>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support

the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco

>> good morning, and welcome to the regular meeting of the welcome to the britain for wednesday, january 20, 2016, my

name is mark farrell i'll be chairing this committee and joined by supervisor katie tang as well as the new member supervisor yee want to thank the clerk mr. clerk linda wong and jennifer lowe and charles kremack from sfgovtv for covering this madam clerk, any announcements? >> yes. please silence all electronic devices. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the january 2nd board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> so colleagues one of the items are go bond for public health and state of we're waiting on language from the city attorney so madam clerk item 3. >> ordinance retroactively 30 years the department of technology and the depth the contract administration to enter

spots third amendment between the city and the at&t coordination for the services by extending the term of the agreement only immediately 5 years not to exceed one hundred and $20 million come on up thank you. >> (inaudible). >> for finance and administration for the department of technology i appreciate the chance to present e present the item before you the third amendment to the contract with at&t local long distance tell and data services and professional services and becoming we agree with the budget analyst recommendations and ask you amend the legislation to add three hundred and 66 to the total contract we continued to talk what the staff and their were additional

requests that led to the estimated amount go uping by the 6 hundred and 66 thousands $24. million left over from the authority and releases the 24 for a total of $26 million and extend to 2020 for 5 years the contract allows the city to assess the most recent rates negotiated by the state of california after an extensive process under the cal provisions during the revenue of the r review felt second amendment the board asked to the zoning administrator and the auditor to review the competeness of the regional transit rates under the cal rates and at this point i'd like to ask joe from the controller's office to present the results of that review to

you. >> good morning, everyone and thank you for having me. the first slide is the background information we provided i'll skip over this to the details of the analysis on slide 3 the account service providers the ones graded out are not utilized by the city the focus one the the ones gated there are 2 do 5 service providers for each the categories we look at the basis for analysis is pricing information that is pubically available on the indicating network e net in the category it identifies the monthly reoccurring charge to identify

the unit of measure and where applicable non-reoccurring associated with that feature we q and a tracked the number of calls and minutes and quantity and other utilization from the analysis that at&t 3r0id we used that in conjunction in order to calculate get out of cost for other provides or provider it is docketed the 2014 memorandum you have a copy have to the results of analysis are covered on page 6 here we're comparison the estimated monthly cost of free service and comparing the cost at&t over the next lowest cost alternate provider for each category the column as you can see at&t actually came out to be the lowest and with the town

hall free service not the lowest the differences among them were minor the next table on slide 7 carrying the non-restricted can he are you aware this is $740,000 and internet is $10,000 and the others were non-xoicht so based this at&t rates are competitive with the others providers which is really not that surprising given the concepts process to select those provider in the first time and noted where there are differences considerations that maybe pertinent to the telecommunication like the resources associated with the selling alisa miller from and so on and so forth those costs with not captured the monthly costs

so that go includes my brief presentation any questions i'm going to turn it over to my colleague and commissioners any questions appreciate it. >> i'd like to thank the controller's office for their work and actually as a result of their work we went back to the at&t one of the minor areas was they were less competitive we went back to at&t and asked to do better than the cal net 3 and reduced the rates this contract allows us to get lower rates so as expected to save us $20,000 a year as a result of that negotiation we've up to $20,000 over the life of the contract go finally recognize the work of

sam july and droopt and again, we appreciate your amending the legislation and have the three hundred and 6 of thousand and finally, i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> >> colleagues, any questions for staff okay mr. rose, can we go to your report. item 3. >> yes. mr. chairman, and members of the committee on page 13 of our report we report that according to the budget with the telephone communication the total not to exceed under the third amendment will increase the initial 4 years not the option to extend by of 24 million plus for 98 to one hundred plus that shown in table one on page 13 of the our report as the department is just

indicated the master contract not to exceed of 1 hundred 22 plus s 665244 more than the amount of one hundred plus million dollars or million dollars so our recommendation on page 14 of our report we represented recommend you increase the master contract not to exceed by 664244 from one hundred $21 million and because of that increase we recommended and continued the proposed ordinance to the february 23, 2016, budget. >> thank you, mr. rose i think i want to be- your recommending an increase. >> as i mentioned to supervisor tang and supervisor farrell we have to be objective

the same manner we recommend recommend to reduce from the department can justify that it should be increased we'll certainly make that recommendation. >> i appreciate that mr. rose now milestone my fourth year chairing the committee i've seen everything colleagues for the budget analyst. >> okay. seeing none open up for public comment is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak seeing none, public comment is closed supervisor tang. >> thank you so i think that if our budget analyst is recommending an increase you should take it and run i'll make a motion for the per budget analyst recommendation. >> for . >> i'm sorry approve the amendment and continue to the february 3rdrd. >> a motion by supervisor tang and seconded by supervisor yee we'll take that without objection.

