i would like to make a recommendation to move to the board with a positive recommendation. thank you very much. we can take that without objection. madam clerk, please read item number 8. >> accept, expend a grant in amount of 402,000 from the california department of public health. >> thank you very much. i believe we have joshua nositer, interim director. please start. >> so the black infant mortality rate in san francisco is four and a half times of the white rate. our black infant mortality rate is actually higher than that of sri lanka. what this grant proposes to do is the first installment of a multi-year grant from the state to better understand the gaps in service that contribute to black mortality in san francisco county, and to remedy those disparities. >> can you tell me the actual numbers of children that actually -- is this -- so this is -- is this children are not coming to full term, or is it after children are actually birthed? >> so, there is both. preterm birth is a significant contributor to infant mortality. these are the 14 through 17 numbers. infant m

so i'm going to recommend that we move the

recommendations. >> okay. do we have a second on this? >> second. >> second. >> commissioners, may i ask just one question. so the gathering, i'm -- just want to go with intent. that was listed at item number. >> the grandfathering is listing under item number six. to say grandfather, with permission through the president, just for my own clarification, i think using the term grandfather isn't exactly appropriate for what the intention is. i think exemption gets a better result. >> exemption of existing. >> i just want to clarify the intent from just hearing the commissioners' comments and discussion in general is that that may be the first one to list. so -- or will you allow us to -- >> the two most pertinent legislative items on the list and they are actually kind of inconsistent with one other are the phase in period and the exemption. if there's a phase in, there's a phase in, and if there's an exemption, there's an exemption. i think we need to figure out if we're favoring one or the other. >> can we lum

the recommendation to maintain the cash program. we are adding sb1 street repaving dollars in addition to the general fund to help hit our targets. we have a target condition payment indexed and the scoring changed so we adjusted so our qualitative target remains the same though the number system changed. we prioritize a.d.a. related projects for barrier access removes and acknowledge $10 million a year for enhancements in the pago program. this is our backlog. one thing we know for sure is we have a lot of needs. the general department backlog at the start so fiscal planning is $9,998,000 and we need to continue to invest in capital in the one-time needs in flush times like these if we're going make a dent. this gives a little bit of context. so the blue line there is the recommended funding level and the red line is our annual funding need. can see in the plan for the first time we are getting to a place where we address our annual need in fiscal '27. that's where when you look below the backlog chart begins to tilt downward. we c

recommendation. for this -- last year, it stated in the peef c.a.c. recommendations, it says, the vapa office includes a fair number of office administrators compared to other departments. i would -- we're arguing for more teachers in schools, those are direct services, not central office administration. this is what peef says. we're also concerned that the saturday arts lab, there's concern around that, okay? so i'm going to go back and go to 2015-16. we're going to go back in time, and we're going to see -- i'm sorry. i'll go to -- this is from 2016-17. it says, the peef investment and arts teachers is a secondary level has increased while the number of schools and other funding support for arts has decreased. while we understand the district is consistently challenged to stretch limited resources, peef was explicitly meant to increase offerings to students. we should increase funding so western ae concerned to see -- we're concerned to see inclusion for the arts center added to the budget that do not appear to provide direct services to students. t

so i'm going to recommend that we move the superintendent's recommendation forward. i have a second. so we're going to do a roll call vote on the superintendent's recommendation on -- [inaudible] >> president cook: i haven't heard anything from anybody else, so i'm putting forward the recommendation as it is now, without the amendment. and i got a second from commissioner norton. so roll call vote. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: that's five ayes. [applause] >> president cook: okay. we have the rest of the meeting to attend to. if you all would like to continue conversations, please take it to the lobby. okay. so number seven, advisory committee reports and appointments to advisory committees by board members. we have a report from the parent advisory council. how you doing, miss file? you can't hang? it's only 10:00 p.m. >> so good evening, president cook, commissioners, superintendent matthews. students are gone. my name is georgia williams brad. i'm the coordinator for the parent advisory council and i'm filling in for one of the members who had to go h

s recommendation. the background of the contract, this contract was an r.f.p., a request for proposals and solicitation back in june 2016. we solicited people to build our pumper units according to the specifications we had at the time there. taken the result of that was fire apparatus coming in at the highest scoring responsive and responsible proposal. and following that determination, we entered into a three-year contract with ferraa fire beginning in august of 2016, and the term ending this coming august 2019. the contract also has two one-year renewal periods at the mutually agreed upon -- i guess -- according to -- being mutually agreed upon by the two parties. one year each with a total potential five-year contract term, terminating in august of 2021. the association's recommendation today is that we increase the current crarkt contracts not to exceed $5.5 million to $15 million, which we'll cover in just a second. so this is a picture of the unit. it looks like, you know, you're average fire tr

