Skip to main content

tv   BOS Full Board of Supervisors 32117  SFGTV  March 21, 2017 8:00pm-12:01am PDT

8:00 pm
so we started to build the san francisco business portal not just consults or the taxpayers and voters they're actually customers we are the government serving the consumers in our neighborhood i point to at least one best that i personally touched with one way or another and makes me feel good about the projects like the business portal and in embarking on this new exciting journey of finding better and efficient ways to deliver services to san franciscans i sit through a lot of senior management meetings i'm the only woman in the room i know that our c i o is tried to recruit for women and a male dominated
8:01 pm
environment. >> i've felt unbounded and inspired to pursue a lot of things over time i recognize to be cricked in ways i didn't anticipate you know i've followed the calling but now put me in a position to spend most of my time doing things i love this is the whole point; right? you ought to feel inspired in our work and found opportunities to have you're work put you in service for others and happy doing what you're spending so much time. >> my father was a journalist lift and my mom a teacher when we finally decided to give up their lives because of me and now i actually get to serve the city and county of san francisco it makes me feel really, really
8:02 pm
good not this didn't happen overnight i've worked my entire life to get to this point and much more to learn and i have a lot of changes ahead. >> really think about what moves you what you're pat's about and trust that you are sufficient and enough where you are to begin and then is her that you are being tenacious about getting to the next place in the evolution but by all means start with you are and know that's enough
8:03 pm
>> good afternoon everyone and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting for tuesday, march 21, 2017. mdm. clerk, please: roll call >> thank you. breed, here, cohen, cohen, here. farrell, present, fewer, present, kim, present, peskin, present, ronen, present, safai, present, sheehy, present, tang, present,
8:04 pm
yee, present. mdm. pres. on matters are present tida. ladies and gentlemen these, join us in the pledge of allegiance. >> [pledge of allegiance] >> thank you everyone. mdm. clerk, do you have any communications? >> i've known to report mdm. pres. >> colleagues any changes to the february 2017 board meeting minutes? see no changes, is her motion to approve those minutes? will by supervisor used second bite supervisor safai. can we take that without objection without objection those meeting minutes will be passed after public comment >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk next item >> item at 2 pm is the mayor's appearance in this chamber.
8:05 pm
hon. mayor edwin lee, the be no questions omitted from supervisors the mayor may address for up to 5 min. the thank you mr. mayer for being here today. since the were no questions were semitic would like to make any remarks? >> supervisors thank you for inviting me here and to the public, thank you for being here this afternoon. would like to follow-up on the state of the city speech by discussing how we work together in our city. on thursday, the president signed a blueprint for his proposed 2018 budget. if the president gets his way, housing him a homeless, arts programs will be cut in 20-30%. around the nation, critical services will face severe funding shortages, including meals on wheels, free school lunches for children after school, programs, legal aid to
8:06 pm
the poor, good while it may seem that we are under attack by all sides, we have a proven track record that we are stronger when we stand together. we in the city work together to build a budget that helps and not arms are poor or working in the class families. we know that san francisco's has been successful because we invest in our children might in our people in our communities. became together to establish programs like, the dignity fund, the children's fund, affordable housing fund. we have made investments in our job training, our afterschool programs, in our small businesses. we protect our seniors to march 11 and our families and that is why we sit here and why we will continue to succeed. we helped the day
8:07 pm
of action and february to support the american care act. the last week, we learned the proposed replacement plan for the aca will deprive 24 million people of insurance by 2026, an estimated 52 million people across the country could be uninsured. we know that could be disastrous for our city has more than 240,000 residents depend on some form of the aca or medicaid. we are urging congress to take action and fight back against these harsh policies. today, i joined other mayors across the nation to demand comprehensive immigration reform, not walls and travel bans and random id checks. many of you join me and members of our immigrant communities as we celebrated san francisco's refusal to join any national registry based on religion or ethnic city. so working together, are able to provide representation for san
8:08 pm
franciscans a deportation hearings, and we are committed and we have committed $14 million over the next two years for immigration [inaudible] cost. we are supporting the san francisco interfaith council on immigration defense fund which will provide resources for nonprofit organizations fighting for immigrant rights throughout the bay area. last week, hundreds of people gathered at st. peter's church in the south of market district to learn how to offend their immigrant neighbors. this is what we mean when we say we stand shoulder to shoulder. it is also national arts advocacy day today. on our front steps of city hall, we been rallying with artisan advocates to protect vital art and cultural programs that makes san francisco san francisco. so when we stand together and work
8:09 pm
together, we are the city that solves problems together. we show that earlier this year when we worked with our labor groups to agree on two-year contracts that are equitable and fair. i coming together, those groups help ensure our fiscal health remains in good order and their residents will receive vital city services. so as we develop the next year's budget, we must be responsible and disciplined due to the uncertainty on the federal level of threat store vital services and programs. but we will also not allow misguided policies to define who we are. we will prepare ourselves with plans that work for our residents. we will persist in the fight against discrimination and intolerance, and together as a city we will achieve progress towards a better future. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you mr. mayer. with that we will return to our
8:10 pm
regular agenda. mdm. clerk, please read the consent agenda. >> items one through four are on the consent agenda these are items considered to be routine. the member objects and items may be removed and considered sadly. >> roll call out >> items one through four sheehy aye, tang aye yee aye breed aye, cohen aye, farrell aye, fewer aye, kim aye, peskin aye, ronen, aye, safai aye. there are 11 aye >> those items are passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >> next item >> item number five and ordinance to adopt amendment
8:11 pm
number one for fiscal year 14-70 memorandum of understanding to the city and municipal attorneys association to england base wage increases for fiscal year 17, 18, and 18-19 and a extend the terms of all this agreement to june 30, 2019. he was collects, take this same house, same call? be without the ordinances finally passed unanimously >>[gavel] >> next item >> item six experience woman the planning code and zoning maps to read that integrate and reflect the speed of the special use district generally bounded by 20 2nd st., potrero avenue easter solders and cassius was 24th 2 barlett st. and to approve the ceqa dirt termination and make appropriate findings same house, same call the house? without objection the ordinances passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >> next item >> item number seven is a ordinance to amend the ministers go to all cash out proceeds received by an owner of an affordable housing
8:12 pm
development aborted by in whole or part taxpayer funds should be used for only for residential or tenant services and creation development and preservation of affordable housing >> supervisor farrell >> colleagues, there's a number of amendment that are handed out that i get your offices yet. i would like to-i'm happy to discuss if you there's any question. very much so but otherwise like to motion to adopt those amendment before we get to the meat of the item. >> supervisor farrell, i apologize. you have an expiration of the amendment be sure. so a few >> sure. a few demented person while there were concerns about it about percy being restricted to remove any reference to the property to make baltimore cricket was never intent to regulate about herpes and i want make sure that was stricken from the record. there
8:13 pm
was concerned that the legislation did not allow for broader community development. to that end specifically nature that any spending in accordance with virus i when c-3 was permissible. and it allows for any kind of spending cash out proceeds just want political spending could then there were concerns about implementation was a lot of back-and-forth between mayors office of housing and community development and the developers as we just took out the any references out these funds would be restricted and would be that of two policy discussions between our mayors office good so it was three simple amendment and response to a lot of the needs over the last week i want make sure on the record >> okay. cc no comment specific about the amendment,-okay. so supervisor farrell, has made a motion to amend. is there a second? second by supervisor tang before we adopt the amendment supervisor farrell, before i move on to other members of the board, is that all you want to say? >> no. i like like to say a few things >> okay. i think is an questions on the amendment.
8:14 pm
supervisor peskin >> thank you madame president. for the sake of procedure, if i'm fine with adopting the amendment. in i will speak further to why i would vote against this as amended or not as amended but there is one issue relative to the amendment that i think is self-evident and unnecessary and already a matter of law. which is on page 3 the amendment that says, may not be expended for participation in supporting or attempting to influence a political campaign for any candidates or ballot measure. the law is already abundantly clear that nonprofit organizations cannot support or oppose any candidate for any office at the state local or
8:15 pm
federal level. so i just think that language any candidate, is already the law. so i think it's really specific to ballot measures but i'm going to vote against the item amended or simon and happy to speak to wipe out about language was unnecessary >> thank you supervisor farrell >> that is fair enough and were happy to strike that from them amendment. >> okay. with that, colleagues, can we take the amendment specifically, without objection? without objection the amendments pass >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell >> okay. so colleagues, to me the item at this point everyone knows where i'm coming from on the issue but i want to reiterate in the last year we saw affordable housing developers we finance affordable housing projects that would mix of taxpayer dollars make millions off these transactions and spend the money and private political campaigns. call me crazy, but it seems to me common sense to dictate precious local portable housing dollars should be spent on affordable housing needs and priorities. it's not the case
8:16 pm
on the ground today. local affordable housing overs are refinancing buildings. building with multiple notice of violations and these buildings including low income seniors going without hot water for months and publicly reported fears about innovated forward porting those issues and using these refinancing ocs for the political bands and self pride how water for residents to me it's appalling to think with the developers under investigation. i firmly believe we should ensure every penny of able for affordable housing in san francisco is been so useful for browsing needs.. this legislation is up with the standard legislative process as my colleague's will test the land use committee to zero opposition publicly until this board was getting me to vote on it two weeks ago. i want presented out to committee after the bill is set for months in the past few weeks however, as i've heard some concerns and those amendment address them, as much as we can find common ground on the issue, at a meeting with the developers, and others in the
8:17 pm
community, to come up and try to find common language that meets the goal. now i know most of developers are doing the hard work of structuring financing deals, building of fort housing provided tenant services bring allies of the communities they represent should i support this work immensely. i think we all to see it continue. i tend with the policies to ensure the public dollars in affordable housing continue to be used for affordable housing. neither priorities that we all know we must address. when the as a city government out the money for a formal housing, we are very clearly say that solely as represents of the public interest leaves the best use of those funds. plan simply commotion beginning of any taxpayer dollars 11 a formal housing developers are quite frank that think this is were anybody else that we received public policy these funds for private political campaigns. attackers demand more from us than they should. we already of section 12 in a code which is that public funds during the budget process are being used for political purposes without a loophole now. it's been exploited and we need to close it. i want to go over a few
8:18 pm
issues raised by some these brokers or the past weeks first parliament in the ordinance was 12 without the input of nonprofits. first of all, which we very clear that private to introducing the legislation did discuss the policy with a number of local developers a formal housing overs twitter this would not harm the production of badly needed affordable housing. i believe the ordinance appropriate dress their spending needs short of allowing direct political contributions which is the core of what the issue is right now. my conversations began very clear we differed philosophically on whether cash out proceeds she retrieves public dollars or not. i, do not believe that public funds should the user private campaigns. period. some people say privately they should be able to use the mayor's office of housing and community loan dollars for non-04 the housing needs to simply disagree with that. they said second, they need flexibly without burdensome government regulations. again, this ordinance and appreciates brush
8:19 pm
peskin's comments-well spending to be done in accordance with 501(c)(3) under the federal tax. that is fine. i want to make sure that we included that. these people have incredible missions and we want to support them. they said their broader community-these funds for broader community purposes. i had a provisions again in accordance with 501(c)(3) to approve community services. with the amendment introducing today this extensive uses to all community service just not political campaigns. finally, they said they should not be a ordinance this is what i think is and should get with the sound to be some of the developers were actually be willing to support this policy was not an administrative law that we passed but a policy implemented by her mayor's office of housing and community development. developers are asking for the not to be a ordinance because they feel unfairly aligns them other
8:20 pm
asking for the mayor's office of housing a community developed to help a policy instead. welcome i encourage all members of housing committee devoted to develop these policies on anything that they issue. anytime we's public dollars especially for affordable housing should not go go to private political paint again, period. to me, as a legislative body we should be signaling parameters in which public dollars should be spent. i think it's the height of hypocrisy to say we don't want a law will support a policy on this issue. i also want to repeat them i commend the work all these organizers into. we simply very much differ that these organizations were any organization for the matter should be able to leverage public dollars, refinance properties, and use those funds for private political campaigns. that is takemoto not budget process to giving people direct spending either direct or something, use them for private political campaigns it i don't think which we doing that here in the city of san francisco get i don't believe it's a white user appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. affordable housing built under it, give financing you guys recognize that. late of impending federal cuts to hud or just generic structure i know in the development of affordable housing 21 every single bearable for the housing
8:21 pm
dollar to go to community development and housing here in the city this event and for the housing? do we want public investment affordable housing to be returned to affordable housing or do we want to use on private clinical campaigns? to meet users clear and colleagues i hope to have your support. >> thank you supervised cardenas. supervisor kim >> thank you president breed. i just want have my thoughts to this ordinance. this proposed ordinance and why i will be opposing it today. now i just want to start by saying there's nothing wrong with raising concerns about anyone spends their money could all of us here in the chamber do it and all of us work hard to expose the source of revenue which funds campaigns that we are opposed to and there's nothing wrong with making sure that everyone is following the law and that calling for an investigation by the government and this board does not punish entities to spend money on
8:22 pm
things we disagree with by resetting or printing the first amendment wright's speech. now the board of supervisors has got equally go advice we should be very careful when we crafted ordinances would restrict anyone's first amendment writer that we should also refrain from mentioning that the origins purpose of motivations of a proposal should arise from any concerns that we have about an entity's right to free speech. yet, the very origins of the ordinance came out of press releases, blogs, that specifically targeted one nonprofit affordable housing organization, typo-utilizing the funds for the purposes of political expression. specific ligament the charge was levied for initiatives that the authors propose legislation opposed to erode, and a quote the dark money supporting proposition c, b, lms, and abusing [inaudible] the authors on the record proposing cdh element s and supporting you
8:23 pm
and peter did the author goes on to say i will be promptly introduce legislation to close these current loopholes for good. we have called for an investigation. living for the many for the housing project funded with local dollars in san francisco will be restricted from using these proceeds for anything other than capital improvements existing affordable housing or the purchase of additional affordable housing. not bankrolling political campaigns. this proposed ordinance, the lead is dead on arrival. no assistance of the luggage of this wing which is ordinances neutral because it focuses on all, nonprofit organizations versus just talk to. just like the muslim band prohibited immigration from citizens of everyone from the specific nations, not just the muslims of those nation at war, because we are not discriminating viewpoints [inaudible] in fact just one week ago on wednesday a federal judge derek watson stated quite simply, quote the logic of government referring to the trump administration contentions as possible. the notion that one can demonstrate
8:24 pm
animus towards any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. he then goes on further to say, the government a.k.a. the trump administration compounds sure, is by suggesting an executive orders [inaudible] is what this court must rely on to evaluating the purpose. only a few weeks ago the ninth circuit commanded otherwise good the supreme court has been even more empathetic courts may not quote blind eye to the contest in which a policy arose. there is nothing quote unquote build about the purpose of this legislative there's press releases blogs which clearly state that these intent of the legislation is not to restrict spending the money on affordable housing purposes but to actually especially prohibit only spending four quote unquote especially political purposes and there's a few think about the motives as newspapers openly write about the author's intent. the san
8:25 pm
francisco chronicle headlines, nonprofit developers oppose campaign donation ban. next city headline s.f. lawmaker targets affordable housing campaign contributions. there is no question what the intent of this legislation is truly about. in fact the minoans hiding the ball on this one but not the author not the opponents of the legislation and suddenly, not the media. now, even if this board believes they should and can regulate free speech, i think there's a number of other problems with this legislation at one, it only targets affordable housing nonprofits versus allman profits which receive public funding. second, it only targets for the housing nonprofits versus all developers including market rate developers who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every election year accessing their free-speech bankrolling political candidates and initiative. now i'm often on the other side of that. i don't like it that market we developers and all this money opposing legislation that i
8:26 pm
offer that i support. by the way, we provide public funding to these market rate developers could either through direct taxpayer contributions, through zoning the value of their land they are providing them money, or, services like department like any department and department of building inspection. i don't like all this money that comes into election. i think that money should be heavily curtailed and severely restricted. we need to overturn citizens united and other harmful decisions which allow money, not voters, to determine the outcome of elections in which candidates and ballot measures when. but we must do this consistently across the board. and not curtail the political speech of one group and not others.