madam clerk item 4. >> item 4 relieving approving to the public health for the behavorial addiction and treatment to extend the contract for 3 years. >> deceptively. >> so as she said we're proposing to exercise the option that are within it's exciting rfp through july 1st, 2015, through june thank god 2018 this is an ongoing service for neglected done we've had for years wish to continue the proposed funding corresponding to the annual every year of the increased term and we agree with the amendment to increase the total amount to

reflect the amount of funding we didn't spend in the original 5 years of the term as a contract we agree. >> okay thank you very much colleagues, any questions for dph a okay mr. rose, can we go to your report. that seems back on the right track. >> just the opposite. >> yes. mr. chairman, and members of the committee on page 17 by the report of the proposed resolution will increase it it from $26 million plus to $42 million plus an increase of $26 million plus, however, as shown in table two on page 17 of the report according to the data the budget will is $26 million plus or 6 hundred and 61 thousand dollars less than the increase in the resolution and additionally as the department

testified as shown in table one on page 16 dpw has spent under the contract terms to $2,000.15 a remaining authorized contract balance of 70282 when you combine the 661 even though 703 plus that translates into the recommendation on page 18 where we recommend you first of all, amend it to be retroactive to july 1st, 2015, and recommend you amend the proposed resolution to reduce not to exceed by one million dollars plus to $51 million and we recommend you approve it as amended. >> thank you, mr. rose colleagues, any questions seeing none, open up for public comment

is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak please be advised please step forward. >> i'm hooblgd on a budget season and high on buildinging you'll give to this item fair and it is all sweet as city candy the taste is on my mind and you leave me thirsty forgive it all our time thank you. >> thank you very much is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item okay seeing none, public comment is closed colleagues, we is where a few suggested amendments by the budget analyst and an underlying resolution. >> i'll move to approve the recommended amendments okay motion to approve the recommended amendments and any underlying item

we can take that we'll take that without objection. >> madam clerk item 5 and resolution retroactively the fire department to is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? the anonymous of $780,000 in the department of emergency services to purchase 5 ambulances over the period of august to december 2016. >> morning, mr. chair. >> this the item before you is a i couldn't for accept and expend approval of a fuming grant for 6 hundred plus thousand dollars the department has issues funding adequate replacement of vehicles including ambulances a number of old ambulances in need of replacement with 44 and approve for a grant fog fiscal year 2014 assistance to the fuming grant with the purchase of 5 ambulances this grant a long

with the donation we've received and budget the 2016 will allow the department to purchase 9 new ambulances this year and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> >> colleagues, any questions. >> we don't have a budget analyst report so move on to public comment is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak. >> thank you budget and finance supervisor farrell 5 came alive 5 is keeps me alive i was born born to be alive born to be alive and i'm glad we get item 5 it keeps you alive yes, it keeps you alive and when you were born to be ray alive born to be alive thanks for budget 5. >> thanks is there anyone else

who wishes to speak on this item seeing none, public comment is closed all right. >> supervisor tang a through the chair send this with a positive recommendation. >> we'll take that without objection. >> madam clerk call item 6. >> item of a resolution authorizing the fire department to accept a gift of a fire engine for the shuts up and global risk insurance companies valued at one hundred head and 40 plus thousand you. >> you can feel free to sing. >> good morning this is a formal gift of a fire man's company it is a apparatus for the fire department and is put into service in 1845 acquired in 1947 and the insurance fold into

the parents company as a result at the closed a number of the offices where the apparatus was stored and offered to the san francisco fire department for use of san francisco fire department museum we will be happy to accept that the engine is $133,000 i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> >> okay. thank you, sir seeing no comments and no budget analyst report is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak on item 6. >> i seen fire and i'm glad this came in i've seen sunny days i thought would not end so welcome back again. >> anyone else on item 6 seeing none, public comment is closed motion to send this with a