the department recommends the h.b.c. recommends landmark designation with the amended character defining features to the board of supervisors. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. any questions for staff? at this time, we will take public comment on this item. does any member of the public wish to speak? if so, please come forward. >> good afternoon. richard hashimoto, i am one of the board members. i have with me today the board president, and a board member at large, and unanimously we did approve to go ahead and move forward with the landmark designation. i also want to thank all of you and thank commissioner johns and president hyland for attempting yesterday's site visit. to see the school and what impact it has in our community, and simply we are asking for your support in the approval so we can move on and further protect and preserve this historic building for our community. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners , mr. frye. my

we wants to bring the recommendations forward -- we wants to bring the recommendations forward, get a sense of what you would like at the next meeting written out for discussion. we want to engage as much public comment as possible if there are individuals who want to do that present at this meeting, and we look forward next month bringing to you a package that strengthens the system so we can really have better participation rates, one goal, more voters engaging, and a stronger program thfor funds that voters in san francisco have set aside. how we approach this process, phase one was to look at administrative changes coming out of the 2010 election. it resulted in approved regulations. a review of the administration of qualification and matching funds claims also improved guidance material. what we learned from this last election to help improve information for candidates and those who are supporting candidates, internal investigation to strengthen the program administron passed and is at the rules committee at the board of supervisors presently and just as a quick update on that, w

in terms of recommendations. we have a few core recommendations that are part of this plan. there's more detail in some of the materials that went to the commission but will focus on some of the larger recommendations. recommendation number one is that we are proposing to implement a new policy where patients who are insured, if they come to zuckerberg san francisco general, and z.s.f.g. is out of the plan we will charge no more than their in network plan so if they would pay a certain co-pay or insurance or deductible that what we'll get from insurance and charge them and continue to appeal to insurance and work with the insurance on getting adequate compensation for the hospital. that's consistent with proposed legislation a.b.1161. -- 1611. interdufd by asem -- introduced by assemblyman chu and it would make it state law. we're looking at that and the bort of supervisors passed in support of that provision so we're proposing to implement that based on the fact that it may become state law but also on the fact that it seems like a reasonable public policy solution. in addi

you've been recommended for it. thank you very much for coming in, and please follow up with us with any questions you might have. all right. the next agenda item is number nine, review and possible action to change the conditions on ec-1377, place of entertainment and extended hours premises permits, d.b.a. halcyon, specifically review the listed conditions that were added on december 18, 2018 and stayed by the commission on january 15, 2019 until march 19, 2019. and director weiland, can you please introduce this? >> sure. all right. so this is for halcyon. we are specifically -- why don't you all turn to this in your packet? i want to call attention to the double sided halcyon recommendations page that we put together. this was created by our office. inspector burke was -- really took the lead on this but in conjunction with the consultant, j.p. noise and vibration. they went out to test the sound, and i wanted to just actually start off this conversation by explaining my recommendations on the backside there whe

recommending an napc of l.s.v.nless any p.c. would like to make any comments, i'll turn it back to the board for any questions. >> board members? >> i support this recommendation. perhaps you could boil is down into one sentence why you want to do this. the spokesman is to your right and across the room. >> you want us to say that here? >> no, in case there's a phone call because they're not going to be able to read this to them over the phone. they've already written the article, and it's going to fly out tonight. in case there's a phone call or a real clear statement, we're making other changes to this. >> okay. we don't typically make comments to the press. we tell them what the recommendation does and whether it was approved. >> the recommendation made last month? >> yes, which we made in open session. we're not going to make that comment again. >> i'm just trying to have you help the spokesperson who may speak to the media if they answer the phone. >> our advice is just to refer them to staff's memo. >> right.