8:27 pm
finally, the supervisor peskin pointed out, this is a non-issue because the irs already regulates what nonprofits can spend their money on. they prevent any spending on candidates and place strict limitations on their contributions to other types of political campaigns like ballot measures. so i urge this board to oppose this legislation in any effort to curtail the free-speech of our entities and a residence. >> thank you supervisor kim. supervisor peskin >> thank you mdm. present i like to associate my self with the comments of supervisor kim and also acknowledge i was not in the land-use committee when this came up your processor being interviewed by the senate rules committee for that coastal commission spot and was unable to attend my apology. i would have brought these issues up in committee. i do want to explore a little bit some of the first amendment issues that supervisor kim touched on. but, in so far as this only applies to hundred percent affordable housing projects, and in so far as virtually every 100% affordable housing project is built by a nonprofit developer because for-profit developers rarely, if ever, go into that
8:28 pm
market because it is not as lucrative as being in the market rate development business, i think if we want to get money out of politics we should apply something like this as broadly as possible. this should apply to the recipients of the twitter tax break it this should apply not only to when i percent deals but to 80-20 deals by done by for-profit developers should apply to 50-50 deals although there's very few of them in san francisco. and, rather than targeting the free-speech of one class of people. but, i also think-and i say this from a perspective of somebody who has been the executive director of a nonprofit environmental organization for getting on the over 20 years, that it is entirely appropriate and lawful for a nonprofit to spend money in politics including four
8:29 pm
ballot measures. in instances when it furthers the goals of that nonprofit. we are-here's a perfect example. supervisor farrell put a measure on the ballot, proposition b to create more money for rec and park. indeed, the organization i used to work for the trust for public land, contributed substantial amounts of money to get opposition v past and appropriately so. because, it is consistent with their mission. there are internal revenue service guidelines for a nonprofit 501(c)(3) as to how much money they can spend in the business of politics, albeit, never in a candidate race for or oppose. so, for those reasons i can't vote for this bid i do feel that it is
8:30 pm
designed to chill the lawful free-speech of nonprofit organizations and to that end, would like to, through the president, as deputy city attorney gibner whether or not you think this would survive a first amendment challenge? >> thank you supervisor peskin. mr. gibner? the was deputy city attorney john gibner. as are all familiar, my office is required by the charter to approve ordinances as to form. our policy is that we will approve any ordinance as [inaudible] if there's argument that we made in defense of that ordinance if it passes at the board and his challenge. we have signed supervisor farrell propose amendment meaning that at a minimum there's arguments
8:31 pm
to defend it. beyond that, as you're also all familiar, whenever there are significant legal issues or legal questions that are raised at the board, i office has a practice of providing you confidential advice in writing which, we don't discuss in board meetings. >> supervisor peskin >> the only other thing i would just add relative to the comments i made on supervisor farrell propose amendment that we have not voted on yet is that there is the same language that i referenced on page 3 is also on page 4, act line 14. not that matters but i would respectfully suggest, through the president, to who provides her farrell that the words,
8:32 pm
candidate be removed on page 4, line 14 in on page 3 the malign 16. again, i concur with supervisor kim and be voting against the ordinance. >> so supervisor peskin just for clarity we are reapproved the amendment. so you would need to make a motion to amend your >> so moved >> supervisor peskin has made a motion. second by supervisor farrell. colleagues would take that without objection get without objection those amendment past. >>[gavel] >> all right. supervisor farrell. >> thank you president breed i won't belabor the point too much but i think a few things need to be very clear about. this, in no way at all is printing first amendment speech. at all. that is falsely misleading. this is saying, you cannot use public taxpayer dollars for political campaigns. period. if any organization nonprofit or otherwise, especially nonprofit, ozone by
8:33 pm
501(c)(3) of the irs code, seek to have a fundraiser, to raise money for political things they're welcome to do so in private funds conjure to that organization. ira says you can spend more than 10% of your proceeds. not touching that. what what i'm saying is san francisco test their dollars should not be used for those purposes. period. right now, even though during the budget process and was commented during some comments earlier, the budget process nonprofits do get city funds but they are restricted by section 12-g do not spent a political prisoner guess what, this is a loophole. it leverages and uses public dollars that should be repaid to the city of san francisco were used for a formal housing and build moreover long i can leave this body is considered to date and vote down and ordinance we want spend more
8:34 pm
money on political approval - excuse me - are formalizing a not on political chemistry we believe taxpayer dollars is more probably views on political campaigns for you to do that than on affordable housing. it's amazing to me. supervisor can you mention me specifically. some speakers for my press release but i know a lot of those funds laster were spent on ballot measures that you propose. so i find it ironic you are the one promoting that. of course, you would. second of all, was section about for-profit housing developers. it's different because they don't take taxpayer dollars. if they did, that we should restrict them as well. supervisor peskin mentioned it should apply to twitter with we want to do that in the course of any special we should have that vote. we should about bullets and will have it vote today get anderson
8:35 pm
as people post to this. but by voting, no, we are saying we believe in giving tax for dollars a way to organizations for political campaigns. i simply disagree and i will very much stand by that. >> mdm. pres. >> i'm sorry are you done supervisor farrell? supervisor cohen >> thank you very much supervisor peskin supervisor farrell, want to engage a little bit in the conversation supervisor kim maybe you can just listen because i maybe have a question for you as well. thank you. the way i understand it, the way this conversation is being framed is that these are public dollars being spent in a political major. the way i understand it the nature to be a little bit more nuance. public dollars are given for nonprofit organizations to make an investment. these nonprofit organizations make a profit and therefore making that public dollars or is that public
8:36 pm
dollars. so it's not as clear cut for me as-as it sounded and as it's being presented. it is unclear to me if there's anything of legal precedent that says, the profit that is made although the public dollars were the initial use used in the initial investment, the profit that is made generally goes back into the nonprofit organization, which makes it private dollars which means we are restricted from being able to tell nonprofit developers how to spend their money. so i think that is where i am in the gray area where i'm caught uncomfortable and makes it hard for me to support the legislation. because, the legislation is also, i think, because of this gray area, it is unclear that it's going to be challenging to defend should one bring this case against the
8:37 pm
city and try to bring it before the court. so, that is where i am should i do know if you can speak to that bring a little bit of clarity? looks like oregon have some conversation mdm. pres. thank you don >> so what question-would you like to address your question? >> thank you i like to hear from the maker of the sponsor of the legislation and again to rephrase my question, how dollars are used as initial investment and a profit is made. units are sold building social property is sold. that profit that is made is then in my mind considered private money. private money in the sense that it's not taxpayer dollars. although taxpayer dollars were used to grow the investment could see, it's not a clear-cut as it is being presented. >> supervisor farrell >> supervisor cohen i appreciate the question good it's a very therapeutic scenario where the mayor's office of housing contributes of human dollars to a project. the project is refinance. this is payback could we know more
8:38 pm
funds in the building private funds. [inaudible] some bank wherever you are absolutely, right. i agree with with the speed and size so long as their nasa dollars in affordable housing project on a project moment as long as they continue to be mayor's office of housing a great developer dollars in there, if you repay those alternate url. do not restricted by this but so long as you leverage and use public dollars left on his people refinancing continue to hold the mayor's office and other community dollars and investments in the property could so long as you continue to that you can cash out and then use it in political pays you cash out enough to pay us back first. that's what i'm saying. look, if we are out of the project no issues. but so long as the mayor's office of housing committee developed a pair taxpayer dollars at a project, the first thing that any financing proceeds to go to is to pay the city. but instead
8:39 pm
of what's happening is, they are leveraging the city or public dollars cash out and upping his back but using it for political present that to me, is what's wrong and that's what the students restrict specifically >> supervisor cohen is your question complete? thank you. supervisor peskin >> thank you mdm. pres. i actually was going to speak to the issue that supervisor cohen raised and yes, nonprofits can make money. nonprofit profit, if you will. the internal revenue restrictions, internal revenue code says that those monies cannot be distributed to shareholders, cannot unduly overly compensate the employees of that nonprofit. but, nonprofit corporations are not corporations that can make money to further their charitable purposes. in the case of this city by air through the mayor's office of
8:40 pm
housing, with affordable housing helpers, we provide them, in most cases, loans. usually low interest loans, that are repaid over time. that is very different than-and i would absolutely agree with supervisor farrell,-if the city were making a grant to a nonprofit in the nonprofit was using that to oppose opposition p or proposition u go at handling moh's ability to get a for the housing developers to bid on projects, that i would agree with. but if we give a loan to an affordable housing developer to build affordable housing, that is the charitable intent and purpose and nonprofit discharges that judy and build the 100 unit low
8:41 pm
income housing development and subsequently pays the city back it's low interest loan, and then choose it to refinance conventionally refinance and take money out. it is not our business. it is between god the internal revenue service and that nonprofit. as to how they use those funds. so here is the interesting figure in the instant case, the tyco case, this law would not apply. because costco paid off all of its loans to the city could it did not owe the city a single penny. so as to the egregious behavior that is alleged here in, it would not apply in the instant case. many many nonprofits actually don't cash out at all. as a matter fact i checked in with the >> very good. almond center [inaudible] forty-year history building thousands and we having thousands of units of affordable housing. they have
8:42 pm
cashed out one project at werth plaza. years ago. decades ago. so this is kind of a solution searching for a problem and in the one allegedly egregious case, and it is like political retribution, it would not have covered that particular case. i urge a no bullets and concur with supervisor cohen's nuance and also how the city has relationships with nonprofits to discharge their charitable work and carry out affordable housing mission. >> thank you supervisor peskin supervisor kim >> ashley supervisor peskin covered i think the waterfront on this issue and addressed the very question that i wanted to answer that supervisor cohen asked how we differentially to public funding, [inaudible] nonprofit organization support of a housing organization of course these cash proceeds good
8:43 pm
i was also going to say does actually is truly a non-issue. it's ongoing to address i think some of the concerns that supervisor mark farrell brought up. i just want to reiterate again i don't like it when people spend money on campaigns suppose legislation i put forward to the voters either but i'm not here standing before you resenting and introducing legislation to restrict the political speech either. so we can talk about how we don't like how many is spent and we can debate it we can criticize it we can all investigation to it but it's absolutely wrong for the sport to prohibit free speech and to penalize or try to penalize, people who speak against the things we believe in. >> thank you supervisor kim. supervisor ronen >> i will also be voting, no, on this legislation will repeat the excellent explanation both supervisor kim and peskin. i just wanted to say that supervisor farrell, the way that you speak about these private political campaigns
8:44 pm
makes it sounds very simplistic and nefarious, but often times when affordable housing developers choose to educate the public about a certain ballot measure it's because that ballot measure will make it easier or harder for them to build the affordable housing that you say that you want them to prioritize the funds to build or, they're giving their opinion about who, what income level should be eligible for that housing. that, to me feels a very appropriate use of funds of a developer choosing to exercise their political speech. i will also be voting, no, honest. >> thank you supervisor ronen. supervisor farrell
8:45 pm
>> thank you. i appreciate these comments and i thank you supervisor ronen. i just fundamentally disagree with you. i don't weigh public dollars to be used for political purposes whether i agree with those political purposes are or not. whether supporting some ai support or disagreeing with some nice pork i don't believe in a good unbelieving its appropriate use of taxpayers money on it. if [inaudible] allgood public funds funds we get out mayor's office of housing gives up, and salina. totally inappropriate and appreciative comments good thing supervisor transgression was a great one but very clear, if you have an affordable housing project fund with taxpayer dollars, and you pay the city back, no problem. this ordinance does not apply. under me from the ordinance but this ordinance applies during any permit while a loan grants or other funds provided by most remains outstanding. again, remains outstanding so you're leveraging private dollars and not paying the city back and said cashing out for the cult political campaigns but i think it's wrong. i know there's affordable housing development that is majority of the votes on this board and that is fine
8:46 pm
but i'll stand on principle to say i do not believe that we should be funding political campaigns the public taxpayer dollars period. >> thank you supervisor farrell. supervisor cohen speed thank you very much. i just want to jump back in here and make sure >> thank you very much. only sharon following this correctly. you take public dollars you make an investment could you turn a profit. you are able to pull-you make out of the prophet uk that the mayor's office of housing. is that correct? right. if you pay that the mayor's office of housing that this piece of legislation doesn't apply to any nonprofit. so it also seems-it seems like it that is the case, then they nonprofit is interested in engaging political activity, that is fine. you're just restricted to using public dollars and you must pay that moh first. so i want to make sure-perhaps supervisor kim maybe you can help me a little bit on this one. in terms of-you are not restricting the speech per se because you saw the ability to
8:47 pm
use the private dollars they made from the initial investment to engage. am i following that right? >> supervisor kim >> is that this ordinance doesn't just restrict the dollar amount of the loan. it restricts the entire cash out proceeds. so it's like supervisor peskin said. there's a number of things. the especially limited the uses of direct grants to nonprofit organizations from political campaign could i would be okay with that. in fact we largely do that. if you want to be consistent, and say that any entity that any type of public subsidy from the city and county of san francisco companies that move into mid market tax exclusionary, market rate developers, who get subsidies from the city of
8:48 pm
government of san francisco, then i think we should have that debate. so any entity that gets any type of public support from the city and county of san francisco been restricted from spending those dollars on political campaigning and contribution is fine. >>.mil consistency >> there's two issues. one is the issue of consistency and the second is this restrict all cash out proceeds. not just physically the dollar amount we have loaned to that of former housing organization. so one is zero issue of consistent able to target one group, let's talk about all of them. the second is, we are actually just limiting the spending of the loan dollars. we are looting the entire cash out proceeds, which at the very it's largely a nonissue because very few nonprofit for the housing developers do this and a wall tell you, they always spend those dollars directly back on the rehabilitation and acquisition anyway. but i think what we are largely talking about is this symbolic nature and the precedent we sent by
8:49 pm
approving the ordinance before us today >> mdm. chairman ask another question >> supervisor cohen >> i'm also under the impression these nonprofits are engaging and kind of political activity, there also subject to an audit could is that not correct? there's a certain level of scrutiny that is that when he saw profits rise to the level is an audit that they've done go and engage in to ensure that are not in violation of any of the tax laws, any bar disclosure laws, and a bar ethics or anything like that. i just wanted to make sure i'm thinking about this correctly. supervisor farrell spews you of your question directed at supervisor farrell >> allow for supervisor kim and farrell to answer it if possible. >> supervisor cars >> sure. every organization is subject to a 501(c)(3) tax code. so iris can come in and saw it audit somebody they fire tax returns have no [inaudible]
8:50 pm
they're subject to only 10% of the revenues 501(c)(3) can you contribute to political spending. that's one kind of category and threshold. with the ordinance does and says, it says on top of that, you can't use san francisco taxpayer dollars for political purposes. it's more recidivism with the irs says, absolutely. on the subject of audit buyer may stuff as of housing a great moment or anybody who controllers office as relates to organize you there was a public dollars, absolutely. but we don't have a login screen out it's a loophole about these cash out posted we talk about consistency. first of all, we do have section 12-liturgy of the ministry to come to be consistent that's all public taxpayer dollars. it can be used for political purposes. but we are making a convoluted argument here the because you
8:51 pm
leverage taxpayer dollars originally and continued of taxpayer dollars in your project, that all those proceeds are subject to your you could go on a cruise in the caribbean. i don't agree with that. specifically though my concern is that what we've seen in san francisco is that they are used for private political convention i think it is wrong. to the comments about all cash out proceeds versus not, look, i was not a finance major but it would seem to me that if 10% of a project was the mayor's office of housing community to bowman funds as soon as that 10% was raised from a refinancing the mayor's office of housing may develop should be paid back first. pay the city back. get us out of the financing can. get yourself out of the public taxpayer game. that is great. no problem. have no issues here. the only issue this addresses the ordinance addresses very specifically, is
8:52 pm
can you continue to loans or funds of sinning from the mayor's office of housing and community moment when you refinance project with supervisor cohen mentioned he don't pay us back in but instead use-the money off using for what you want to use it for this case in particular political campaigns. i believe that is wrong. >> thank you. it looks like there are still continued discussion but we have three commendations and we are way past 2:30 pm. so i'm going to break from this discussion so that we can acknowledge some honorees we have here today. so, with that >> i'm happy to call >> call the vote. >> okay. supervisor yee. >> i really do appreciate everybody's discussion >> so i'm sorry supervisor yee. if organic continue to the discussion i want us to respect the people that we have.
