african-americans from voting has been tried, and this is the latest effort of that. and we must work tirelessly until we eliminate all of these barriers to anyone. now, not only african-american

folks, but latino folks and anyone incarcerated, but primarily people of color are disenfranchised and their vote is taken away over the most important decisions of them and their families and about as wrong as wrong can be. we're going to change that law here in california. this is the first step in getting there, and i'm very, very excited to be passing this resolution in our city. thank you so much for all your work. supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: thank you, chair ronen. first, i want to thank everybody who came out to speak today and who came out to the rally, and of course supervisor haney and all sponsors in support of aca-6. it's really like darcy none said earlier when he talked about the fact when you take away someone's right to vote, you're

actually taking it away from their children, you're taking it away from their grandchildren, and you're creating a generational way of keeping voice out of the political system and out of the system where people make decisions. of course that's unfortunate, that generational silence, but we also have to stop using the law to try to keep people from being able to re-engage into society. trying to use the law or mistakes and lessons that people have learned to keep them from being successful and positive pieces of society. we do understand that a big part of being productive is actually having the right to vote and we notice singling out people of color, we know what the data shows and demonstrates in terms of who is incarcerated, who is formerly incarcerated, who has a voice and doesn't get the right

to vote. the last thing i will say from a common-sense standpoint, we understand that people are more productive when they have a voice and opportunity to re-engage, and the more additional obstacles we put in front of people, the harder it is for them to be successful and re-engage in society. anecdotally, friends and family who've been incarcerated and never had someone come home for the most part and say the first thing i want to do is go out and create another crime. they want another job to make income and they need family and friends a positive support system. when you put obstacle and obstacle and obstacle on top of all of the other things that weigh in when someone is trying to re-engage in society, it makes it worse and taking away

the right to vote is another form of that obstacle. i want to thank you all for being here and of course i want to thank our votes at the state for pushing aca-6 forward. this is only one step in terms of the changes we really need to make to make sure people can positively re-engage in society. this is a very important step. thank you, supervisor haney and colleagues. >> supervisor mar: thank you. yeah, i also wanted to, first of all, thank supervisor haney for bringing this resolution forward. thank you to all the state legislators who have co-sponsored and thanks to all the advocates who spoke today and at the rally and especially the formerly incarcerated and returning community members for all of your dedication and focus on this issue and in the broader issues of restorative justice. yeah, as my colleagues have

stated, is another important step that i think we can take as a state in the state of california in terms of racial and restorative justice. as elected officials, we know or understand as well as everyone that elections matter and every vote matters and i think the voice and the vote of community members who are on parole are incredibly important to bring forward right now in all of our elections, local, state, and especially the federal elections coming up in 2020. so again, i'm -- thanks to everyone for all your work on this issue. i look forward to not just moving this resolution forward, but supporting all the work y'all are doing on these important issues. >> i also want to thank everybody who came out today and

especially the returning citizens, returning community members, who have been leading this fight for a long time and got us to this point where we have got the opportunity to put this on the ballot that can really address this. it's going to take all of us to get this passed. there's going to be fear-mongering and misinformation. we have to make sure the governor signs it on his desk and it goes to the ballot. we know in this building, sometimes people don't want things on the ballot and this has to go on the ballot. what florida has shown is that we can win when we're united and when we correct the misinformation. particularly, we're going to talk about democracy and we're going to talk about rights, and that's the right framing, but also the current situation is damaging to public safety, that when you exclude people after they've been released from prison and you continue to isolate them and marginalize

them, that's what causes -- that doesn't only not serve public safety, it doesn't enhance the public safety in any way. so we're going to fight that misinformation as well. i want to thank everybody who's been on the front lines of this. i joined for the march with wendy and that's where i voted. actually, when i was elected, that's the time that i voted and was very proud for your leadership and this is a frisk issue, this is an important issue for our community. so we need to see it through and be on the front lines and follow the lead of our formerly incarcerated returning community members as you all lead this fight and we join you. thank you to my co-authors, all three of you, and to the committee for considering this. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. so we -- i will make a motion to send this item forward with