recommending to opposed positions. the first is assembly bill 553, and assembly bill 1167, and both are meant to kill the high-speed rail program, either by ceasing sale of bonds or the cap and trade appropriations. and then there are two bills included as a watch on the first table. these are just for information purposes and no action is needed. the first is a assembly bill 1568 by assembly member mccarty, and this would withhold senate bill one if the local jurisdictions fail to meet their housing production charges. and senate bill 5 would establish a program to allow local jurisdictions to reduce its annual educational revenue augmentation funds and redirect those funds to affordable housing, workforce housing, and related infrastructure. and finally, there are two bills included just with updates that we've already taken positions on. the first is senate bill 59. senator allen, this would require the state to establish autonomous vehicle standards and per commissioner yee's direction, we've been working with the

they put forward a recommendation recommending that more visual arts office administrative staffing be reallocated in order to support direct student services at the school site level. this is in alignment with the guiding principles, which say that we should be directing resources to immediate and proximate benefits to students and advancing equity and social justice among other issues. >> okay. and that's a web commissioner lopez initially red. so we have a number of people that signed up for public comment on this item. when you hear your name being called, make your way to the podium. [calling names] >> hi, my name is one. thank you for letting me speak. as the son of immigrants and an english language learner, i know that i would not be who i am today and where i am today if it weren't for access to the visual and performing arts in my life. and i know that i would not have had access to those services if it weren't for the administrators who were running those programs when they were made available to me. i hear you say that these funds would be reallocated from other sources, bu

that gets to my recommendation on slide 8. what i would ask you to consider today two approval actions. number one, suspend self underred stabilization reserve on one time bases for del deltal and approve $7 million to be applied towards the buy down across the active employee ppo plan for plan year 2020. >> i move that we accept the recommendation as outlined on page 8. >> second the motion. >> any public comment? >> i have a question. >> go ahead. the net effect will be to reduce everybody's rates is that correct. >> rates will reduce from 2019 to 2020. we will present those next month. >> for active population? >> for the active population. >> active employees ppo plan. >> we also have dental dental ppo for retirees that is self insured. >> correct those rates are locked in to the end of 2021 daysed on a three year lock in delta dental provided last year for the retiree ppo plan. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? all those in favor of approving the staff recommendations say aye. opposed. all right. it is unanim

so we look forward and i move to approve. >> second. >> with staff recommendations. >> staff recommendations. >> very good, commissioners, to approve this code amendment with staff recommendations. (roll call). >> motion fails, 3-1. >> is there an alternate motion? >> can this not be forwarded? there's ongoing work, so what is there to approve, except saying we're forwarding it with comment. isn't that the way it works. >> well, the charter provides you the authority to approve planning code amendments. >> i'm going to ajourn the meeting to get a couple of missioners. let me suggest taking a break for ten minutes, please. >> very to silent your mobile devices that may sound off during proceedings. we left off on item 10 for 1604 pca for the planning code amendment. you took a vote to approve with staff's recommended modifications and that motion failed 3-1 with commissioner moore voting against. is to there an alternate motion? >> director ram? >> excuse me, i was going to suggest, maybe a motion that would get missioner moore's concern which would be to approve with staff recommendations an

and we recommend approval. >> president fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would -- yes, please come up and you have tw two minutes. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is anne marie mafit and i'm an attorney and a public advocate and a resident of the city. i have sent a couple emails to you over the past two weeks and i'm going to just reiterate what i have mentioned in the emails. with all due respect i feel that the analyst report contains several errors. the l.c.a. original contract was never approved by the board of supervisors. it was scheduled for approval in april 2014. on april 16th, the day that the budget and the finance sub-committee, and without explanation announced that the board would not approve the contract. instead, the entire title and text of the legislation was changed and the supervisors instead approved simply evidence of the contractor's liability coverage for the upcoming year and purported to have the rules and regulations of the program. in 2017, an

after that you can send that amended motion to the full board with recommendation or without recommendation. >> supervisor mar made a motion to amend the motion to reject the mayor's appointment of reese isbell. can we take a roll call on that motion. >> on the motion to amend? vice chair walton. yes. member mar. yes. chair ronan. yes. the motion passes. >> i will make a motion to send this item forward with recommendation. can we have a roll call. >> on that motion. vice chair walton. no. member mar. yes. chair ronan. yes. >> the motion passes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. isbell for silting through this long hearing. thank you everyone for speaking. thank you ms. marshall for your 35 years of incredible dedication to the rent board. thank you. mr. clerk are there any other items on the agenda? >> that completing the agenda. >> thank you. >> thank you. the meeting is adjourned. - working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of prog