positive recommendation. >> supervisor yee we'll take that without objection. madam clerk call items 7 and 8 together. >> item 730 years the director of property agency real estate division to execute an agreement with the design and construction of the improvement for real estate at 455 streets and item 8 the ordinance appropriately the transfer wastewater to the zoning administrator for the cost of central shop relocation in fisher 2015-2016. >> okay. thank you madam clerk. >> i know michael is here from the dpw and from the real estate. >> thank you very much, michael deputy general manager for the utilities commission i'm

going to turn it over to john updyke. >> we're talking about two property purposes one rental and consolidation of properties owned by the city next to the southeast water pollution control plant it is on the site we're talking about small triangle piece it is operated by the shop and it the automotive place of business we're removing them to expand the pollution plant to remind the committee we've are actually in escrow on acquiring the properties we came to you before on that and signed a 10 year lease on the site but we're talking about the construction of the development agreement we want to expedite that and now i'm going to turn it over to john updyke to talk about that. >> thanks i understood you

were going to sing that presentation (laughter) i'm not going to sing good morning john updyke director of real estate so part of key points and the outlined amendment the legislation as amended just provided to you so central shop on jerald must be relocated that was spoken to say the displacing agency for the relocation of shops to a fungal site in this case a merge of who acquisition and one less than two blocks wall previously approved by the board in december as please a carolyn talked about we were in talking about the sites when calculating

it is two acres smaller than the current site at jerald this is an expansion of the project it is actually a slippage of the size we're improving improving the business plan with the project and to be able to operate at two sites so the item before you seek the approval of who major thing the execution of a project delivery agreement as what the developer, llc and includes two contractors the general contractor this is charles buildings and the lead architect it authorizes us to engage in phase one in a not to exceed $10 million plus to complete one 100 percent construction secure the site, and the demolition,

and the foundation and the permits the permits for the lease holder and complete the demolition and site grading with necessary piles and submit the completed phase two budget schedule for a getting into the weeds maximum pricey return to you subject to our recommendation and the boards recommendation we expect that to happen around the end of the calendar year the other legislation is just the logics of the location and the judiciousal transfer to the sfpuc that is automatically tricked after a series of actions so the legislation refers to fully executed memorandum of understanding memorandum of understanding and this was

approved but is commission outlines the exception the rational the foundational and the logistics so the one dispatch is the with respect to, llc as the main developer and they're two partners in this venue the general manager and the architect f m a we've been doing since seeking out this essential balcony of talent to deliver this specialized project we had to find someone with the availability the marketplace to perform the skill sets we thought were necessary we also wanted to assure users or ourselves the pricing and others fees were at or better

than the market conditions currently out there we did a review the bay area developers we believe are scombild this this kind of project contacted 6 of the top developers in the bay area we received 3 responsive very robust comments on the proposed fee structure and the complexities of project things to watch out for and fills up the cost all of them responded that that was reasonable and fair they confirmed what we learned in the fall we didn't have the availability to perform on this project and lastly mandating the engineering that insures a guaranteed maximum price of million dollars that this project hard and soft inclusive of fees that had been

to meet or better was a eco key driver making that a risky venture typically that is reflected the higher development fee in this case 3.5 percent the fee was competitive indeed that is the item before you so i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> you might have about this want to speak briefly to the amendments recommended the budget analyst report very quickly what is before you is all the time legislation those amendments clarify that phase one approve is not to exceed $10.3 million that's the only negligent before you relative to the execution of the contract and phase two with board approval the subject is not subject to chapter two 9 as utility project it is exempt it

is clarified in the amendments and lastly we are accepting of the budget analyst suggestion of a reserve of $4 million and note that the amended appropriation owners contains a krorltz reserve for the fiscal year fiscal years we're happy to make that amended to the amended legislation by the deadline necessary. >> okay. thank you very much interest supervisor yee. >> i have a question about the source it seems to me you went through somewhat of a process to identify who you could work with and i'm not understanding the difference of the process and actually taking out the bid when there's and reason we take

things out to bid to find the most expensive prices the biggest bank for the dollars i'm not sure why we wee we're doing this this way versus how we set up our system in the city. >> we looked at this project and finally decided the site a fairly recent development in the fall of last year not a secured site not a defined project into the community when reviewing this path that we've selected the item before you of a source selection versus a traditional bid process we estimated that will add 6 months to one years year to the delivery timeline of the project a circulation cost to the puc of $3 million a month relative to any dla classes, and, secondly,