8:53 pm
the honorees here today it is almost 3 pm i really want to break from this discussion to honor them so that we can continue with our business at a later time. so i apologize supervisor chinese. i'm sorry and you will be the first person up for your commendation. >> in a case i will let you do that >> okay. supervisor yee, you are up. [laughing] >> wow. okay. give me a second here.colleagues, many of you have already read or heard of about the president's budget the prince and heard about how the proposal propose federal funding cuts would greatly impact critical new programs for seniors and adults with disabilities. such as meals on wheels. on march 22 1972 pres. nixon signed into law the older
8:54 pm
americans act nutrition program. which amended the older americans act of 1965 and established a national attrition program for seniors 60 years and older. san francisco seniors and what you have-seniors make up about 25% of our city's population in the number will grow to over 30% by 2030. last year i was proud to cosponsor the historic [inaudible] fund with other supervisors. associate a baseline funding of 3000 dedicating supporting certain visit services for seniors and adults with disabilities. the need of seniors range from affordable housing, protection, healthcare nutrition and more. earlier this month i sponsored a hearing on the wide and growing needs of seniors and aging adults with disabilities.
8:55 pm
in our city. dozens of seniors in our community based organizations showed up to make public comments. currently, 104 san franciscans the tickly low income residents and seniors, suffer disproportionately from food insecurity and hunger. seniors and adults with disabilities particularly vulnerable given many of them live on sticks to incomes and are homebound. isolated and live alone. there are many seniors on the waitlist. the city where we have vast amounts of wealth and access to agricultural which regions, we should not have people suffering from hunger. with the growing cost living in san francisco, and those seniors living on fixed incomes, the need for access to healthy and nutritious and affordable meals is especially critical to the health and well-being of seniors. seniors should not
8:56 pm
have to choose between spending for food, or for medical needs, pure. for over 40 years, meals on wheels san francisco has delivered over 1.6 million meals each year. over 60% of these i can of the people that are served of the seniors actually live alone. 20% of them have no food sources between the meals meals on wheels provide each date and the meals are prepared in their own kitchen in the bayview. the drivers, the drivers deliver meals and safety checks to 3500 seniors and adults with disabilities across san francisco. but meals on wheels goes beyond just delivering the meals. they have a team of drivers do safety checks on seniors. dietitians provide
8:57 pm
nutrition counseling. social workers and volunteers that contact seniors and connect seniors to buy the resources. the fact is, funding programs like meals on wheels actually helps save precious tax dollars because it gives seniors out of the nursing homes and prevents unnecessary hospitalization that often is paid for by medicare and medicaid. however, unfortunately funding for the older american act is not kept up with inflation and rapidly growing senior population. meals on wheels america is already serving 23 million meals edited in 2005. meals on wheels has a successful public-private partnership where every federal dollar is matched by about three dollars from other sources. so, i want to say that many of us in the
8:58 pm
chamber including the mayor, this past month has delivered a meal to a senior tunnel or a person with a disability. i had an opportunity to deliver a meal to cover lena and her partner said that i was actually able to deliver a meal last year, two, and what i found was that she was not mobile. she was sitting there and i could see from her walker, she tried to get up once and she could not. how valuable these meals are for her because it's very difficult for her living alone to have a meal that's warm and cook. not only that, the people-and she says this. last year was the same thing over at the other seniors i delivered a meal to. she said that it's really important for me to see somebody come in here because
8:59 pm
that often is the only person i see all day long and that's the person that went to check on me. in fact, she so is trustworthy, trusting, that she gave her house key, her dorky, to the person that's going to deliver the meal every day to her. so that the person could just coming because it's too hard for to get to the door. that's what we see out there. those are the people who are served on meals on wheels. so, before i call up view represented for meals on wheels are really want to urge all of you to contact congress and urge them to protect funding for programs such as meals on wheels, which helps keep millions of seniors across america safe healthy and cared for within the comfort of their own homes and it is these millions also includes so many of those seniors and people with disabilities in san francisco. recognizing the critical work of meals on wheels, what it does to provide
9:00 pm
in terms of the social connection and nutritious meals prevent isolation and premature institutionalization. today i'm in choosing a proclamation to proclaim march 2017 as march 4 meals month. i am proud to present a proclamation to in --achieve government affairs business development officers for meals on wheels san francisco. pam. thank you so much supervisor jenny thank you for the words you just identity draw the board of supervisors really supports a meals on wheels. i think as we know, last thursday we saw the proposed budget which did include nearly 80% million cut to healthy human services percent budget to healthy newsrooms of the 83 billion-dollar budget of which includes older american act. the outpouring of support that we have felt from the city both privately from individuals from our elected officials, is outstanding. i think the coverage we are getting will ensure that you agree to
9:01 pm
receive that part, i think we will look at our city and our state into private individuals to up us backfill those funds. it is the service we provide as we all know in van nuys 3600 seniors rely on us. they rely on the friendly visit and the cd check. as to their neighbors, their caregivers, their sons, their daughters. that is what makes meals on wheels so special. is that we are really there for the client really needs us and really brings the community together. actually what makes kind of a win-win. between the private and public funding and the leveraging bringing our community and engaging those two really value our seniors, is what it's all about. this proclamation is something that really drives that home, gives us an average and remind all of us how important it is good we do receive 15-20% of federal funding to run our programs in
9:02 pm
san francisco. so this proclamation in so much. we are so grateful supervisor yee and to all of you and for those of you that will be going out soon to see klein in your district i look for to and we can't wait. so thank you so much >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you for your get we appreciate your service to our senior community. thank you very much. with that, supervisor cohen. spears latest agenda i know you came four-i do know you come for that long debate about public funds and dollars in tax money and that
9:03 pm
will lead to continued if you want to stick around for some more action. but in the meantime, i want you guys to put your hands together and welcome ms. edit jones, to come on down here [applause] this is such an incredible woman. i'm so excited to be able to present to her this humble commendation that will come and humbling memorialize the work that she has done for a very long time. now, on a personal note you need to know this lady i went to elementary school with her kids. her sons are living younger than me. but more in line with my younger sisters but this was a woman that was like eight room parent. she was always on the
9:04 pm
field trips. she was always volunteering her time. so it is extra special to stand here to celebrate her. i want to recognize this edit jones and her service to hold sf and alice griffith public housing to me as the education liaison. as i mentioned, she has lived education from very early on in her career and has had an impact on my personal life. so it is a special privilege to stand before her to recognize work with hold sf because this is coming. if you start with main elementary school and now here we are it i like to share a little more about her. she's recently risen from sanitary taxes are graduate of [inaudible] called prairie view agriculture mechanical university. it is there that she earned her degree in sociology and education in 1977. shortly thereafter, in 1979, she and her family relocated to the san francisco bay area. this is jones has worked in urban communities providing educational support for over three decades. she is
9:05 pm
with many different constituencies over the years including people living with hiv and aids, young mothers in the western addition, special education students. we are very lucky to have ms. jones in which is brought in the wealth of knowledge she is brought and experience to urban strategy team as well as to the alice griffith community. for those of you that don't know house griffith is a small public housing developer in the southeast corner of san francisco what we call the flatlands in bayview-hunters pointed >> also known as double rock >> supervisor jimmy likes to point that out you natives you know what that is. [inaudible/off mic] yes. yes, double rock. the government name is alice griffith. [laughing] in her role as urban strategy education liaison mrs. jones has been a summons on commencing committee benefits
9:06 pm
commencing the community building and parent engagement strategy that quite frankly has led to a tremendous improvement in our young scholars, young students attendance and as was their academic achievement. she has played a terminus role in the building the community based on education partnerships and documenting the personal accounts of the lives of the families of the children that are living in public housing. sometimes they even go undocumented and unacknowledged. she also is a fantastic artist did she created for me a beautiful memory book of two years ago. she's very talented photographer as well. be please coupled your hands together and welcome ms. edit jones. [applause] >> first of all i like to say i'm really humbled and i'm really appreciative of this acknowledgment. i'm just so reminded of marian wright ald.
9:07 pm
who is the former president of the children's defense fund of washington dc, and she says that, service is the rent we pay for living. so it is truly been a service to be a part of a team of urban strategy youth entered into a community that had been so left out a month and so far forgotten and especially for the children to be able to work and provide educational services and opportunities and then to knowledge the children and to knowledge their families. what has been most significant for me has been working with the partners in the school districts. san francisco unified school district. sushi foundation san francisco police department. it's just been a pleasure to work with the ymca. it is important that the work is accomplished. but we can't do it alone. you must have the partners involved with austin so once again, thank you also much and i really appreciate
9:08 pm
this honor in this acknowledgment. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> congratulations ms. johnson thank you so much for your service. >> all the educators that are here, would you please, stand up. thank you. [applause] thank you to all the educators have dedicated their lives to educating young minds. we are grateful. >> thank you thank you for being here today. okay our final commendation for today is going to be given by supervisor kim. thank you president breed
9:09 pm
and i knew at some words as well for the group about to bring up. i want to bring up san francisco interfaith council. the school committee servers and our department of homelessness and supportive housing to the podium.this past winter and each winter that apartment of homelessness and supportive housing in partnership with the san francisco interfaith council episcopal community services and many other part local churches, partner to provide emergency shelter during our winter months from november 20-february 25 when we know our streets get a little bit colder and in particular, this winter much more wet. i want to take the time to acknowledge and appreciate all the churches and organizations participated to
9:10 pm
spanish out of capacity this past winter could without you, 100-200 additional people would have spent each night on the streets for the last few months in a cold and rainy weather. one of the top concerns of the constituents i represent and certainly here in the city, are how we address homelessness and encampments. the reality is both the house and on house degree that no one should be on the streets. no one wants to see the encampment with the neglect brought on by years of federal estate divestment from public housing and affordable housing in mental institutions. and no one wants to see anyone suffer. i want to thank and acknowledge that part of homelessness who is represent by jeff kosinski director here today, for always working to practically seek out most of our natural allies resolving that crisis is of homelessness and that committee. i'm particularly rifle for our religious institutions that take on-take on-take this on by
9:11 pm
answering the moral mandate to care for most destitute, in this case are homeless management st. barnabas, st. mark's lutheran singers cathedral, the first unitarian church, thank you for doing god's work here in san francisco. i agreed to participate in san francisco winter shelter program, you are holding true to the values of a validity of religious beliefs, but also the values of the city and county of san francisco. having visited some your churches, that open the door i mean it's really just it's a beautiful gesture to those on the nice when nights we have the most need and provides a tremendous amount of relief in our city. so, thank you for this work it also helping to coordinate meals to those that have opened their doors at night for hundreds of homeless
9:12 pm
individuals in our streets. i want to particularly appreciate episcopal community services for taking on the role of managing and staffing this over the last three months. from the department of homelessness, imagine jeff kosinski but also want to recognize kathy purdue, scott walton, sam dodge, emily cohen and homeless outreach team. so, thank you again so much and pres. breed i think you want to add a few words >> thank you. yes, i will start by thanking each and every one of you for being here. thank you two beta-and michael-for being here and leading the way in being an incredible example that not only have you were to help coordinate the faith community for this particular purpose, we know also the work that you did to get our first navigation center up and running during the support that you provided. the work that you continue to do. make such a difference the lives of the people we know are most
9:13 pm
abominable, and i want to say that i'm really proud that the majority of these locations are actually in district 5. when the call came, the churches then in our district stood up and basically open their doors and just so proud to see each and every one of you here today. first unitarian church sf night ministry st. mary's cathedral, st. mark's lutheran church in st. vincent depaul society of san francisco. this is not to ignore st. boniface and the episcopal community services. you all, together, create an opportunity for so many people do we know need it the most, especially when we have conditions outside that are just really difficult for anyone to surviving in. so your work and what you do by opening your doors is truly god's work and it is saving lives and on behalf of the city,, we applaud you but we thank you for your service. so, with that, we will
9:14 pm
ask jeff to come up and say a few words. >> thank you pres. breed and i would like to echo my thanks to the interfaith council to lovely congregations who participated to the school community services but especially to the hundreds of volunteers came out every morning to help serve meals. i had the honor being able to serve some of those meals with congregants from the unitarian universalist church good was a great honor to stand with them and just to see the atmosphere that they helped create, the love, and the openness that they shared with and the food, with the homeless men were staying at that shelter. it was really a beautiful thing. i think this is a wonderful example of how the community can come together to address the needs that we have good as you all know there's over 3000 individuals on any given night there's sleeping on our streets in san francisco. we need to do more and we need to do better and i think that this a great model of how the community can come together to serve the most vulnerable san franciscans.