i remember our recommendation is not a popular one. and if everyone dislikes what we do, maybe we've done the right thing and community members believe you should compare one to the other. i would say a -- attaching a numerical value is a way of playing favorites. i also find it curious an entity suing the city is making recommendations how to implement the plan. developers are unhappy because many won't get the full project approved or will have to wait many years. i point out this is not new news. we've known we'd come to this point and know there's winners and losers in the game and that's the nature of prop m. this is the second time in the city's history we've had to face this situation. i think it's important to recognize that's where we are. and in the past as you know, we called this a beauty contest. i have been avoiding that term many years. it's not appropriate to judge one project against the other. when you approved the trans bay you didn't compare two. you looked at each project on its merits. i believe that's what we sho

we recommend approval. let's open up for public comment. are there any members of the public that like to comment on item number three? seeing none, public comment is closed. you like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. without objection. thank you very much. please call item four. [agenda item read]. >> good morning supervisors. the purpose of this resolution is for the board to indicate to the secretary of state office i have the authority to sign a contract to receive grant funds from the state. governor brown included grant opportunit--funds to use. the total grant fund is $134 million which just over $3 million allocated to the city. the city can use the grant funds to reimburse itself with the state. the city must expend matching funds to one to one basis. the mayor's office considering applying grant funds to reimburse the city with the leasing of the new voting system. also just as far as retroactivity is concerned, that's in the text because the funds for potentially available prior to the res

recommendations. and i am open to the 200. any way, i think the initial grant of public financing and the higher ratio of matching funds of 6:1 up to 100 would give qualifying candidates the resources to run a competitive campaign. the awarding of an initial grant grant earlier campaign is a good idea and ultimately give the public greater confidence in the election process. however, from my perspective, the initial ex -- if the initial expenditure limit is increased to 350,000 for board of supervisors and 1.7 million for mayor's race, i would recommend the maximum public funds received by a candidate be increased accordingly. in other words, 255,000 for a board of supervisors campaign, 1.475 million for a mayoral campaign. an increase in the initial expenditure limit is advantageous to campaigns that have large institutional support and disadvantageous to a smaller grassroots campaign. it's easier for a campaign that receives many $500 contributions to makeup the funds that are not matched by public

commission's sort of considered and the phase two recommendations. we held off on that and were happy to comment as a sponsor on the phase two ordinance that is now moving forward at the board. so our intention was after we received both the staff recommendations and the b.l.a. analysis to then redraft that legislation to be kind of in line with the conclusions. >> chair chiu: so how do you envision the process working with the ethics commission here? because all that we have here is the ground, the basis for a proposed ordinance that we would have to review and then discuss and vote on and could go to the board of supervisors or we could go to the ballot from a legislative standpoint. but if your supervisor's introducing a separate stand-alone measure, how do we rectify the two, and how do you envision going forward? >> so any proposal at the board of supervisors would go to the ethics committee before the board voted on it. it's essentially is it introduced as a departmental ordinance or is it introduced tl through our office? >> chair chiu: so you

i'm trying to understand and be very sympathetic to your recommendations and the basis of your recommendations. it iif i read you correctly, yoe vacillating between talking of a discussion focused on narrow streets to a discussion toward the narrow discussion about residential guidelines rather than sticking with the subject that's in front of us. and with that, there's a lot of ambiguity when you say go through your recommendations and focus that solely on the discussion of narrow streets. you'll figure out that a number of comments you're makes is a contradiction to what you're trying to tell us. and then i think my most important comment is that i would like to see the discussion include all of rm and all alleys, no matter where they are. and whatever you are legislating here, ultimately it's consistent and with your residential guidelines and takes the powerful ideas that would specifically on va valiencies ad apply them to the rest of the city. >> thank you very much, commissioner, for your careful analysis. i want to speak quickly to applying this to rm districts. we have been in discuss

that gets to my recommendation on slide 8. what i would ask you to consider today two approval actions. number one, suspend self underred stabilization reserve on one time bases for del deltal and approve $7 million to be applied

these are our recommendations. we hope and courage your committee will support these three recommendations. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. [speaking foreign language] [speaking foreign language] [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: san francisco cheshire economy is booming, but they cannot keep up with the rocketing housing costs the communities gentrifying residency, many speculators would affect long-term tenants this is happening every day in chinatown. do you know how much frantic cost for an s.r.o. that cannot even put to watch what to embeds and $1,000? [speaking foreign language] [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: there maybe something some people who can work at the age of 70, but due to our health situation, most of us depends on our fixed income and savings. low income or fixed income is about $800. once they are effected, they cannot afford $1,000 for an s.r.o. units. many owners refused to rent their units to seniors. our members cannot stand eviction pressure and