positive recommendations. >> amended. >> chair ronen: sorry. i will make a motion to accept the amendments that supervisor haney submitted without objection those amendments pass. then i will make a motion to send this item forward with positive recommendation without objection. that motion passes. thanks so much for everyone's advocacy. congratulations. [ applause ]. >> chair ronen: mr. clerk, can you please read item number 4. >> clerk: item number 4 is a resolution urging the office of small business to convene a small business economic mitigation working group to outline economic mitigation measures in support of san francisco small business retailers affected by ordinance no. 122-19 and requesting the office of the controller to provide an economic impact report for ordinance no. 122-19 and an updated report for ordinance no. 140-17. >> chair ronen: supervisor walton, would you like to make

introductory remarks? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much. supervisor fewer and i are putting forward this resolution to let everyone know we are serious about supporting our small businesses here in san francisco. i have said before that small businesses are the backbone of a lot of our communities here in the city. we want our small businesses to thrive and we need to put policies in place that will help small businesses succeed here in san francisco. we sat down with the small business commission and several small business advocates to work on this resolution to convene a small business economic mitigation working group. the goal is to mitigate negative impacts on our small businesses due to recent legislation, but also to legislation that could be harmful to small businesses in general. so this resolution will support the small business commission

convening that committee to work together on strategies and policies that will help small businesses thrive even due to certain legislation. >> chair ronen: fantastic. no other opening comments? if there's any member of the public who would wish to speak on this item, please come forward. >> good morning, chair ronen, vice-chair walton, supervisor mar, dominika dalton. thank you so much for hearing this today, and on behalf of the small business commission, i would like to extend thanks and appreciate to supervisors walton and fewer in them introducing this legislation in an especially timely and swift manner. the commissioners are especially grateful to supervisor walton to listening to their feedback and to emerging feedback and following up on the commitment made to a strategy to implement

economic mitigation measures for our most vulnerable businesses who may have been affected by recent legislation. we're confident this effort will lead to sustainable positive outcomes for our small businesses and we're gratefully appreciative of your consideration of this item. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. is there any other member of the public who wishes to speak on this item? mr. wright, please come forward. >> small businesses, now the city has been short-changing small businesses, and i -- generally that's not my target because i focus in on the most vulnerable people, but when you do something that's right in front of my eyesight, because of me not being an unconscionable person i have to speak up. you have been giving preferential treatment to multi-billion-dollar companies not letting them pay payroll

taxes, whereas small businesses you charge them payroll taxes. as a result their clientele is not as big as the multi-billion companies, twitter, and other companies and a biotech company and the business is always booming, but small businesses end up going out of business and then you penalize the owner because plywood is being put in front of the window where the small business is located and you want to charge them. so you owe them. that's difference of treatment. it's a violation of business code of professional ethics. you've got a situation enjoyed by multi-billion-dollar companies is not enjoyed by smaller companies. that's preferential treatment. one company carrier that came in and claimed taxes, state taxes,

union dues, pesca denied them from being treated like twitter and gave a poor excuse, said, look, because you're paying union dues doesn't mean you should be exempt from paying payroll taxes. how come you don't use that philosophy with twitter and all the other high-tech companies and one biotech company? they've got multi -- [ bell rings ]. >> chair ronen: thank you. is there any other member of the public who would wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. i would love to add myself as a co-sponsor of this measure, and i'm happy to make the motion to refer this to the full board as a committee report. >> thank you. i second that. i just want to thank dominica for her work and support through

this process. we still have much more work to do together, but thank you for coming out this morning. >> i would like to be added as a co-sponsor as well. thank you so much for all your work on this, supervisor walton. >> chair ronen: without objection, this item moves forward with a committee report with positive recommendation unanimously. [ gavel ]. >> chair ronen: mr. clerk, can you read item number 5. >> clerk: item number 5 is the ordinance amending the administrative code to establish uniform procedures for the administration of city loans and grants for the acquisition, development, construction rehabilitation and preservation of affordable housing, authorize the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to execute certain local or grant agreements for affordable housing. >> chair ronen: thank you. we are happy to have the director of mohcd in her last week on the job. >> we've got to keep things moving to the bitter end.