9:15 pm
than k you from the bottom of my heart. on behalf of the department and all the people that we serve. it's very deeply grateful for all you've done for the community. thank you. [applause] >> i know michael-from the interfaith council is also going to say a few words as well. >> we are humbled to be here today and we are grateful. these are the heroes and the 45 congregations that have served meals. if these are the heroes, this is our superhero. vita-is here from the beginning i like to to say just a few words. >> thank you very much but i want to remind michael and all of you that nobody does these things alone. it is because we are working as a community that we can do this. so i echo mayor lee's words. if we stand
9:16 pm
together there's nothing we can't accomplish. thank you very much for this commendation we treasure it and we thank you so much. [applause]
9:17 pm
>> congratulations to all our hono today and think everyone for your patience. with that we will return to our agenda. it is past 3 pm and we have a 3 pm special order. mdm. clerk, please call the item >> the special order of 3 pm is public hearing for items 17-20 continued open from january 10, 2017. public
9:18 pm
hearing persons interested in the determination of exemptions from environment to review under the california environment oh quality act issued as a community plan and simpson approved by the planning commission on september 22, 2015. for a proposed project located at 2675 fulsome st. to allow the demolition of three two-story warehouse and storage structures get the construction of a four story 40 foot tall residential building. item 18 is a motion to affirm that this project is exempt from further environmental review the community plan exemption. items 19 and 20 are the motions to reverse the planning to permits exemption determination. >> supervisor ronen ps thank you college. like to make a motion to continue item 17, 18, 19, and 20 two the april 18 board of supervisors meeting. while i have concerns about the project is been raised by this
9:19 pm
appeal i continue to remain open and hopeful parties can come to an agreement that would remove the need for this appeal. as you saw this morning in the san francisco chronicle, the [inaudible] committee counsel [inaudible] came to an agreement with lennar multifamily communities project that also sits in the latino cultural district. i am hopeful that the parties can reach a similar agreement here and believe given some more time to sit down with one another would help with that process good so colleagues whom i would ask that you would support this continuous. >> supervisor ronen has made a motion to continue as to the meeting of april 18 27 and it was seconded by supervisor cohen. colleagues, before we vote on this continuous, we do need to take public comment specifically on the continuance. so if there's a members of the public would like to speak as a relates to the continuance, please, come forward. first speaker, you have 2 min. >> hello. laura clark with
9:20 pm
[inaudible] action. i knew you couldn't continue this but this is why we don't have the housing we need. it's because we play games with it. if you want to get developers out of politics, it's time to take the politics out of developments. if you want to get rid of a page play system, we need to stop playing games. we need less discretion in these processing. we need to say, there is housing that we need, housing the leg is housing denied. it is time to get moving. i understand that you are going to wait on this project a little bit more and have a lot more feel about it and see what more we can squeeze out of various developers and there's nothing we can do about that here today but i want to encourage you to get some urgency about the crisis that we are in and how
9:21 pm
much housing we so desperately need. so i want you to take this in context pass on as accurate as fast as possible. if you really want to take the pressure off of the mission, it is time to build housing in the outlying neighborhoods. that is urgent and i need to be passed immediately. thank you. >> thank you. could i remind members of the public and those speaking, can we please did to the subject matter of the continuance. they can. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors did i miss eric-president for [inaudible] cultural district and we are in support of the continuance that i think are important that we meet with the developers to make sure that we come to an agreement and that everything that we talk about benefits everyone and most importantly, to protect latino cultural district and its cultural assets. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>hello. vicfrom an
9:22 pm
environmental review perspective i think we pass this out many many times.entited. in this a perfectly fine development. the build affordable housing there a lot with nothing in it exists now.a continuance is another updating for delay and delay after that. we have at this discussion many times and i'm not sure what additional benefit there is to allowing more private negotiation practices between this developer and the community at large. it seems kevin i do know it seems like we got into this mess to begin with and i would urge the board of supervisors to consider whether i'd like laura said [inaudible] weathers measures in place to prevent this situation from happening again and again. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is kevin burke rent. in san francisco residence in district. i like you to please deny the
9:23 pm
continuance. the more delays the monsanto we have in the house and process the harder it is to build the harder it is to build the more expensive it is to build in the city you have to keep lawyers on staff you've got permits open keep renewing him continued contracts open. the most sense of it is to build in the city the higher income requirements of the voters need to target. the harder it is to build affordable and middle-class housing when there's larger discover disease between affordable and what the market rate rent is for the building. so we should try to make it a certain and as predictable as possible whether a project will get through the process were not. secondly, i don't see with this continuance has to do with the environment. we are here to discuss whether it's appropriate environmental-this project has environment all impacted it sounds like the
9:24 pm
developer and the group are trying to negotiate to come to an agreement but it doesn't sound like a really environmental concerns so much as there are concerns about gentrification and housing in the mission. i don't see what that has to do with this bill. i don't think we should turn everything into a referendum on gentrification. we should stick to the contents of the meeting. this then legislated before and at different times and things from us. please, deny the contents >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon my name is larry mazzola. business manager of local 30 plumbers and pipefitters union. i'm also the present of the san francisco building trades council. i am here today speaking in favor of the continuance today on this project. to also clear up a little confusion that you all might be facing right now. when you see some units within the building trades council coming here and stand up to deny a continuance and ballet dancer continuance in other unions speaking for a continuance like myself might be confusing. so there's a misnomer out there
9:25 pm
that the building trades is all being supported by this project is rebuilt 1% union. that is not to get some units have got the okay in writing that, yes, they will be union but some unions have not like the mep is just a mechanical electrical the plumbing and the sprinkler fitters. those are the mep s unit it was of the subcontractors we've not gotten any commitments to this point it over we had a conversation with the ceo of access yesterday and it was a good conversation i think the continuance will give us more time to continue those discussions. but the portraits on the just mentioned have numerous if not hundreds of people that live in the mission district and those job opportunities would be lost for those people. those are workers in the city that deserves a good wage and a good benefit package and to live up to the area standards that the city is so proud of. so, thank you and i hope you will continue this item so we have more time to talk to the developer about a
9:26 pm
lot of different issues. thank you. >> thank you next speaker, please. spielman is brian hamilton. i am the co-funder of the cow 40 renters legal advocacy and education fund regarding this continuance, this is the exact type of process that leads to increased economic and racial segregation displacement and rising price. there is an ocean of academic literature on this topic at scholarship by lindsay mccomb is be become to mind specific group of the happy with and charge you with anyone if you still care. regarding the specific proper project understands after court has found there is no displacement effect from the market rate of element effect in a new market rate developers mitigates against this [inaudible] which also with the urban displays the project at uc berkeley found and i understand as many committee members that feel otherwise. supervisor ronen, i would implore you that leadership is hard. you are going to people that disagree with your decision one way or another. but i ask you to do
9:27 pm
the hard things and explain to your constituents that were housing is needed. the more housing is community benefit and that the mission is somewhat supplicant attorney into a noe valley if we close up shop for development. on a personal note, i live for five years on this very block above isaac's liquor store. i was displaced in september and am living in open and not too happy about it. i blame anti-housing activists for being successful for decades for now building housing for my displacement and all my friends to a person that i knew in 2010 are all gone. and as a fitting metaphor, my last week at that at my apartment i stepped outside and i was almost run over by two well-to-do women in jogging gear with a really extensive looking strollers.
9:28 pm
there's been a real demographic seachange in a part of the mission that not one new housing to bauman. tom's of new luxury rehabs of existing houses but nothing new. they moved in and they displaced other people because were not building for them. thank you. >> thank you narrowminded public again, can you speak please keep your comments specifically to the continuance. otherwise i will need to stop you and remind you of why you are giving this particular public comments. specific to the continuance. thank you very much. next speaker. >> welcome, supervisor's and i want [inaudible] my district i been kicked out and thank you supervisor am a on behalf of stephen [inaudible] i will place to live and [inaudible] he is the owner of that building could you can have a board meeting and there and i want to thank everybody who got
9:29 pm
our place [inaudible]. thank you. we've all on behalf of all the supervisor we got the lottery. thank you. thank you. we all love you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i am resident excelsior and i think you should not do the continuance. because the problem excels in his own sense of and san francisco because of all these delays. so i'm not too concerned about the developers. it might be able to negotiate 20% affordable, 40% affordable. whether be able to do it because the market rate housing will increase in the meanwhile one the week around for all these negotiations and continuances. so i urge you approve the project is crappy as possible and help market rate housing back down. >> thank you very much. next item spews members of the board
9:30 pm
of supervisors [inaudible] open government and i echo the comments of many of the private previous speakers. but i would like to talk about the continuance itself. for you, continuing a matter is really no big issue. you are going to be your you are going to get paid. doesn't really matter to you. however, when members of the public come here and sit for an hour and half waiting to make comments and then are told at the last minute, by the way, for our convenience or some other issue is though not always sure is accurate or true, we are going to continue this to some future date. people have to take time off work that they have to take time to make arrangements for the children. just myriad of
9:31 pm
things. i see these continuances been done over and over and over again with little thought given to the members of the public and interested parties who have to come here and want to come here to comment and put in their two cents. i also would point out that according to the sunshine ordinance whenever continuance or change in the agenda is known, it is supposed to be brought up immediately and children brought up at the beginning right after where it says agenda changes. therefore, members of the public, we would've had this discussion they could've made their comments on the continuance they would not have too had to sit here for an hour and a half only to find out that they're not going be allowed to comment on what they came here to do. i think this board of supervisors has shown a long history of disregard for the second phase the members of the public make when they come here and sit sometimes i think i've come here and sat the public commons 30 min. after the beginning of the meeting and in one case, seven hours into the meeting. so it's a crapshoot. you really don't know when or if these are going to come up in this is not right. if you have something on
9:32 pm
the agenda and you're going to change it, ringing up during the agenda change that is the sunshine ordinance and look at your own agenda and it says, know your rights under the sunshine ordinance. read the law and follow it. >> thank you next speaker, please. spielman and scott-president of the mission for the 90s into thousands number and some behalf of work on geary under the sloppy with 01 speak on this issue to bring it was can be continuance so in favor of the gadget is because a lot of our community that was spoken trying to get a better project of this development it is not currently present. solely on the other side we saw that the contractors, union had filled the space which also mentors let public there was not able to attend. this letter paid protesting lipstick and they broken from the rest of
9:33 pm
the unit is urban and economic impact from this path it is project target having housing is. built in san francisco. overseeing is the committee pushes back we can get better projects and projects that are then introduced to begin with with these higher levels of affordability. these harder levels of community service because developers can afford it in the city needs it. so basically our current planning code is not demanding enough. it's only vehement agreement with the folks from sf [inaudible] we would like to see these projects go through as better projects. we look at you the leaders of our city to change our planning codes knowing we can get our these projects with higher levels of affordability and more civic service. thank you for your time to give will talk you when this comes back up again and am overjoyed to hear the community and developers of original permits a you don't have to worry about. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is sarah miles i'm grateful dirt will be it continues down very much in support of that. this development is coming huge impact on our neighborhood on our schools and our families. we really need time to work out a waiting which can be as
9:34 pm
little disruptive as possible. so i appreciate the time that we can work together to try to make it better. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm here because i came to the previous meeting and nothing-was no chance to express my view but i very much oppose delay. that will turn off the citizen input i simply bothering a lot and some people get a lot of money for having it become increased legal for professionals that are making money from the delay to get their way for some people that are getting financial advantage. i pursued a situation where the city made special arrangements for mercy housing, which involves the
9:35 pm
compliance of the state building code in ways that would increase fires but there was no review. environmental review. was treated as if it was a partnership between the city and the contractor instead of the city regulating the contractor. but simply, the city presumably is getting housing and therefore [inaudible] and therefore return some of the benefits to make it easier for the people building the housing to make money. but at the cost of it, imagine beneficiaries, the people who will be occupying the housing. they are never given a chance to look at building plans, to see whether it really conforms with the fire code. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. spielman and ms. kristin-i live directly across the street from the
9:36 pm
proposed development. i'm in favor of the continuance because i do believe in spite of what people said these luxury developers do cause despite my landlady is very sad but this thing because she wants to put the building on market in me delete the very afraid of getting displays. their real estate speculator buying the building and affecting us. so i live with low income seniors disabled people in my building i think the continuously coupled to try to make a better deal. we don't need more luxury husband we need affordable housing at the crisis is not caused i housing activist. his cause by speculators and luxury housing. so thank you for listening thank you supervisor ronen jed >> thank you very much next speaker, please. >> my name is layla-i live two blocks from the building. this large building is overlooking an elementary school and beside it is a nursery or playground for a nursery for tom oneonta
9:37 pm
put in. none of the children to go to that school or go to that part have any chance of living in the so-called housing. i really have to stand here and question, can you honestly say that this new more luxury housing is going to help our housing crisis for the people that are displaced? most of the people that are-this is a very serious decision we need to take all the time you can to be fair. it's the only way. once a building goes up, you can take it down. once those shadows are gone one step playground, has no sunshine, it is gone. you really do not listen to read which is eager to get paychecks out of this. you are always have as a defense against that greed. use your concentrate use your eyes. look at the neighborhood. it is not appropriate. if it was
9:38 pm
all-it was all for us we were put up maybe it would be worth losing some sunshine it but it is not for us. i live across the street from luxury condos. it's all about [inaudible] it's all about investment and flipping. young people of no investment in the community. displacing for more agree. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is scott weaver. i support a full week continuance. four weeks is not a long time but it gives us an opportunity to renegotiate any good faith and come to a better agreement then it'll be time well spent. if not, then it's only four weeks. no matter what you believe can about how market rate housing skit fits into the schema things up for week continuance is not going to
9:39 pm
lead to the end of life on earth as we know it. we will either have a deal or we will not have a deal. that's all. keep this in perspective. >> thank you good next speaker, please.nami lorraine garcia. i'm a member of latino historical san francisco historical society and also from arts commission on federal commissioner with the latino museum that we are attempting to create. i'm also an arts and cultural specific cultural working many many years in the mission district. iming conference with your motion to defer. i also feel that i agree with many of the young people that come up that said they don't understand why you would
9:40 pm
be deferred and i agree that i don't understand why you would be deferred and that, in fact, the time we are given that they will be given range of the project will be informed by letter of data that is not currently available. that will make this project much more successful, and at the same time, it will not follow the patterns of displacement in the same way that is happened throughout the city. so i think of your wisdom in the lane for weeks. it's not a long time, and i will leave it at that. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervised my name is carlos--on the housing attorney for [inaudible] i just want to take a quick moment to thank you all for your patience and wisdom in attempting to determine the best course of action for this project. in the mission as a whole. permitting this continuance. while i'm aware this continuance may be a temporary inconvenience for some
9:41 pm
rushing into hasty decisions without waiting for substantive information or permitted good-faith negotiation create a permanent detriment for everybody. thank you for much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. if there's any other members of the public would like to speak on the continuance, please come for now. the afternoon david-i missed your earlier discussion on this but i'm standing you may have another appeal nearby with a related issue. it sounds like there are discussions ongoing so it makes sense for the continuance. i also think that whatever project happens at this location the project sponsors should document what's already there with photos and video because it's not just the mission, but it is the industrial history of the city. it really is the last example
9:42 pm
of the railroad going through from folsom to the mission and the buildings that surround it. so some documentation of that history for the planning department and the public library i think would be in order for this project. i'm not saying to the rest of the meeting but i'm sure you'll do an appropriate in the morning for natalie berg. thank you remick. >> thank you. next speaker, please.width tom gilbert. between now and then whenever then is, how many seniorsbetter low income added to this project? how many graduates graduated foster kids might be living at this project? how many people off navigation systems between now with the plan stands for now, and we are we are going to go to equip how many seniors can we move from houses that are not appropriate anymore? those are questions the plans-how many people >> could you please speak to
9:43 pm
the continuance? >> well, the continuance is then. we are here right now. i think of for going to pay for continuance how many >> whether or not ribbon' on. whether or not you [cross-talking / off mic] >> instead of market rate people how many people from our committees are to be able to move in that are from those local zip codes? i would like to say probably a better balance that i think that's what all these people are saying. there is the community housing for us now? that needs to be answered between now and then. thank you. >> thank you. if there's no other members of the public would like to provide comments on the continuance, public comment is closed. >>[gavel]
9:44 pm
>> mdm. clerk, seeing oh names on the roster please called roll call on a motion to continue the item to the meeting of april 18 2017. >> sheehy aye, tang aye, yee aye, breed aye, cohen, farrell aye, fewer aye, kim aye, peskin aye, ronen aye, safai aye. there are 11 tremont the okay this item marketing into the lead on april 18, 2017. >>[gavel] >> all right. adam clark, let's go back to >> item 7 he was yes we were in the middle of a discussion supervisor yee has the floor.
9:45 pm
>> i'm wondering if there's any examples or somebody actually did this? because, if not i'm wondering why were passing legislation on this?