we reviewed what the delivery cost is through a typical design build competitive bid to public works we estimate this will be savings of $4 million against the traditional prong with the time and budgeted constraint that made us select the process we engaged in we went out to the community to try to find who best can carry off this project everyone is so busy we can't get a phone call returned we were pleased particularly with the general manager who is reasonable familiar with the city and delivered great promise the past a public safety building or others so that's what drove us to proceed and do the cross-check it was indeed

competitive if they went through the solicitation process was better than we got through the process we have confidence that's what we've delivered today. >> your explanation sound good but i imagine your explanation could be used for almost any project in terms of if you're to save time and money not go through a boyd process trust me we got the best deal how do you responded respond to that we keep on breaking the mold of what we have set up to assure we'll get the best deals you're saying we don't need to be through the process. >> there are ways to cut the

rules to save money not always the appropriate but an exceptional situation i think mr. carolyn can articulate the exceptional nature of the overall project how imperative to the bay area community maybe highlight that. >> thank you supervisor yee that's a good question this is a redoing the plant a large project probably spend one $.5 billion o next year's the biggest driver the facilities digesters we'll to move them away from the residents and put them close to the railroad takes the sooner we

can move forward and mr. updyke was talking about the cost of money as was there a delay it costs more and more we've committed to that project and community so time is of the essence and if there were a pump station or typical what we do i'd like say we've gone through the regulars process this is the only time we will billboard a shop no, it is a speciality item not something we do it needs to be happening quickly the shop is a disaster the people deliver a better environment we would like to give that to them we want to move it quicker and it really see we're trying to save time and money to move forward for that community we have to

operate 85 percent of the selection in san francisco. >> okay. thank you for your explanation i think you know i'm a little bit uneasy with that process but your explanation and also have these unique situations we're put in i could sort of support it and i think what's more important to me the fact that the issue with the digester you know wanting to move away from the area means a lot to the supervisor in district 10 and difference to her i'll be supporting this. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang. >> i think this is a quo question for john updyke but in our conversation in the briefing i asked about the timing and

what else but we had discussions in terms of the your efforts looking for spaces the difficulties in that so i was wondering if you could here decide that. >> certainly supervisor we again did a search within san francisco unable to find a bid we landed on a sight in brisbane near the 101 from a speed stand point it was not all that different from the current location currently moving our fleet out of city and the mile age the deadhead million dollars to the fleet was then an over and over riding concern even though the project might have been delivered at a less expenditure expensive not a permanent solution requiring us

to go through the process in 10 or 15 years hence so we're pleased as we continue to look at the marketplace we landed on many this location only two blocks away from the current shop operation we're jumping across the railroad tracks smaller than we desire but making some business operation changes we believe we can operate quite efficient in this location. >> again to clarify the timing of the finds of leases or finalizing your agreement with the various property owners. >> sure the board gave us the approval to close on two escrows at lease a fully executed we have control of the sites one of the acquisitions is fully signed in escrow slated to close tomorrow and the second

acquisition is not going to close escrow until the end of february but we're on task and budget for the boards direction in december. >> the other question so right now central shops is liltd a central shop we're divide it 20/20 different places where the maintenance will be occurring can you talk about i mean one of the questions i asked the briefly was when you divide it up does that mean extra ongoing maintenance or personal long term can you talk about that. >> the intent supervisor to revise one location for a xhufrz so the main slit is between light duty and heavy duty repair

so that is a broifks and others on a large site that is valdez we've split the operation done in a thoughtful way not adding to the resource demand of the shops operations and through those business process changes we might even be more efficient than if we were on one side so i'll hoping this veeldz great change for the shops and the customers they serve. >> going back to tbudget anali understand the circumstances under which the projects are moving forward

i do want to thank puc for years ago they took me on the tour to the southeast water pollution area and personally got to smell what the neighbors who live across the street go through every single day so i understand from the prospective of those folks how necessary this is as well as the ongoing maintenance costs i think our city will be providing to the upkeep the existing facility so again though we prefer the boyd process i understand the urgency of this. >> okay. thank you supervisor tang colleagues, any questions at this time mr. rose, can we go to your report. on these items. >> yes. mr. chairman, and members of the committee regarding the waiver the city requirements has been discussed on page 24 of our report we report that the proposed ordinance will wave the