>> chair ronen: thanks for being here. >> thank you. thank you very much for this hearing and for considering our request to establish protocols for the mayor's office of housing and community development loans approval process. let's see if we could get the -- there we go. hold on one second. okay. great. just to provide a little framework, the city charter requires that all loans that are over $10 million or longer 10 million in term receive a board of supervisors approval. in addition, we request board

approval for any acquisitions or leases of real property, per the admin code, as well as jurisdictional transfers of real property. we take land dedications from our developers to the board for approval that comes through the planning code. if we get any funds for our developments from the state department of housing and community development, that requires board approval, as does every tax-exempt bond issuance. we've used tax-exempt bonds on 98% of new construction projects. so there are many board approvals that apply to all our projects. we are requesting delegated authority for three types of loans, and i will speak in more detail about the rationale for

this request in the next slides. the first is for loans that are less than $10 million, but have longer than ten-year terms. we are also asking for delegated authority for our local operating subsidy program grant agreements and for emergency loans that exceed $10 million. what will not change is that any substantial rehab or new construction project will require board approval. any loan that's over $10 million will be bringing to the board. and our loan -- our local operating subsidy grants, those require annual appropriations approvals from the board. so we'll be before you for that program every single year. in addition, we will continue to be applying our long-term deidre strikss, our long-term affordability covenants and our appliance with all the regulatory frameworks that we

work within, including state, local, and federal regulations. with respect to the delegated authority, the request to have this for loans under $10 million primarily applies to two kinds of loans. one is a small-sized program and one is the down-payment assistance program. in our down-payment assistance loan program, we are talking -- let me go back a slide. our borrowers are conducting this work for anti-displacement reasons to keep people in their homes, they're out there on the market. the board process takes four to five extra weeks. so we would really be put at a disadvantage. okay. and we do have some great examples of where that process would have caused us to actually lose the properties. with respect to the down-payment assistance loans, we are under obligation to protect the

privacy of our clients. and so to get a down-payment assistance loan you must provide your personal finance information. so it's very sensitive information and we want to make sure we continue to protect those borrowers. also, our borrowers would not be able to compete in the marketplace. again, the local operating subsidy program comes before you annually. it's a program with strong support from all corridors. so to not have this delegated authority would essentially duplicate the work of the board approvals, which you have the -- you see at budget time every year. finally, this is quite rare, the emergency loan delegation request, but we do want to be prepared if there were an instance of a building condition that could cause harm to tenants or cause them to lose their homes. so we're asking that if there's an emergency and we demonstrate

that there is a risk to life or a loss of the housing and we have documented that the building owner has exhausted all other funding sources, we want to make sure that we can make those loans and preserve the housing and protect people. we would, of course, give you notification prior to the loan, ten days' advance notice, and the controller would weigh in to make sure we have the appropriate funds to do that. and that is really it. i'm happy to answer any questions, and again, thank you for your consideration. >> chair ronen: any questions? supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thanks. i just had a few questions about the -- yeah, this -- i really appreciate the presentation and for the small sites acquisition program and the down-payment assistance loan program, i was just wondering like how many --

like, how many projects or financing sort of requests come before -- currently come before the board for these on an annual basis roughly? >> we have preserved about 200 small sites units, and we ha have -- the vast majority have been direct financing from the city. some cases there has been bridge financing. we had been operating under the delegated authority as just a historical fact, and then last year the board asked us to take another look at how our loan approvals process goes with the city attorney's office and the

controller's office, and this is why we're here to clarify that, in fact, we want to make sure that we're bringing before the board what should be done by the terms of the city charter, but there are some instances like small sites that -- where the four to five weeks in additional time would be very problematic. so we have -- and i do have my colleague here -- we have multiple properties that are coming up that we want to be able to act fast in the marketplace and so i don't have the exact number, but i could get my colleague to advise. >> i just had another question. have there been examples where we have lost opportunities because of the need to come before the board for approval, either for the small sites program or the down-payment assistance program? >> jonah lee from the mayor's

office housing development. so answer your first question about the number of projects that have come through requesting board approval, we've now brought two groups of small sites projects, approximately ten projects, and the vast majority of those have been conversions of permanent financing, so where a bridge lender provided the acquisition financing and the city's financing was coming in as a take-out financing source. and to your second question in terms of transactions that might have otherwise been lost if we had to go through the board approval process. you know, 80% of all the small site acquisitions that we've done to date have been with the city operating under this delegated approval, and where we were able to close in less than 100 days and it's our opinion

that had those projects had to go through a different approval process that was not expedited, they either would not have been able to get under contract or we certainly would not have been able to close under the required timeline. what we're seeing in the market today is that -- excuse me, sellers are requiring 90 to 100 days as a closing timeline, and that's just not feasible with the additional time required to go through the board process. >> thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you. any other questions? no. great. i'd now like to open up this item to public comment. mr. wright, go ahead and come right up. >> the mayor's office on housing and board of supervisors too. you've got a tendency of always talking about 100% affordable housing. i'd like to scrutinize each and