9:46 pm
>> supervisor farrell >> thank you president breed to supervisor chinese, point, yes. the pirates apples from last point funny some of the local >> so moved. do not continue the mayor's office and donate development dollars in it but in looking at our laws, after that it reaches fever last year did we realize we were are vulnerable here in the city of stephen is that we don't think we should allow that to happen in our city. >> supervisor yee >> can i say one other thing? in all the developers that are fighting this legislation, there's a proof point. if they have no intent to do it why would they care in the same way? they don't want this legislation because they don't want to be restricted from using
9:47 pm
taxpayer dollars for political funds. plain and simple. >> thank you subbarao farrell. supervisor yee no other questions because supervisor kim >> i just want to clarify because we don't have numbers of the public [inaudible] committee on behalf of these nonprofit affordable housing developers who all uniformly oppose legislation. they don't oppose it because they use cash out proceeds for political speech. they don't. they don't want us to set a dangerous precedent with the board of supervisors unfairly targets one category of entities in their free-speech spending. now, let's talk about leveraging city subsidies the city dollars, city values to create profits. right? nonprofit formal housing developers to do this from moa speedy drovers but so do market rate developers and they take city subsidies. they take the values we confer on their lands are zoning, and they leverage that public subsidy google profits were they do actually
9:48 pm
use profits to go on cruises and political spending. so if we are going to do this, we should do it for everyone and i think that is specifically with the nonprofit affordable housing voters are concerned with. it's not that this is going to in any way curtail anyone's current activities or history. by the way, there's very rigorous audits of nonprofits organizations and how much of their hours and money they spent on volunteering and working and organizing on ballot measures could i know because i used to work at one christ filled out my timesheet i do specifically enumerate the number of hours i spent working on ballot measure campaigns. it is that we are setting a dangerous precedent by targeting one group not targeting all. that's why i'll be opposing the stay. >> thank you. supervisor farrell >> so again let's be clear what were voted on guilt were voting on whether we should taxpayer dollars to allow organizations to use for camping. that to me is a dangerous precedent we're
9:49 pm
seven. i think it is the height of irony quite likely thinking during this break that was mentioned quite likely agree much agree with that citizens united, need to overturn that make more money bar political system but here we are simple people organa vote to put more money in our [inaudible] but taxpayer dollars in our political system. again, i think we call the question but that the boat here, getting tested all should be funded for political campaigns, vote against the. you think affordable housing dollars on the taxpayer should be used for affordable housing, support this. >> thank you. supervisor yee, >> i will make this real quick. i'm just sitting here thinking mainly because many of you know that i come from the nonprofit world. worked in it for about 30 years. in man and organization so am sitting here thinking, okay, no we have some [inaudible] when we bought a building and no, we do not refinance it but [inaudible]
9:50 pm
i'm just thinking out loud that where does it stop for us for people in nonprofit that one could take it further? opening up. what you would say since to have an outstanding loan and you are saving its 20 years old and mainly because you're able to pay rent use your mind when money to pay for the mortgage and you're paying this fixed mortgage and not the rent doesn't go up it must be saving money so you should be using that savings for any opinion that you have on about an initiative. so i question it it a little bit and again i'm thinking out loud is not really directed towards anyone. >> thank you supervisor yee. supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. i looked maybe a couple questions the mayor's office of housing.
9:51 pm
if they could weigh in on this? you had an opportunity to listen to some of the discussion. i think for me, going back to the point was making earlier, i would describe it as great money. likely if that initial investment of tax-public money and profit is made. is that considered by your department to the public money or private money? >> the way that i would answer that >> please come identifiers of peers amy chan is opposite housing. the way i would answer that if a project has a loan with the mayor's office of housing we direct-or a ground lease we directly regulate the project. we don't currently have a policy around cash out proceeds. the of only had a handful of projects that have either ocd money or ground lease where we spent
9:52 pm
[inaudible] on a case by case basis negotiated how to handle refinancing of those projects. that is why our office is going to work with the developer community to create a policy where we would apply the same rules across the board to any project looking for to do this kind of refinancing. but, currently, we don't and we are not regulating across the board of the cash out proceeds are handled. we are regulating any project with the spending of the direct loan funds from ocd. >> all right. how often does this happen? how often are you seeing nonprofits spending the money they are cashing out? >> so as we've mentioned it only see a handful of cases where there's been a refinancing and the cashing out. there could possibly be others in the future but it's been a small percentage. >> so when you say a handful of just one quantify that. is that two, three, he quit >> i think we've had two projects. existing ocd funds from a sitting ocd funds in a refinance and captured cash out
9:53 pm
proceeds >> i assume this is public information. can you tell us which nonprofits they were? >> one project was with tndc and one project was with that whole. >> i'm not familiar with that one. what is battle? >> it is a church run out of i think the project was in district 5. >> okay. are you able to share with us how the money was used? >> we actually-i actually don't have the specifics of those two project i can come back and give you information about that but we don't-we have negotiate how is an ocd we capture some of those cash out proceeds. so i don't believe we directly limit how the developers portion of those funds are spent but we are negotiating funds to be coming back to oh cds so that we can be using them for purposes of affordable housing. >> okay. have you-i'm not sure if your department is taken
9:54 pm
opinion on the legislation. i would imagine you probably have not amok but i'm going to ask for some of your thoughts around -is there a method, or a way, to put further distractions on the cash out dollars? >> i think our offices priority we would like to just see as much of the funds come back to our office as possible and then we would be easy to funds for former housing purposes >> those on the come back to the office are they required to come back in full? >> currently, no we don't have a policy around. even negotiating. we had negotiated at around the two projects but we would create a policy and we do that in collaboration with the developer community in terms of what that we capture would look like. >> so the dollars go out and the form of a loan? >> yes. from our office. we
9:55 pm
have existing ones with nonprofits for them to build affordable housing. >> but they are required to be back the loan? >> correct. >> to the québec interest on the loan >> no. >> is just the dollar amount >> soft loans, correct >> the money they make from the investment they are able, we will call profit they're able to do without want without money? >> currently, unless we are [inaudible] unless we are negotiating something different, yes, cured although we have in the cases that we've experienced, we have been negotiating those funds to be coming back to our office. >> thank you madame president no further question. >> thank you. supervisor peskin >> so i want to appreciate what supervisor cohen just asked and say to the president, to the representative from the mayor's office of housing, that to the extent going forward you want to package your loan documents
9:56 pm
such that a recipient of a loan would have obligations bolted to cash out proceeds, i would welcome you pioneering that policy, but let me put before you colleagues, is slightly different question as we enter the vote and the maker of the ordinance. which is, if you wanted to kill one curtail one subset political rights vote for this or looks. if you don't want to chill one subset vote against this subset [inaudible] without i'm ready to vote >> thank you. supervisor farrell. >> i think we should call the questionnaire but i can't let that stand. an answer. it's
9:57 pm
completely false. supervisor peskin is thinking this is not chilling free speech. these organizations can use and raise money all they want and use it for political purposes although one. the lease taxpayer dollars to do it. that's what the ordinance is. >> thank you. seeing no other questions names on the roster mdm. clerk, on the item as amended, please call the roll call spews item 7 as amended supervisor sheehy aye, tang aye, yee sleight, breed nay cohen nay farrell aye fewer nay kim nay peskin nay, ronen nay, safai nay. there are 11 three aye and eight nay >> the ordinance fails. i'm clerk please call items eight through 10 together.
9:58 pm
>> items 8 to 10 are [inaudible] to purchase a diebold of september 1, 2015 through august 31, 2018. item 10 is a grant in the amount of approximately $135,000 to purchase equipment for a fire investigations unit for the grant term of july 29, 2016 through july 20, 2017. >> roll call boat >> on items 8 to 10 sheehy aye, tang aye, yee aye, breed aye, cohen aye, farrell aye,
9:59 pm
fewer aye, kim aye, peskin aye, ronen aye, safai aye. there are 11 aye. >> the resolutions adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> bancorp is call items 11 and 12 together please. >> >> >>
10:00 pm
speaker: to affirm sequa determination. >> motion reused supervisor farrell. >> who made that. peskin is making a motion to remove farrell. >> can we take that without objection? without objection, supervisor farrell is excused. madam clerk, on the item, please call the roll. >> item 13, supervisor see hee. >> aye. >> tang. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor breed. speaker: aye >> supervisor cohen. >> aye. >> supervisor fewer. fuer. >> peskin. >> aye. >> ronin. >> aye. >> there are ten ayes.
10:01 pm
>> the ordinance is passed on the first reading. >> please call item 14 and 15 together. >> items 14 and 15 are two resolutions to receive and approve at annual report for item 14 for the know valley community benefit district fiscal year 15-16 and for item 15 for the ocean avenue community benefit district for fiscal year 2015, through 2016 was submitted as required by the business improvement district law of 1994. >> >> supervisor tang. speaker: aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor cohen. >> aye. >> farrell. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> peskin aye. >> supervisor ronen.
10:02 pm
>> aye. safai, aye. >> resolutions are adopted unanimously. >> next item, please. >> should the committee reports items -- >> we're on item 16, madam clerk. my apologies, madam president. there's a resident to urge the state -- to levee personal and corporate income taxes which the city could utilize as a sustained source of funding for transportation and public health priorities. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam president. i would like to thank our assembly member tang for introducing bill 1007, assembly member tang would like to actually narrow the legislation to be for the city of san francisco only, i have passed about to all of you and the clerk amendments that reflect that on pages 1, 2 and 3 and
10:03 pm
add an additional whereas clause that reads, whereas the state legislature as expressed concerns about the potential for the federal government to lower the federal income tax particularly for high wage earners, which will further exacerbate our growing concern in california. i would make a motion to adopt those amends. >> supervisor, peskin made a motion to amend and seconded by supervisor ronen. can we take the amendments without objection. without objection, the amendment pass. and seeing no other names on the roster. >> call the role. >> sheehy, aye. >> supervisor breed. >> no. >> supervise he cohen. -- supervisor cohen. >> aye. >> peskin, aye.
10:04 pm
speaker: peskin aye. >> ronen, aye. speaker: supervisor safai. >> there's 9 ayes and 2 nos. speaker: the resolution is adopted. >> madam clerk, let's go to committee reports. >> items 21-23 were considered by the budget and finance sub-committee at a regular meeting on march 15th and forwarded as committee reports. 21 was recommended with a new title. it is a resolution that approves a purchase and sale agreement by the city with prosperity to llc for city own properties at 1660 mission street and 1680 mission street for $52 million including a city lease back and an annual rent value of $3.4 million with yearly increases. >> madam clerk, call item 22 as well. >> item 22 is a resolution that approves a purchase and sale
10:05 pm
agreement by the city with lean lease agreement for the -- located at 30 van ness avenue for $70 million. includes a city lease back at a rent expense of $4.5 million with yearly increases and to affirm the sequa determination for both items 21 and 22. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you, president breed. colleagues, we have been discussing the site of 30 van ness, one of our city owned properties for a little over the last three years, the price which we would like to gain from that site, the revenue of which would be used to construct, 1500 mission street, a much needed large city office building which would house several of our city departments taking the city off our swing commercial rental market and hopefully saving on tax payer dollars on the future, and also the debate of what we should be building on the site of 30 van ness after the sell given the
10:06 pm
fact this is public owned land. the city proposed a deal selling the site of 30 van ness at a price tag of $80 million. members and myself expressed this content for dissatisfaction with the balance of the deal. just one month prior to the introduction, voters passed proposition k which urged the city to build no less than 33% of affordable housing. in december, supervisor peskin introduced which would become proposition c which would raise inclusion of market rate -- from 12% affordable housing to 25% affordable and middle income housing. this measure was overwhelming passed by the voters the following june of 2016. we knew the city could do better on affordable housing commit on land which we land -- setting an example for the
10:07 pm
private market while balancing our need under raising revenue for a new office building. deal before us today at air discount of $10 million raises enough money for the construction of a new office building at 1500 mission combined with the sell of 1660 and 1680 mission and on top of that, the city will win an additional 40 to 60 new middle income housing units that were not introduced in the deal prior. at a subsidized rate of roughly $250,000 a unit. that is a huge sale for anyone that is familiar with the development of housing. it cost much more than that on developing housing here in san francisco. with the deal we have achieved, we have achieved proposition goals of 25% on site affordable middle income housing without any up zoning. now, with the consideration of
10:08 pm
upzoning of 100 people, the -- via the market okay -- octavia plan to reach 33% of affordable housing with 8% being contributed through an affordable housing fee. my commitment to working with -- ensure we're both maximizing affordable middle income housing on a publicly owned site. while keeping our commitment to the voters of proposition k while also making sure we are maximizing revenue that we can gain from the site to help build 1500 mission. again, another important city priority as it saves tax payer -- tax payer dollars from expensive office leases which this board painfully votes on and pave to the private market. at the board of supervisors, we're talking a lot about the need to build middle income housing and unlike the deal that came before us in december
10:09 pm
of 2015 which included zero incomes and middle income housing, unless the city was willing to buy the cities back at 641,271 per unit which i took issue to a year and a half ago. this includes any city up zoning and 40 to 60 middle income units. for a family of four, with a combined salary of a little over $100,000, that's two working teacher and two children with a starting salary of $48,000. inclusionary housing is one of our most effective tools in building affordable housing and now middle income housing and as we have rising concerns about our federal government and potential budget short falls focusing on housing may be one of the certain ways we'll ensure that this type of housing getting built. i want to recognize and thank john updik from department of real-estate who toiled or labored on making sure we're
10:10 pm
balancing multiple important [inaudible] affordable housing and raising revenue for office building for the city. and i also want to recognize our project sponsor len lease. i believe this is their first lease in the city of san francisco for not only committing to 25% of affordable housing without up zoning, but also brainstorming with our office over the last month to come up with a way that we could achieve 33% affordable housing with up zoning. colleagues, i do ask going your support on item 22 which i am a sponsor. i'm not a cosponsor of item 21, i'm in support of that measure as well. i don't know how many times we have grown when an expense office lease comes to the board of supervisors for our city department. it's important our city owns our own office space and we build that. i think that 1500 mission is a good project and it's one we should
10:11 pm
be insuring we support city revenues for. >> thank you supervisor kim. supervisor safai. >> thank you supervisor yee and everyone involved. maybe i'm missing someone because we own 1660 and 1680 free and clear. those buildings are owned out right. there's no debt on those buildings. they're occupied by city agencies. and as apart of this deal, we'll have an increase of rent over the next three years in both buildings and on 30 van ness, we'll have a significant increase as well. there was $14 million that would need to be identified to remain in existing buildings we currently occupy. two of which we own. and there is no identified
10:12 pm
revenue source as of yet for where that money will come from. we heard from the mayor today, and we read over the weekend that the community development block grant program is being proposed to be eliminated. every agency group, organization, peopling sitting in this audience, folks advocating for the delay and the continuation on the mission project because of gentrification, we'll have no say with a republican led congress and republican president, those programs will most likely be eliminated. we own two buildings currently. and we're being asked to sale those two buildings to put into a deal that's funded by certificates of participation. so i would like to hear from our controller and potentially our department of real-estate,
10:13 pm
has there been an investigation into whether we can do this deal, what the cost would be to do this deal, on certificates of participation, are there other city assets that we might be able to put into, because just two weeks ago we had hsa come in here and say we had to because we had no other option, sign a lease with a building that is owned by through managed by a private company to pay millions of extra dollars because they don't have space. we own these two buildings free and clear. i understand that it will take something to upgrade those properties, so that's one. that's 1680 and 1660. on 30 van ness, let's be clear. this a purchase and sale agreement. everything supervisor kim said is right. we can say 100% that will happen. maybe i could feel comfortable. let's be clear,
10:14 pm