competitive bid the city's administrative code with the, llc developer and the developer selection of e architecture design and the project charles builders has general contractors the ordinance says due to time con straights and the extraordinary competitive real estate market the director of property has executed the project and identified teams capable of carrying it within the timeframe and within the budget development on page 27 of our report regarding administrative code the feasibility legislation as mr. updyke indicated he's requested an amendment we have not yielded supervisors weighed

in on that amendment for clarification purposes and an amendment to the proposed ordinance be expectation for the administrative code the fiscal feasibility that charter 29 does not apply to a capital improvement plan under the jurisdiction of san francisco puksz the relocation of shops will not be necessary it it didn't require the sites on jerald street and it is the sole fund for this source therefore as i understand this is why mr. updyke submitted that amendment or expectation and the recommendation on page 20 we recommend you approve this to clarify that the board of

supervisors only phase one design the project agreement reflective of the costs not estimate to be $8 million plus currently estimated $10 million plus or not to exceed $10.3 million, and, secondly, we referenced that chapter 29 exemption and third we consider approval the proposed ordinance 11226 we authorized the competitive bidding required by the administrative code on the proposed central shop to be a policy decision for the board of supervisors and finally we recommend you end the supplemental appropriation file to place $47 million of the total 62 plus million dollars on reserve and this is for phase one with the balance of $17.2 million not the reserve

given the budget analyst considers the file to be a policy matter this companion owners is also considered to be a policy decision for the board of supervisors the office of contract administration should ask a release at the same time a request approval due to the delivery on the board of supervisors. >> we'll be happy to respond to questions. >> thank you, mr. rose one of the questions on chapter two 9 is the utility we'll work with the city attorney's office to get to make sure that is vetted before we vote on it at the full board but nevertheless, part of amendments with us today okay. thank you, mr. rose for your analysis colleagues, any questions for the budget analyst seeing none, is there anyone

from the public that wishes to speak on item 7 or 8 a you got a transfer from wastewater plant you've got a transfer in wastewater plant you've got a transfer from warrant plant do the best you can my city do care da district attorney my city does care the puc cares thanks. >> thank you very much there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item seeing none, public comment is closed colleagues welcome any discussion i think i share a general sentiment this has been before us this overall process so i think from my prospective i understand where we are we need to get this done and willing to be supportive today let's flush out the exemption stuff and from

the city attorney prospective before the board votes and if any other questions otherwise colleagues we'll deal with that but i'm prepared to support this today. >> colleagues questions or comments or a motion. >> all right. so through the chair i think i also made my comments at a previous hearing so i'd like to manning make a motion to accept all of the recommendations that the budget analyst has stated and as amended forward out items seven and eight to the full board with recommendations. >> motion by supervisor tang and seconded by supervisor yee we'll take that without objection. madam clerk item 9 please. item 9 resolution authorizing the director of public works to execute the agreement to the

agricultural related design for the facility under the earthquake save and emergency bond program and increasing the not to exceed to approximately $12 million. >> thank you, madam clerk so dpw is here to speak on this item come on up. >> good morning mr. and members of the board i'm charles with the prestige management of the public works to request your authorization continue to provide architectural and engineering services for the design and delivery construction of the traffic company and friends of the services division as you recall this exists within the excerpt of the emergency bond program of 2014 along with several projects the bond

program the largest amongst them this is commenced with the imperial contract we're advancing the understanding and quality and it's enforcement to the number of stated to the voter in the 2014 a total of one hundred $65 million i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you, sir colleagues, any questions okay harvey rose mr. rose, can we go to your report. >> yes. mr. chairman, and members of the committee on page thirty as shown in table one of the budget analyst report for the h o k the acreal services and the s f p did facilities total budget is one and $64 million so that the 11862 plus agreement represents 7.2 percent of the one and