every one of these grants, these loans, because i know from corporate law experience that those grants and those loans got protection clauses in there saying that you are not supposed to be involved in any kind of activity that discriminates against people who you are claiming that you're helping with this loan, and you've been doing this on each and every loan from the state and the feds that ever comes through the city of san francisco and i'm furious. you say 100% affordable housing, but yet the most vulnerable people are not included in the housing opportunity and over 90% of them have a combination of both mental and physical disability. so you're in violation of the american disabilities act too. every time you set the requirement in order to be a tenant in a building and fill

out an application, you set the lowest income below the income of the most vulnerable people that is homeless out in the street who you claim you want to help. it's disgusting. you've got emergency homeless housing situation on your hands. you meet all the requirements -- [ bell rings ]. >> -- in order to sustain let us call price gouging and price fixing, where you deliberately set the price in order to be a tenant in the building at a minimum of 80% of ami. i confronted you partly on that one time before. you gave me a poor excuse. who are you hiring to clean the building? the secret service? that's why you've got so many people homeless and on the street. [ bell rings ]. >> chair ronen: thank you. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is

closed. if there's no other comments, i think that this law makes sense. i do think that if we're not able to close quickly on these properties that we will lose them that's a fair request you're making and i'm supportive of this. if i can make a motion to send this item forward as a committee report with positive recommendati recommendation. i'm looking to my colleagues if that is okay. that passes unanimously. ordinance authorizing the controller to modify the ballot question regarding the proposed general obligation bond ordinance for the november 5, 2019, ballot (board of

supervisors file no. 190495) to incur $600,000,000 of bonded indebtedness to finance the construction, development, acquisition, improvement, rehabilitation, preservation, and repair of affordable housing improvements, and related costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes. >> chair ronen: thank you. we have sophia kitler from the mayor's office. >> thank you, supervisors. the mayor, mayor breed and president nee had introduced this to allow the controller to take advantage of senate bill 268, which would change -- it changes how we think about the ballot question and what the requirements for the ballot question are, particularly with regards making the tax rates explicit for rcd's bonds. this ordinance had allowed us to take advantage of what that might be, should it pass at the state level, specifically for the affordable housing bonds. i'm pleased to say f 268 is

moving through the senate, but not applicable to the november ballot. it will not apply to affordable housing bond. while i believe we will be back for the easter bonds, we respectfully ask that the committee table this item. thank you so much. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. open this up for public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak. mr. wright, come on up. >> this is just a continuation of my overall demonstration. you talk about 100% affordable housing. this is a $600 million bond and it's supposed to be targeted for senior citizens in order to make sure they have permanent housing. you've got re-development rules that's in the city charter that says 15% of all apartment building complexes that comes through the mayor's office on housing is supposed to be for

very low and low income and moderate income bracket people and then you come up with a $600 million bond in order to get the type of housing for the people who i've been demonstrating for years under this rule 702 pertaining to redevelopment and housing opportunities, 15% of all buildings is supposed to be for very low and low-income bracket people. if you're to follow your own rules and regulations, you wouldn't have this type of problem and you wouldn't need this bond because those people would be included in the housing opportunity and you wouldn't have this problem in the first place. for example, 15% of the total amount of apartment buildings at mission is 1,500 units. if you follow the rules and resolutions that is in that big bank of information, 15% of 1,500 means 225 of those apartments is supposed to be for very low and low and

moderate-income bracket people. the giants price fix and make the lowest income in order to be attended in that apartment complex in mission rot at about 38,000, $42,000 a year and it's only 2% of the overall pie that you advertised and you make it look like people can afford to live in the building and they can't. you're liable and i'm going to hold you to it. [ bell rings ]. >> chair ronen: thank you. would any member of the public like to speak? seeing none, it is closed. i'm happy to make a motion to file this item. without objection, that motion passes. >> to recommend. >> chair ronen: or table, sorry, not file, table the item. >> sorry. >> chair ronen: i make a motion to table the item. >> the motion is to table the matter. >> chair ronen: that's right, and without objection, that motion passes unanimously.

mr. clerk, is there any more items? >> clerk: that completes the agenda. >> chair ronen: then the meeting is adjourned. thank you. [adjournment] >> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's elected assessor.