there's nothing in this deal that says they have to build any housing. if you look at the report, the highest for this site is an office building. they might come back to us and say, interest rates has risen, investors are not investing. sorry, we can't build this project anymore, so now you know no longer own the building. and you're going to continue to pay us rent in for how long we need because we don't have any other space to put those buildings at van ness or 1660 and 1680. the proposed buyers of 1660 and 1680 said they're going to keep that as office buildings. so $14 million that we haven't identified to pay rent in buildings we currently occupy from departments that we need additional services from. two of those buildings, colleagues, are occupied by the department of public works. every single one of us sitting here relies
10:15 pm
on those services and their money goes down almost every single year. as i said in our transportation authority meeting last week, they said they're going to see a $15 million hit on street resurfacing. that's just street resurfacing. that's not even the entirety of their budget hit. let's get back to 30 van ness. that's one of the most valuable assets we have in our city portfolio. that site can go up to 520 feet. we have a crisis in homelessness. we have a crisis when it comes to specifically within that homelessness crisis, family housing crisis. family homeless crisis. why are we only doing 25% affordable at that site? i hear people come in from every single one of our districts come in and say and members are sitting in the audience, why are we not doing
10:16 pm
100% affordable? why are we not doing 100% affordable at this site. we own this site. so there's smarter people in this room than me when it comes to financing. i would like to hear has there been a full analysis. can we do 1500 mission street using participation or other financing sources? where's the money going to pay for to pay the additional rent on the lease back options they have for three years and after the to years they go market rate. so we have to worry about having to go market rate the last two years in those buildings we currently occupy. at the end of the day, can we affirm that there's nothing in this deal that says they have to build anything on 30 van ness. that they could sit on that and keep it as an office building? and lastly i would say there's a reason this body passed a minute stray tifb code 238. these may not be surplus
10:17 pm
-- at the end of the day, this asset at 30 van ness has the potential to be a phenomenal opportunity to address many issues when it comes to family homelessness, affordable housing, homelessness for a lot of different entities that we've talked about in this body over the last couple of months and if we can flow $400 million in debt -- i like to hear from the controller, maybe the budge the and legislative analyst and the department of real-estate. >> you want to start with whom? >> controller, please. speaker: good afternoon, supervisor, ben. controller. i can take one of the questions supervisor you have asked here and i'll defer to real-estate
10:18 pm
to address your other questions. the question as to what would happen if the city did not sell the facilities and apply those proceeds into the construction of this new tower, if we used a greater amount of debtor if cop financed that, how would that change the fundamentals of the project? >> and has an analysis been done? when i talked to the department of real-estate, they said we haven't been provided with that information. >> it's a question i have heard for the first time. we have done initial work on this, so i can talk you through those, but we can talk about what that doesn't include. overall the building that we're -- that's before you, the constructed 1500 mission street -- it's about $95 million of that would be paid for with cash. and the remainder of that $260 million
10:19 pm
would be financed with cop's. so the real question that i hear financially is, if we took the sale's proceeds out of the project, and because we wanted to retain those properties as city own and borrow the full 350, how would that change some of the math. of course, cash in a deal like this is helpful financially because we don't have to pay interest overtime and we're not borrowing. it change the math. the square foot, the first year of occupancy in the -- it's about $60 a square foot. that's the fully loaded cost of the city facility that's being discussed as proposed. if you're borrowing for the full amount, and then paying back a larger amount of debt service overtime in the form of higher rent, it increases that rental cost by about 23%. so -- >> let me interrupt you. let me ask a different question. what if -- has it been looked
10:20 pm
at if, for instance, you did float the certificate of -- are there penalties for paying those back early? >> we always have a call prevision in our certificate's [inaudible] or any other pro visions. that's at year ten >> we could hypothetically retain ownership over those existing properties and not have to do the lease back and sell them and then once you built it, then you sell the buildings and pay them down. you could do it that way, couldn't you? >> that would be a way you could approach the project. a couple of things might argue against that financially, one where it has low interest rate environment at the moment. looking head into the future, we're going to be -- we would be locking in a low interest rate now. >> it's based on five and a quarter. they're not based on
10:21 pm
today's numbers. you base them on worst case scenario. you have taken into that increase, correct? >> i don't think we're taking at worst case. we're adding 100 points basis because of uncertainty and what's going to go on with the interest rates overtime. but you're right. you could take that approach, i guess the risk would be that we would have issued bonds and the question would be, will you have proceeds in the future to repay them. if not, we would be stuck with a debt service payment and the higher rental cost i mentioned. it's a choice for the board. >> hypothetically you could do that and then sell the building at a later date once the building is finished and pay down the debt. >> you're taking a different financial risk. until the time you sold the buildings, the tenants in the building will pay a higher market rent so building inspection will pay rent that's 23% higher than if you applied the proceeds to the
10:22 pm
project. and you would be or the city would be counting later on being able to redeem bonds at an unknown sale's price in the future. you could do this. that's effectively how this changes the project finances as it's less equity in the project which means the property is higher. over the life of the bonds, debt services are higher of course. it increases. the total debt service increase over the life because you are borrowing more. we have come to $177 million in additional payments over the 30 year period. >> that's if you didn't sell the buildings after year five or three. >> yekt. -- correct. >> we haven't done that analysis fully? >> we can run analysis, otherwise i know the real-estate department has taken a look at this in a number of different ways. they could speak -- >> you haven't done the specific analysis on selling the buildings after a few years and paying down the debt. not
10:23 pm
doing it just 100% certificates of participation over 30 years? >> we can look at that question. it's really going to fundamentally be the numbers i talked through, and the place where we'll probably be having to estimate the most significantly will be what will the market for these buildings be like in five years. will it be higher than today or lower than today? the buildings are aging, the value of the assets are likely to decline overtime. we're probably are near the peak of asset value at the moment. those are estimates about what might happen in the future. >> soup his veer safai, if i can interrupt. do you think in light of what we know and i know there's going to be a budget hearing at the budget select committee on thursday to talk about what's going to happen around federal cut and what we're dealing with here in
10:24 pm
san francisco. i mean, we're going to have to make some major changes in our budget. do you think that as a controller, as a person who looks at our financial figures, whether it's our debtor our projections or whatever you want to call it, do you think that it is wise to continue in some instances with a project like this, for example, business as usual, try to get this project done in light of what we could anticipate with our financial status here in san francisco? i mean, what are your thoughts around that? as it relates to this particular project? is this responsible to do? >> i mean, i think fundamentally those are your choices in front of this board. i think this would be a responsible choice to move ahead with, yes. the tenants are non -- we're talking about city planning, which is 90% fee
10:25 pm
supported and these departments of public works are not general fund dependent unlike the street resurfacing and the other parts of the department. so cost here or savings here, fundamentally are not going to be funded. i think they are out of separate pots of money and that would give me solis. this ends up being a choice about do we want to own real this state in the civic center and make a play for long term savings or do we want to remain ore exposed in both good ways and bad to the least rental market in the city. >> if i might -- >> supervisor safai. >> that's what i'm saying, mr. controller. i don't know in it's those two choices and i'm not necessarily proposing that. i think there might be
10:26 pm
scenario -- is john here. hey, john. maybe you can speak too. there might be a scenario have you looked at that certificates of participation, holding onto the property, selling them at a later date and then we might be able to build that building and have those properties without the significance increase. there's going to be an increase, but not 107% increase. there might be a cost savings to the tax payers and the -- we haven't gotten into the 30 van ness. this is about 1680. >> that's not an analysis we prepared -- >> okay, thank you. that's what i wanted. >> john, can you speak to that a little bit. >> of course, supervisor safai. director of real-estate. so expand a little on what the
10:27 pm
controller was talking about, relative to risk from my perspective and looking at the real-estate market, i think that's an important point to be noted that we are sort of scraping along this plateau of a peak of the real-estate market that i can't speak to what that market might look like in two, three, four, five years from now. yes, it could be higher, but it also could be lower. and so we are maximizing and monotising these on 30 van ness at a great time in the market to do that. as an example, we are first appraised 30 van ness just four years ago, and it appraised at 40 or so million dollars. that's an indicator of the
10:28 pm
volitility of the market. speaker: the second issue is relative to remaining at these locations, there's a de-- they do not meet the needs of the occupant departments. >> can i ask you a question on that? speaker: sure. >> the president is paying $52 million for these -- what would their response be for 1660. you're saying they're obsolete. what is their plan because when i read in this document, it says they're going to keep them as office buildings. so they're going to pay $50 million and spend how much in your opinion? i would emergency they're not going to spend that much. >> it's a fair question as to what their intent is, and that really isn't apart of our agreement. but speaking to the
10:29 pm
broker age ferms that looked at the properties, they estimate at a significant capital investment would be made by any buyer on the orders of tens of millions of dollars and likely a rescanning of both buildings. perhaps a rejoining of the two buildings. you might recall 1660 and 16880 mission divided by a parking lot and the city looked at constructing an improvement in between to wed the two buildings and look at retaining dbi at locations which was daemed infeasible. we could never obtain the per square footage we need. it was north of $100 million for a public works project to web the two and use them to our advantage. so i think the upside is, again, buyers is looking at the market dynamics and the continuing need for office space. the fact that these assets are not subject to
10:30 pm
prop m allocation, gives us great value at this time. so that's why i think we're seeing the relatively -- >> [inaudible] is office space? >> that's correct. >> it goes to 30 van ness, as i understand when i'm reading this report, this is a purchasing sale agreement. this does not obligate in any way the purchaser to build housing on this site, is that correct? >> that is correct, supervisor. it is a purchase and sale agreement. it's not a development agreement because we do not have sequa approval for a project on the parcel. >> even -- may i add. >> it does mandate that if redevelopment were to occur, certain requirements relative to affordable housing are mandated in the deed as a restriction against title. against this developer or any
10:31 pm
subsequent owner of the property. >> there's nothing in this purchase -- there's a deed restriction in terms of the affordability if they were about to, but there's nothing that requires them to build the housing on site? they could fee out on everything, is that correct? >> i know they can fee out on the additional to get the 33%. but they could fee out on the proposed in this purchase and sale agreement, they can fee out on the entirety of it. >> consistent with the current proposition, yes. >> so, i guess what i would leave with, colleagues is i think that based on the questions that i had here today, based on the answered questions on the source of rent, that these departments would be required to pay, it most likely would come out of our general fund the and analysis of doing this deal, 1500 mission in terms of participation and holding onto the properties and selling them at a later date, i would ask
10:32 pm
for there to be a continuance on this item to give further study so we can have further information to make an informed decision because i'm not -- i'm not comfortable supporting this today. at the end of the day, i think that if we do determine that we can do 1500 mission street without the sale of these properties, i think we need to take a stronger look at 30 van ness. everyone in this room who supports helping to build housing -- to address our homelessness crisis, to address our affordability crisis, we have a wonderful and unprecedented opportunity on 30 van ness. there's not many that can go up as high as 350 feet. >> thank you supervisor safai. are you making a motion to continue both items? >> yes. >> 21 and 22? >> i am. >> soup his veer safai made a
10:33 pm
recommendation to continue both items. is there a second. i'll second that. and i wanted to ask clarity on and maybe someone from the staff can answer whether or not there is pay source to do, once these properties are sold, where's the money going to come from to pay the rent which is about close to $20 million for 3 years. where does the money come from, somebody? >> supervisor, naomi, city administration. the majority of the clients that would be going into 1500 mission who are at 30 van ness, who are at 1680 mission and 1600 mission are general fund departments. it would come from these non general fund resources. >> all of the money to pay -- >> not all of it, but the
10:34 pm
majority. >> you know where the money is going to come from, from the non general fund? it's going to come from general fund? >> i'm confused by that. >> dbi is a revenue generating department. planning is a revenue generating the department and it will come out of their revenues. dpw is over head and most is architects and engineers. that's coming from primarily non general fund sources. >> okay. so none of the money of the proposed $20 million to pay for the rent over the course of 3 years is going to come from -- any of the general fund. speaker: i can't say that. the majority is not coming from the general fund. and i need help from the mayor's budget office. there you go. >> and to be specific, president breed, the number is
10:35 pm
91% non general fund. 9% general fund. >> okay. and then that would have to be approved by the board of supervisors coming up in our upcoming budget which we haven't discussed. >> it's in the analyst report. the cost during this fiscal year for the time of projected closing is may 1, 2017 until the end of this fiscal year. those cost are born in my budget and so we are covering that delta of a rental differential. it's subject to next fiscal year's budget preparation and yes, that's a matter for the board to deal with. >> thank you. supervisor kim. i'm sorry, supervisor peskin hasn't had an opportunity. >> i'm refer to peskin. >> i want to thank safai. he asked good questions and many
10:36 pm
of these questions came up over the last three years. many of us questioned whether we needed to sell city owned property on an urge to build a larger city owned property and whether it was wiser to keep some of our -- some these facilities because land is so value here in san francisco. so i want to thank you for that. after my heart making sure we're getting the best deal possible moving forward. i did want to bring up the project sponsor who i see here today to speak on the record about their commitment. i know that what is before us today is a sale on acquisition deal, not the dda where we could affirm an agreement. i think it's important that you know when a developer comes in and speaks on the public -- you know, i think there are very severe consequences when a developer doesn't keep to them, up hold them especially if they're going to do other developers here in san francisco.
10:37 pm
so i was hoping you could speak to the question about a commitment of 25% affordable housing and 33% with the fees with an up zoning. and also to address some of supervisor safai's question. it's valuable eye was articulates. >> thank you. >> alexa with len leaf. thank you for the opportunity to speak. we're a development company that is just getting our footings and we're excited to have our first project in san francisco. we are a residential development company. and so we look at this as an opportunity to rehab the base of the office building which needs quite a bit of work and build a residential building on top of that. rezoning is not complete which would bring the height up to 500 feet, during the several
10:38 pm
years that the city has the least back option, we worked with the planning department and entitlement for the building on top to move forward with the project. obviously the commitment in the purchase and sale agreement is that the 25% on site, there isn't a fee out component. there's no money pay it out check out. i wanted to clarify that so i can see how that would be concerned if there was that ability. and then obviously we work together to find the ability -- it's a total of 33% for the project. speaker: that's our intent and we're cognoscente there's approval projects going forward and without sequa we can't get
10:39 pm
to determine -- that's our intent going forward. >> i appreciate that clarification. one of the things that gives me assurance is that you will have to come back to the board several times as well as the planning commission. one with the affirmation, potentially of the sequa determination, and also if there is up zoning of the market hub which i strongly support and i agree with supervisor safai. we should be maximizing height and tensity to build as much market rate, middle class and working class housing as possible. you will then have to come back to this board again in order to be able to build. could you clarify, you had mentioned that there's an inability for the developer in the lease to fee out. you have -- could you explain in further details why that's the case? >> i don't have the document in
10:40 pm
front of me. you could probably try to get that, but the general limitations within the purchase and sale agreement required 25% on site, consistent with prop c or 33% where we build that 33% affordable housing elsewhere in city. but the ability to just pay a fee does not exist in the purchase and sale agreement. >> great. thank you, ms. rena. i want to make one further point. this deal really is a balance of many city priorities which makes it a little bit more difficult and challenging than the average housing deal that you know, our office would typically negotiate. that's our belief that the city should own and construct office sites that we are -- that we have set control over and that we aren't at the whelm of the market.