$65 million budget shown in table two on page 33 of the report we do recommend that you approve that resolution and stated on page 33 of the our report. >> thank you, mr. rose colleagues, any questions we'll move on to public comment seeing none, public comment is closed colleagues, can i have a motion to send this forward. >> so moved. >> we'll take that without objection. but madam clerk items one and two and for a special election on june for the purpose 6 voters to incur are to finance the construction and improvement and best estimate better timed of emergency responses and animal care for earthquake safety and two declaring that a public interest amend the construction improvement of

critical community health and emergency responses for earthquake safety. >> okay. thank you madam clerk i know the game plan is having amendments that sit for a week to so the controller's office personnel that here talk about the amendments and whatever else. >> good morning supervisors i'm bryan strong the director of capital planning. >> on mondays capital plan committee there was an amendment to the proposed june public heath bond was considered and we have under the direction of the capital plan committee worked with the city attorney's office, public works department of health, human services agency along with the planning department to make the amendments that have been

submitted today essentially, what we do and we also provided you a memo from the representing the action item or describing the action item at capital planning committee on monday essentially their rechld a $350 million bond must plus the animal and care control shelter that $44 million project is to be replaced with 3 really programmed that will be incorporated into the bond or that will be incorporated into the bond the first one is the improvement at community health centers the bond is contemplated with the southeast center this will expand it to make improvements in other community health centers across the city and additional $14 million or insert

$14 million for neighborhood fire stations and again part of this neighborhood fire station improvement program that the city has been working on and that would be the amount of $14 million and finally $20 million h that will go towards homeless individuals and families the form of improvements at the city owned shelters and service sites so those are the amendments that have been submitted and are before you today it is our understanding that they will need to sit for a week and we'll come back next week with a fully presentation and discussion i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> and we have staff here as well. >> thank you, mr. strong. >> colleagues supervisor tang. >> i'll save any comments for which that is back before the committee i think i made it

clear i wish any changes would have come earlier we remember working on the capital improvement plan you know now, when it was calendar in a certain way so that is what i'll speak to obviously i had a huge concern the animal control facilities it was taken out of a previous bond measure but looking forward to work with the rest the city staff in terms of getting that project moving forward through the participation program so again we'll save the discussion for later. >> okay supervisor yee. >> yeah. i want to say that i echo commissioner sanchsupervis i want to hear about the animal control piece of this

the other piece when you come back next week is i want to be able to know what community health centers we're talking about in terms of these and i always am concerned sometimes being way out on the wetdz wonder if anything will benefit our residents out there so that would be one of my concerns. >> certainly sure we're happy to have that discussion i will say some of the health centers it is at a program level but we'll provide you with examples. >> okay. colleagues if footing no other questions mr. rose anything to add on the amendments. >> no, i think we should wait and take into account the amendments and report back next week. >> open up for public comment i have a number of speaker cards

anyone else wish to comment 2 minutes and -- excuse-me. you know what real quick we have one person to speak mr. duffy i'll call the speaker cards real quick. >> again want to recognize our formally supervisor. >> good morning, supervisors wonderful to see you i'm here to talk about animal control it was an important department when i was a supervisor and worked that polk i passed the ordinances mauvent the neutering of pit bulls and sponsored the backyard dog ordinances that sets standards for dogs kept outside will be treated as my work so

many individuals have faced barriers to ending homeless because of animals and one of the concerns i've had and raised when this bond was discussed a couple years ago 9 value of building housing over the animal controls facility to build two stories of falls over that to establish a service that includes transitional housing or emergency housing over and over only could be helped by the navigation center no restrictions a vet we worked with and he had 3 large pit bulls and had two and a friend died but knowing that life of that do you go. >> i. >> do solemnly swear. you go would be upgrading in his that's one example of an individual if we had a housing above the animal control i want to thank

supervisor tang for your work of late with the families and family veterans ending domestic violence i hope you can divide this file and have the mayor's office of housing and community development come back and talk about the opportunity to do a joint development i hope that will not exclude the housing for people so many people are there because of pets. >> thank you inspector duffy. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello supervisor we san franciscans strongly oppose a new three hundred 15 building bond it will dramatically increase - already public outcry that people can afford to live in san francisco

i'm retired i'm a small property owner and a low income person this year my pension it is same as last year but everything is more expensive than last year, i don't get help from substance abuse but the city keeps us in need for help not fair please help thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> morning ladies and gentlemen, my name is trashing taking into consideration since $315 million bond is for all san francisco so small property owner should not be the automated teller machine man, i'm the small property owner unfair law i don't have rental income i thought i could

get the help with any expense i can't afford this bond right now i have financial problems so i suggest no on this bonds so, please help our property owner resolve the financial problems thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> morning i'm a small property owner in san francisco i will strongly oppose this $350 million bond everything that we do with an investment we expected to have a return and i never see that i don't see the analysis what is the return on our investment very passed prop a bonds i