in our seven mile by seven mile city, we have over 210,000 properties and close to 90% of their are residential like the homes you and i live in, so you might ask, how can we possibly value all these properties? well, to better understand our work, we need to explain the state's proposition 13 law. in 1978, california voters passed proposition 13. under prop 13, we value your property at market value when you first buy it. every year after, that value goes up by the c.p.i. or the california consumer price index. but if the c.p.i. is more than 2%, prop 13 caps the increase at 2%. we'll walk-through the maximum increases prop 13 would allow. let's take a home with initial value of $400,000. in the second year your assessed value grows by a maximum of 2%, growing from $400,000 to $408,000.

in year three, that $408,000 is increased by 2% to roughly $416,000. every year, the value grows by the maximum rate of 2%, and that is called your prop 13 value. keep in mind as time goes by your prop 13 value may not be the same as market rate. what do we mean by that? let's say over the last ten years, home prices in san francisco have gone every roughly 10% every year. despite that, your prop 13 value is capped at 2% growth creating a difference between your market value and prop 13 value. know that the value recessed when there's a change in ownership. a change in ownership means that the property has a new zoner. maybe through a -- new owner. maybe through a sale, a gift or adding or dropping names through title.

at that time the home will be assessed a new market rate. that value becomes a new starting point for the property. just like before, the growth continues to be limited at 2% until the next transfer happens. remember, the new owners are responsible for paying taxes at the new level from the first day that they own it. value might also be added when construction happens on your property. that would be another instance when growth in your value might exceed 2%. here, we would add the value of construction on top of your existing prop 13 value. every july, we'll let you know what your assessed value is by sending you a letter called a notice of assessed value. you can use that information to estimate your property taxes early. please note that a separate office called the treasurer tax collector's office will send you a letter in october and they're responsible 230r collections. for more information, visit our website,

>> once i got the hang of it a little bit, you know, like the first time, i never left the court. i just fell in love with it and any opportunity i had to get out there, you know, they didn't have to ask twice. you can always find me on the court. [♪] >> we have been able to participate in 12 athletics wheelchairs. they provide what is an expensive tool to facilitate basketball specifically. behind me are the amazing golden state road warriors, which are one of the most competitive adaptive basketball teams in the state led by its captain, chuck hill, who was a national

paralympic and, and is now an assistant coach on the national big team. >> it is great to have this opportunity here in san francisco. we are the main hub of the bay area, which, you know, we should definitely have resources here. now that that is happening, you know, i i'm looking forward to that growing and spreading and helping spread the word that needs -- that these people are here for everyone. i think it is important for people with disabilities, as well as able-bodied, to be able to see and to try different sports, and to appreciate trying different things. >> people can come and check out this chairs and use them. but then also friday evening, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., it will be wheelchair basketball we will make sure it is available, and that way people can no that people will be coming to play at the same time.

>> we offer a wide variety of adaptive and inclusion programming, but this is the first time we have had our own equipment.

>> it is a ranger. it has the same responsibilities as a ranger, security of the watershed, assisting the public. providing interpretation when necessarily and protecting water quality. i love to help people in many waves. path has that experience and training. his professionalism is there when there is danger. we hope there isn't. i know accidents can happen. when they do, it is important to have someone like path -- like

pat available. they were treating weeds using the utv. it is an off road vehicle seating two peak. they rolled the utv in a remote area. pat was first on the scene. >> i was 100% relieved that pat was there to calm the situation down, to know what to do for the injuries we had and to make sure the right people were on the way. i think that in that moment, pat shined as he would in that type of situation. >> it is important for us. we are a small staff with a large area to patrol. if we don't have the support of the public we will not have their eyes on our watershed. we work closely with the neighboring organizations, whether they be east bay regional parks or the garden

club. we try to involve them in protecting the watershed. >> there is a lot of ways pat engages the community and stakeholders in every case. i would say pat does it in a professional and uplifting way because of his personality. >> it is a team effort. that is what i like best is that we have successfully created a team to work well together, play well together and they do a good job on the watershed. >> pat the wore she of the -- worthy of the award. he cares about the community that engages the land and fellow employees. pat is about the team. always willing to lend a hand when somebody needs a hand. i have worked with him for three years and witnessed firsthand the benefits of the professionalism, commitment and passion. he is wore these of the golden

pride award inmize mind. >> i am pat jones the watershed keeper for san francisco water. >> chair mandelman: all right. good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the july 25, 2019, special meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i am supervisor rafael mandelman, chair of the committee. i believe supervisor walton will be joining us. supervisor stefani will not be ,