10:41 pm
but i also want to address supervisor's safai other point, i would like to build 100 percent affordable housing or 100 percent housing at 550 feet or 600 feet for those who were formally homeless. there isn't a case where we've been able to finance a 100% project like that and recognizing it's very difficult to achieve 100% affordable housing, you know, if proposition k, our public land, ballot measure we put before the voters, we acknowledged that in larger deals we would be achieved 33% of affordability on those sites and smaller projects that we would endeavor to hit 100%. but the mayor's office of housing isn't here to dress e - here to address that project. i don't know where we've been able to build 600 units of
10:42 pm
affordable house. that's a dream and i would love to get there, and i really appreciate supervisor safai proposing that. i just think given the landscape that i have seen, i like to push the limits, but i don't like to push what's the impossible, and so in this case, i believe we are maximizing what we can do for the housing market, both affordable, middle class and market rate unit while we're generating revenue for much needed office building site. >> so i had a point of clarification. i'm not certain and i just need -- i'm not certain that the option to not fee out is possible. that's number one. number two, my understanding that you have to have land if you're going to build off site -- which most of the land, i'm not certain if there is an opportunity to do this outside. i know this is not a development agreement. and this is a longer conversation, but there are
10:43 pm
just a lot of uncertainties here and i guess part of my concern is a lot of unanswered questions, but more importantly, i'm just really concerned that we are continuing with business as usual and we still haven't approved the budget -- i mean, there's so many things always attached to many decisions we make, but we're going to have some tough decisions ahead of us as it relates to our budget, and how are we going to deal with the situation like this. i mean, in fact, you know, if god forbidden we have to cut city staff and cut departments and start trimming down departments and they've already been given orders to start can you cutting back on their budget, are we going to have enough people to fill these proposed office spaces we're looking at. i think a bigger conversation needs to happen as
10:44 pm
it relates to our overall budget and also as it relates to the possibilities of the affordable housing and what makes sense and so that's the reason why i - i get these are sale agreements and the decisions are kind of -- they've been in the works for a long time. they've been rejected by this body before and brought back in a different way, but i feel a little uneasy about some of the missing details of this agreement. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam president. i wanted to put this in a little bit of historical context for those of you who are around on december the 8th of 2015 which was my first board meeting in 7 years were in we actually rejected the sale that was before us at that time. with represent dags
10:45 pm
because representative to historical context, i said at that meeting that we should have bought the triple a site when we could have it for $80 million and at the end of the day, the city got cold feet and had we done that, we would have been out of being captive of the housing market many years ago. i appreciate what supervisor safai is saying. i actually came to this party with a slightly different perspective from supervisor kim. i was actually in this particular instance, less interested in-housing affordability and more interested in getting out of the office rental market as the city. and that was what was actually driving me. in the end, we actually ended up with more affordable housing and we will get out of the rental market for all of our office workers that work for city. i think it is the best deal that we could hope for. i concur
10:46 pm
with mr. updike and this is probably the top of the market and while we agree to delay the 2026 follow -- i'll vote against the continuance. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor safai. >> yeah. i just wanted to say again, i wasn't talking about building 600 units at 300 -- at 30 van ness. but what i was saying is that there is a phenomenal opportunity and i'm not exactly sure if we've actually dug in deep to look at all the potential avenues that we could approach this site. we have -- john, excuse me. director updike, do we have assets in our portfolios that have a height of 550 feet. is
10:47 pm
there any other city owned property where we can do 500 #2350e9? -- 500 feet. >> i have been championing the downtown, two-story fire station, we could build literately dozens of floors of housing above that site that we own. >> thank you for that. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. you stole the words out of my mouth. those are probably other opportunities. we're looking at that in fact. >> to your point, supervisor safai, these opportunities are rare. the current entitlement is 400 feet. >> 400 feet with the ability to up zone the 520. my point is and i want to really underscore
10:48 pm
that, in this situation we're going to have this conversation with this body over the next three years. we're going to have people come in from the department of housing, we have a crisis. we have the ability to and the mandate to build at least 1,000 units to end family homelessness in this city. we have this asset. maybe not 600 units, but i look at this similar to the balboa reservoir in supervisor yee's district. we have a phenomenal opportunity we can take and do something trend setting that could address these crisis we have. that's one. the second thing is that i think we have need to have further analysis to determine if we can approach what supervisor peskin is talking about, to get out of
10:49 pm
the rental market for rental space. i'm not convinced we can't do both and that's why i'm asking for a continuance to allow a -- selling the building at a later date so our rates aren't increasing significantly and then having another look at 30 van ness. that's what i'm asking for today. >> thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor kim. >> thank you, i wanted to address the question of land, existing land that's available for the protection of affordable housing and there are two sites. both one at 1 hyde and 180 jones which while the majority of the financing came from the private market rate developers that bought the land for the city and deeded it to the mayor's office of city of housing, there's gap financing. when we talked about the final 8% of fees coming out at 30 van ness, i talked about the fees potentially going toward the gap financing for 1 and 180
10:50 pm
hyde and 180 jones. for 180 jones, the community is hoping that what will be built on this -- many of whom even if they have ability to pay a consistent small amount of rent, aren't able to get into better types of housing, there by freeing -- 101 hyde hasn't been set yet. it could be housing for you know, working class families. we're still looking into that, but all to say that there is land within our state control we need to raise revenue for to build additional affordable housing. colleagues, i won't support the continuance, although i appreciate supervisor safai's questions and comments, and they were good. but we have hashed this -- i think the deal
10:51 pm
isn't everything i want it to be, but i do think it's the best balance in consideration of all the different goals that the city has and looking at a number of ways to finance the construction of 1500 van ness. colleagues, i ask for your support. >> thank you, supervisor kim. seeing no other names on the roster, on the motion to continue, madam clerk, please call the roll. >> madam president, i would need to know a date that supervisor safai is wishing to continue. >> safai. >> can i ask the controller how much time he thinks he would need to do the analysis we have talked about? >> we could do complete preliminary analysis in one two to weeks, supervisor. more detailed will take more time. >> that would be -- two weeks seems to be fine. that's what i'm proposing. >> the meeting of april 4th. >> yes.
10:52 pm
>> mr. updike. >> the issue to note, due to the debt on 30 van ness, there's strict timelines relative to notification and we have a closing date in both transactions. i'm not sure we can meet our closing date. we may have to renegotiate the agreement and that could open issues. i want to express there's risk associated with that delay. >> thank you. since we don't have another board meeting, that's the next board meeting. so that would be our only option. any other questions. no other names on the rosters on the motion to continue, madam clerk, please call the roll. speaker: sheehy. speaker: no. >> tang. >> no. >> supervisor yee. speaker: no. >> supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor cohen. >> no. >> supervisor farrell. >> no.
10:53 pm
>> supervisor fewer. >> no. >> supervisor kim. >> no. >> supervisor peskin. speaker: no. >> supervisor ronen. >> no. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> there are 2 ayes with 9 nos. fewer, kim, peskin and -- >> the continuance fails. and seeing no names on the roster, madam clerk on the item. >> please call the roll. >> items 21 and 22, supervisor sheehy. >> yes. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor breed. >> no. >> supervisor cohen. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> supervisor fewer. >> yes. >> supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye.
10:54 pm
>> supervisor safai. >> no. >> there are 9 ayes and two nos with supervisor yee -- >> those resolutions are adopted. supervisor sheehy. >> i'd like to resend my vote on item 16. >> you would like to resend the vote on item number 16? >> yes. >> supervisor sheehy made a motion to resend the vote on item number 16. is there a second? seconded by supervisor farrell. colleagues can we take that without objection? without objection, the vote has been rescinded. madam clerk, on item number 16, please call the roll. >> item 16, supervisor, sheehy. >> no. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor breed. >> aye. >> i mean [bleep]. [laughter] >> sorry, public. >> no. >> breed, no. >> supervisor cohen. >> aye.
10:55 pm
>> supervisor farrell. >> no. >> supervisor fewer. >> yes. >> supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. speaker: aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye >> there are 8 ayes and 3 nos with supervisor sheehy, breed, and farrell in the descent. >> the resolution is adopted. all right. madam clerk, please go to the next item, item number 23. >> item 23 is a resolution to an authorize the recreation and park department to apply for a grant from the california -- for the planning and development of various parks and community facilities in san francisco. >> role call vote. >> item 23, supervisor sheehy. >> aye. >> tang. >> aye. >> supervisor yee.
10:56 pm
>> aye. >> supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor cohen. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> supervisor fewer. >> aye. >> supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> the resolution is adopted unanimously. speaker: next item, roll call for introduction. >> supervisor yee to introduce business. >> people knows my history to fight for equal benefits and given our rising inequality, i believe we can improve wages and help workers move closer to middle class. i'm introduced a
10:57 pm
wage to -- the ordinance or mco has a wage rate of 13.64 on city contracts. this is known as a living wage. for a person working 40 hours a week that comes to $28,000 per year. this ordinance will restore the traditional delta between the minimum wage and the living wage which has been on average a difference of a dollar 68. this year on july 1st, minimum wage rises $14. this will set the minimum wage at 32,600 a year. in 2018, a rise in a dollar. the minimum wage cover workers in san francisco, not for those working outside of the city. at san francisco international airport for example, many service workers
10:58 pm
will not receive a minimum wage unless we take action on july 1st. it stimulates our economy because these workers spend the wages in our local community. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor sheehy. >> supervisor tang. >> i will submit. >> thank you. supervisor yee. >> thank you, madam clerk. first all i want i want to make a quick announcement that i'm actually on my 4th year of this program. we're having our district in district 7, budget and this year, again, joined with supervisor cohen and her district. so i wanted to say that the -- this year we'll have over a half million for our district to vote on in regards to projects and we had a record number of projects that were submitted of
10:59 pm
proposals. i think we're 46 in which we selected 40 neighborhood council, 21 proposals for our residences. so this voting just started in -- on friday, march 17th. it will go through march 31st. and that there are two ways for people to vote on these projects. one is in person if they feel like it. they can go to west portal or libraries or they can dwo to the mayor low that library to vote. there was a stack -- we had to redeliver on monday. and that's far- we've had 900,
11:00 pm
close to 1,000 people voting on our project. so we're trying to break a record, our own record for the district. so i'm hopeful that it looks like we're going to waiver it this year. the other thing i wanted to do was -- by the way, for that, to vote online, go to to get online to vote, okay. i would like to -- today -- honor a fellow native san franciscan. i like to close today's meeting in his memory. this is a man
11:01 pm
who is ear replacement in the chinese american community. someone i know -- i've known personally for many, many decades now. and for him to pass away last thursday at the age of 90 after being diagnosed with cancer this year, but today i want to honor his far reaching legacy and contribution to the chinese-american community. philip was a teacher, author and first civil rights advocate. many of what we know today about the overlooked contributions in the chinese-americans to our country's developments, we -- among his many accomplishments, [inaudible] he helped teach the first course in chinese american history in a country at san francisco state university in 1969. his course was the model for college
11:02 pm
programs throughout the country. growing up during a time of wide discrimination against asians, troy was not easily intimidated. as a trained architect from uc berkeley working in a firm he was discriminated against because of his race and told he would never get senior position. he established his own practice which he ran until he retired in 2000. during the 1965, i think, during the 1965 centennial celebration, he also challenged organizers of the event when they failed to acknowledge the pivotal -- there was no acknowledge they existed. this section included the particularly, the difficult
11:03 pm
construction of the sierra nevada. deserving chinese history was phil's passion. he played a part -- he was the president of the chinese historical -- in 1965 and for many years and created a documentary stories on chinese-american history for broadcasting called [foreign language]. he served on state commissions and won many, many prizes. i personally many grateful for his work which taught me so much about my own history, and he was -- he would be messed in the chinese american community. you know, all the things he did in regards to the history, we forget that he was an
11:04 pm
architect. and that indeed he even had influence as an architect to play a role in, you know, keeping the history of the chinese american history alive. he had a big part in giving advice to creating the chinese historical society of museum on clay street. and you think that it's only in san francisco. i was driving up camping one year into -- the mountain and coming down the mountain and i saw a little sign that says museum. and so i went into this little town and it was a chinese museum in oroville of all places and i walked in there thinking what is this. the person that was there told me the history of how it was developed and he says, you know something, maybe you heard of this guy. here's
11:05 pm
from san francisco actually. the person this designed this museum that is keeping a flavor of the chinese, was troy. so i could see that even in his architectural work he had influence from -- that was way passed the bond age of the bay area. to be -- he is survived by his children, stephanie, randall and brian and six grand children. so the rest i submit and i think supervisor peskin, did you want to say something too? >> sure. i would be honored to join in the memorial. supervisor yee said it all. my wife was a huge fan of philip troy from back on the days when you served on the preservation board. in addition to what
11:06 pm
supervisor yee said, he mentored generations of historic preservation professionals and activist including cindy wu and he will be sorely missed and our regrets to his daughter stephanie and sons randall and brian and there will be an event for -- in his memory in april at a date to be determined and also our regrets to sue lee from the historical society of america. speaker: thank you supervisor yee and peskin. supervisor breed. supervisor cohen. >> thank you. submit. >> thank you. >> supervisor fewer. >> yes, thank you. colleagues, today i'm calling for a hearing on the 2017 san francisco language access ordinance annual compliance summary report presented by the office of civic engagement and immigrant appears and the city's first ordinance was passed by the board of
11:07 pm
supervisors in 2001 with amendments made in 2009 and 2015. 21.6% of san francisco residents self identify as women and english proficiency with chinese and spanish being number one spoken among residents. other languages including russian and vietnamese. it complies a fifth of our population speaking chinese. with a quarter of san francisco residents identified as english -- it's incumbent upon the city of san francisco that the services are accessible to languages spoken to the constituents. bus schedules and development -- property taxes and so much more. i have seen city departments conducting community outreach in my own neighborhood without providing interpretation or translation and i have been
11:08 pm
disappointed. it is imperative we are able to communicate clearly with residents regardless of language and they feel city services are accessible to them. it's important as a city we see the language access language as not as a burden, but apart of our responsibility in serving the residents of san francisco. i look forward to working with the office of civic engages and other agencies on this hearing and hope it will inform our future discussion and any possible actions regarding language access. the rest i submit. >> thank you. supervisor fewer. supervisor kim. >> thank you, madam clerk. i'm introduced a resolution today on supportive of single payer health insurance resolution. quote from the physician for a national health program. our current national health care system is simple. don't get sick. even with our current
11:09 pm
system of health coverage known as obama care and established as a patient patient and affordable care act, people are left behind with no coverage or inadequate coverage. with donald trump's signing on executive order authorizing federal agencies to dismantle this federal health care system, it has been left to state and our own city to figure out how we can resist this administrative director that makes it more of a disaster to get sick in this country. i want to thank my colleague and cosponsors supervisor ronen, fewer, peskin, yee, and cohen for their cosponsorship of our resolution to support senate bill 562. known as the californian for a healthy california act signed by laura and senator tony. it's under consideration by the state legislature and would establish a comprehensive universal single payer -- for the benefit
11:10 pm
of all residents of the state. for those that are unfamiliar with universal health care, this is what it is. it is a system which a single public or public agency organizes health care finances, but the delivery of the health care remains in private hands. under a single payer system, all residents of the u.s. will be covered for services including doctors, hospitals, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drugs and medical supply cost. this program would be funded by the savings obtained from a replacing today insurance payer with a single system, which a single stream line nonprofit -- modest new taxes based on ability to pay. we are already pay enough for heath -- health care for all. americans have the highest spending in the world, but we get less care
11:11 pm
than other industrialized countries because we pay for health care through -- 1/3 of our health spending goes to administration. no more premiums, no more financial barriers to help care which is co-pays and deductible. and doctors support national -- according to a 2008 survey of internal medicine with 59% supporting and we can add our support today with a board of supervisors voice along with the california nurses association, 4 million californians who are apart -- over 150 organizations representing communities, immigrant rights, business, seniors, health care provider and advocates in support of senator laura and atkins bill 562. the rest i submit. speaker: thank you supervisor kim. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam clerk. i'm
11:12 pm
proud to cosponsor the trump ban which he'll hear more about if you didn't real this morning's paper. i'm introduced at the board of supervisors, the same resolution urging the state legislature to require the puc to allow us to gather data about transportation network, companies and i spoke to that at the ta meeting earlier today. so i will not be labor here. in preparation of -- for our next millennial tower hearing given the revelations that were set forth in nbc coverage monday, a week ago, and given our efforts to contact mr. pernu who is the reviewers at 301 mission street, i'll be introduced
11:13 pm
another request for a subpoena as well as his testimony under penalty of perjury for a gao meeting on friday, april 28th. and then in addition to joining supervisor yee for the i am more yum for troy, i would like to adjourn in -- natalie bird as well. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor. >> peskin, with -- can we do that on behalf of the entire board. >> we'll adjourn the meeting on behalf of natalie bird and entire bird. thank you. supervisor ronen. speaker: i have two items and the first that supervisor peskin referred to. i stood in front of ty len group to announce legislation that i'm
11:14 pm
introduced that would prevent the city and county of san francisco from contracting with any business that bids or actually provides services or goods to build president trump's wall along the border between mexico and the united states. we stood in front of ty len international because this company received millions of dollars in government contracts to help build the eastern span of the bay bridge and has expressed interest in potentially bidding on the wall. we had a message to the company. stick to building bridges, not walls. by introducing -- so, we are a city that benefits every single day off the hard work and the engagement of immigrant residents in every facet of our community. we're also a major player in the marketplace by introducing this legislation, we're moving beyond symbolic protest and making it clear to
11:15 pm
companies interested in doing business with san francisco, we expect those companies to up hold compassion and dedication to human rights. these companies have a choice to make. build a wall or work with the city and county of san francisco at a time when the trump administration is withdrawing investment from life saving services like meals on wheels and health insurance for poor citizens and investments in affordable housing and our public education system, he's instead squandering billions of dollars on a border wall. that's his decision to make, but we can decide not to being complicit of that. if my daughter was in danger for her life, there's no wall that is large enough that i would not find a way to climb and there is no trench that is too deep that i would not find a way to dig. immigration is driven by parents seeking a better like and safer life for
11:16 pm
their children. and as the richest and most powerful nation in the world we should be setting the bar for how to treat the most vulnerable among us with compassion. i want to thank supervisor peskin for being with me on this one from the get go and supervisor kim for her cosponsorship. i also want to thank city council member abel who joined us today and who is pursuing a similar law in oakland and to curry from the city's attorneys office who worked to get their legislation done on time. finally colleagues, a very, very special thank you to sheila from my office. this is the last board meeting that she's staffing because we don't have a board meeting next week, sadly. you know, sheila started her career as a legislative aid in the city and county the san francisco for
11:17 pm
supervisor david campos and her first major fight was to ensure due process for immigrant use. i find it's fitting she going out fighting for immigrants like she has always for decades by working and being the main driver of this important piece of legislation. you'll hear more from me. obviously devastated that she's leaving. but she did me the great favor of helping me transition from a legislative aid to a supervisor and i'll be grateful for that. thank you sheila for your work on this legislation. we will all be extremely grateful for it for many years to come. the second piece i have is a resolution to -- in support of california bill 523, the electric program investment charge equity and clean energy
11:18 pm
invest authorized by assembly member reyes. the public utility commission created the electric program charge known as epic in december of 2011 to allocate funds collected from investor owned utilities for projects and clean energy. the california energy commission is in charge of administering these funds. according to a december 2017 report from the california energy commission, individuals living in disadvantaged communities and low income communities face barriers to fully participate in the state's clean energy program. out of 81 projects funded by epic in 2015, 12 projects were 14% were reaching low income. this will allocate communities that need it more. 25% of funds will go to disadvantaged communities and 10% will go towards low income communities to find as below --
11:19 pm
renewable energy spending research and programs are not reaching low income and communities of color who are most impacted by negative fossil fuel energy production. it is critical that as a green economy develops, we -- but also have the most to gain from economic impacts of renewable industry. i want to thank both the community based organization, and natalie gene from my office for bringing this issue to my attention and working on this resolution. and i want to thank supervisor fewer and peskin for cosponsoring. the rest i submit. >> thank you supervisor ronen. supervisor safai. >> i don't have anything to introduce today, but i wanted to wish everyone a happy persian new year. today is the first day of spring. [foreign language] which means happy year to everyone .