expect income from this and that's homelessness he hear the $27 million is spent on homelessness it is $3,000 a person i think that should be spent on the resources for example, the trees are taken care of by owners and definitely $20 million supposingly the city is not taking care of this that used to now the homeowners are and the rernlts are getting too much rents and i mean without increased rent not fair this compounding our expenses without fair returns people who can't pay rent how can we pass the bonds 50 percent this is just a fraud that is

kind of like a lie on one side of the map they say they can't afford and on the one side they can't pay in consistent and no on the bond. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning and i i'm a small property owner i see the bonds can only help people i feel that people and homelessness and animal because they've taking care of and by the city most of small property owner are broken people why we want to share our home from the threat of moving and the recreation has caused us difficult please no more bonds

we can't afford it thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi i'm sally with the sf dog for 7 and a half years i was the director of animals control i worked with the city to get a new animal shelter we were excited it can be done the bonds i was disappointed and capital meeting i was disappointed the - and a friend of mine who goes to those meetings said that was this first time he saw that happen so i'm concerned that a lot of long-term planning that goes into what goes into what bond and that sort of thing macro maybe and precedent those last minute changes could

potentially be more common which i don't think is a good thing for the capital needs for the city needing infrastructure it and a either or sidewalks not people or pets we can insure both helping animals helps people as one example having an animal can help someone suffer from mental illness and the animals that help people keep come from the shelter we desperately need a new shelter and the the city zoning administrator's office were committed to understanding money through the certificate of the appreciation he urge the board to make sure this shelter gets funded if not through the bonds

by the certificate of appreciation not later on but sooner thank you. >> no on this bonds every time the bonds - >> thank you. next speaker, please good morning a small property owner and no on this bond since $350 million is for all san franciscans owner so should is not the atm machine no good thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors and $350.50 percent of you know

go how difficulty for the small property owner facing higher payments and we can't recreate only - i see a lot of people remiss thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi my name is lydia brown work at the main library i'm also a volunteer dog-walker with the animal control as a public servants i see many people in need of help but the homeless people that visit the library people that have animals are

more grounded it occurs this is a sense of well-being the library i've seen kittens and birds in a basket like the what has been marked as arrested of these this is one of the greatest cities the world we can do this without breaking the bank we are hosting the super bowl this week and paying millions of dollars for the influx of people i'm happy we can welcome our guests in style i believe we should construct a new animal shelters up to date the facility is a converted office building not for animals

ac c accepts all animal one 40th the bugged they only accept currently pets be in good health i've seen animals that were adopted in a motivator of days maybe spent months at the spaca it makes good sense to get those animals adopted as quickly as possible the staff can volunteer but, of course, the loving homes is the best environment. >> can i say a tiny bit more. >> everyone has 2 minutes but appreciate our comments through. >> next speaker. >> please. good morning. my name is a gloria i hope you guys look at this paper i want you guys to say no on

this bond even though i have a house but it is not i'm not a rich people please say no on this bond thank you. >> thank you very much is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item. >> hi, i'm josephine i support this bond but i have a problem that is on the small property owners only 50 percent can be passed there i support community health and public health but i support animal care facilities but i oppose that the treatment tree maintenance is not part of it if we can spend $54 million to create new infrastructures to shelter animals why not maintain

the existing trees that used to be the city's property and now individual property owners people spend $10,000 a year to maintain the trees have the amendments to include the $55 million tree maintenance and also consider 50 percent pass through to be increased to 100 percent for bond issues we have are small property owners responsible for 50 percent of housing in this city we're housing providers that take care of 50 percent the rental units we responsible for three percent of the bond revenue yet we don't have a say in this whole process i demand a seat at the table for any future creation we need to have a say how to streamline this no problem that supporting

the bond that doesn't increase property tax but we want to have a say how how to spend the by the end monies for something we need in dire thank you. >> thank you very much is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item all right. seeing none, public comment is closed any comments i know we have a number of amendments that just came in i forget what the topics are mr. gibner a chance to do this appropriate. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney as supervisor tang mentioned some amendments are late breaking we'd like an opportunity in our office to prove read no errors in all the language because that meeting will be the last opportunity to make any amendments