11:20 pm
>> madam president, that -- please read public comment >> at this time, the public may address the entire board of supervisors for up to two minutes on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board to include the minutes and items 26 and 27 on the adoption without reference to committee calendar. public comment is not allowed when an item has been previously subject to public comment at a board committee or at a public hearing in -- at the board meeting. speakers using translation assistance will be allowed twice the amount of time to testify. if you would like to display a document on the projector, please state to us and remove the document when the screen should return to live coverage of the meeting. >> thank you, first speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is sue lee. i'm the director of
11:21 pm
-- i wanted to thank yee and peskin about your kind wars about troy. without him and his efforts, there probably wouldn't be as much history about chinese history. people gathered at the national mall to listen to martin luther king give his "i have a dream speech" and the estimate of the crowd was 250,000. that number is bigger than the number of chinese in america in 1963. today, we have more chinese in san francisco than there were on the national mall. people in the national mall. so just in the scope of 50 years, the demographics of the asian population has changed. and the work that phil did really illuminates our history and talks about our contributions to america and just because
11:22 pm
resistance is a theme now, we think about chinese resisting the chinese exclusion act. we think of chinese resist and going to the courts and making sure we have equal protections of the law, and that we have birth rights citizenship. those are achievements that were not recognized so it's important. so i wanted to thank you for acknowledging phil. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is nancy cross. and i'm going to try to address an opportunity for plan b in some of the crucial relations with the federal government. we read in the paper about the --
11:23 pm
the federals coming into courtrooms, state courtrooms and we see that there's problems in keeping our people safe from attack by indirect means. and i would like to propose so we can strengthen our hand by assuring that we are making the due process and fairness and standards of our society available to everybody, and not only the chinese and the hispanics and all those that we think of high priority, but also the people who are low priority, namely the homeless senior adults and now what i'm saying affects other people too. but we are judging people out of shelters by a process called arbitration which is not arbitration in the usual legal sense, but it's a con caution
11:24 pm
made up by non lawyers to get rid of people from shelters without due process. and we have opportunity -- we have an opportunity to make due process in all the things we do whether exiting people from the library or exiting the people from the shelters. we need fairness to our administrative hearings that deny people important rights to them whether they're priority people or not. and if we can demonstrate that we are respecting the standards that we want -- in relation to people from other -- that originate in other countries -- >> thank you, ms. cross. thank you. thank you. thank you, very much for your comments.
11:25 pm
>> next speaker, please. >> patricia, [inaudible] neighbors in action, planning association [inaudible]. and marine, neighbors and merchants. i came here for several reasons. the first reason is that marine has a great issue concerning the homeless. we're getting truck loads from san quinton delivered to us on a regular basis. we're trying to get the license plates in order to be able to handle the situation. we have a process with the police department with the new homeless that we try to get them help. we tried to get them food. we tried to get them housing. and but we have a couple that are refusing everything. the one i'm going
11:26 pm
to talk about is [inaudible]. it looks like me from what i hear, and she's refused all help. as of today, she's been kicked out of 20 merchants. she comes in. she says, i want to use your bathroom. they say yes, and she comes out and raises a stink. one of them, the super duper tells her she can come in between 9:00 and 12:00 and they would allow her to go in. she, after a while decided to come in other hours and slam doors in people's faces. bank of america, she's destroyed the plants repeatedly. she sits next to the marina supermarket and say i don't have food and people
11:27 pm
bring her food and she goes around the corner and she goes into the supermarket and starts screaming, i'm diabetic and you have to return it and exchange it. this is the problem we've had continually. >> thank you. >> thank you, i will continue this later. >> next speaker, please. >> sgtv, i would like the over head to remain on the screen until i say clearly otherwise. so, we were talking about the ongoing fraud being perpetrated on the citizens of san francisco. the fair political practice's commission in sacramento, responded to luis while serving a librarian for the san francisco public
11:28 pm
library, and failed to receive gifts from the san francisco public lie -- library for years 2009, 10 and 11 in violation of 87800. mr. ha rare a signed the statements with the following declaration. i certify the for going is true and correct. and if you look at the first column, you'll see his original statements were all zeros. and when he was required by the fpc to file, they went up to $5,000 a year. so a city department head appointed by the mayor perj erred himself after lying year after year about receiving gifts from a group he was
11:29 pm
responsible for providing over head. if you have other things to do, why don't you go outside and do it. it is less rude than sitting there when the public comments. almost $15,000 over these three years and at that point it become accustom for more than a decade. so i ask the mate from public records, he has gotten $90,000 and never declared it legally. if a city employee did that, they would be fired. next week, we'll start talking about the different orders of determination, and the ones -- >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, peter, executive direct of library user's association. today is our art's day, san francisco. and art's advocacy day and on a non library matter wanted to say that it appears that the
11:30 pm
administration of city college wants to close the ford mason campus which has a lot of older adult programs. they want to close it completely presumably to save money. this is something they have concealed from the public and even from the head of the board of trustees. the board of trustees of city colleges is meeting on thursday, the 23rd of march at 4:00 in the multi youth building on the ocean avenue campus. the library, the library [inaudible] ended last month, and recently they sent their statistics out. most of which which represented some good news, but also in the larger picture, it was what might be considered not a success, but a flop. more than 90% of some of their goals, if
11:31 pm
not all, failed. so for example, they boasted about 10,000 patrons having their fines forgiven. what they didn't say was 150,000 patrons, more than a third of the total current card holders owe 1 cent or more and has restricted use of the library. they boasted that 5,000 patrons had their borrowing privileges restored. they didn't boast that that's less than 10% of the 55,000 whose borrowing were restricted. the whole thing covers a harsh and regretful fine. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. and i am catherine. i'm the organizer with arts for a better bay area, and i want to thank
11:32 pm
supervisor's kim and fewer for joining us earlier this afternoon outside for art's advocacy's day of san francisco. we're in coalition for the art's advocacy day. we have dozens of arts leaders from across the country in dc and i really just want to say that as an art's worker in san francisco, having been born and raised in san francisco, i ask you to support our arts. it really is about the way that we tie and weave together a strong social fabric. san francisco an expensive city to survive in and our art's institute was struggling like our residents and workers. it's difficult enough to not have the hotel pack funding for the arts and what we're asking for is to support continuing to stabilize grants for the arts in san
11:33 pm
francisco's arts budget. they do important work -- all disciplines, all shapes and supporting the various communities of san francisco and various populations. so now more than ever, we need additional funding of $2.5 million so we can build a strong social fabric for this city. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello, many name is andy and i'm the director -- my name is andy and i'm the director of san francisco ballet. i'm an art's consumer here in san francisco. and in recognition of art's advocacy day and in appreciation of the more than 400 supporters who rallied here, i would like to ask you to please recognize the supporters of prop s. nearly 2/3 of san francisco voters demonstrated how important and
11:34 pm
vital the arts are to the city's identity. at san francisco ballet, our youth program reaches 5,000 students and we have dance programs in 35 schools in all of your districts. we also work very closely with organizations in the tenderloin community as well as our own civic center and western addition neighborhood. we see firsthand the effects of arts education and increased learning and achievement. we believe strongly that the arts are fundamental in making future generations the most well rounded, ' em pathetic and creative they can be. i stand with the individual artist and all of our sister organizations large and small in supporting no cuts to grands for the arts and the san francisco arts commission as well as adding an
11:35 pm
additional 2.5 million to their budget this year. the ballet is proud of its long standing and extensive services to san francisco school children and our public schools and its dedication to community partnerships with organizations like the boys and girls club, the bay area women's and children's center, our public library, our public schools and our various arts and cultural institutions. arts are a vital component of our children's education. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm suzanne's daughter. i was a conservative director and i'm the artistic director from the san francisco unified school district. and this is a room where it happens. this is where the decisions are made. and it's a pleasure to address
11:36 pm
you today and remind you that the artist are the truth tellers, they're the first ones that the dictators kill. kill the artist first was because -- we have never as a nation or a city been more in need of our artist because they always tell the truth. they hit the note or they don't. they're the articulateers of our culture and as ruth was fond to remaining me, suzanne when they petty us food and shelter, we must remind everyone you must feed the body, but you must feed the spirit as well. otherwise, we're not animated. the beauty and the life spirit of it comes through the arts. we live in a city with the finest arts providers in the world and one is my colleague who represents the san francisco ballet. there's the jewish museum, sf jazz, all these pro places that provides a campus for our public school children. san francisco is
11:37 pm
their campus. how wonderful to get to live here and no that you're child goes to the aim program and seeing the sim know knee and can -- we must protect these things. we live in a time where they have you believes that arts is extra. they're not extra. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. >> my name is elizabeth decker and as a working and teaching artist here in san francisco, i ask you to support the arts. they are a need now more than ever. san francisco is such an amazing -- it's an expensive city to survive in and our artist are suffering and our organizations are struggling. people visit our city from every corner of the world. art is a universal language. i
11:38 pm
lost my place, sorry. everyone understands beauty and the importance of vigil communication and reflection. history proves it. where would we be without the -- i support no further cuts to the grants for the arts and san francisco art's commission. thanks. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is beth. and i'm founder and director of green artwork shop which is a small art's education nonprofit based here in san francisco. i support no cuts to grants for the arts and the art's commission. because people like me who work in the arts and care about the soul of san francisco are worried about our ability to live here and survive here. more than 63% of san francisco voters agree with me and wants more funding for our arts. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker,
11:39 pm
please. >> good evening, board of supervisors of the city of san francisco. my name is cynthia and i'm here in support of art's advocacy day. i work at community arts stable station trust. we're a nonprofit organization established in san francisco in 2013 whose mission is to acquire and develop affordable real-estate for small and mid-size nonprofit arts and cultural organizations. we are living in unprecedented and challenging times. across our country, there's a conversion of crisis related to affordability, equity and safety. art and culture -- contributes to san francisco's booming economy and help -- generating numerous social educational and economic benefits. according to the san francisco center for economic
11:40 pm
development, the arts comprises of the 4th largest arts in our city. it stabilized property values and engaging the community and attracting and supporting local businesses. the arts transient class, race, income, education levels and politics. they bring a refreshing sense of serenity, transparency and cohesiveness to our community. without critical na -- many of our arts partners will be incapacitated therefore -- collectively we're worth more than 0.2% of the national budget. we can't allow cast and our partners to be further economically isolated. we're asking no cuts for the grants to the arts and the art's commission budget.
11:41 pm
an additional $2.5 million to this year's cycle. we need to act now to alert our political representatives. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is suzanne. i serve on board of safe house for the board of arts here in san francisco. recently we just secured a long term lease and new home in the heart the tenderloin. this would not have been possible without the support from the city -- arts agencies as well as programs, working to mitigate nonprofit displacement. prior to this, safe house for the performing arts was struggling to secure a long term home and venue. due to the real-estate market and the changing climate in san francisco. now we can serve hundreds of emerging and early career artist which is a critical need for any city
11:42 pm
wishing to stay creative and keep creating. we urge you to consider increasing support for the art's agency in light of the current proposed federal budget threatening on dismiss support for the arts and culture all together. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is gene, and i'm the executive director of teaching artist gild. i'm happy to be in front of you. we're a san francisco bay area based organization and we serve teaching artist nationally with service to support arts and education communities. i was happy to join more than 400 artist and art organizations. large and small on the steps of city hall today fighting for the arts and art's education. arts as you know serve us all. they are the bomb. they're economic driver and they are
11:43 pm
empathy builder. when we lose our art in culture, we lose the essence of our society. i'm here to urge you -- indeed to increase a 2.5 million. those budgets. if anything, let's strengthen those budgets if we can. let's show the state and the country what we stand for and if i - and we here today are preaching to the choir, then let's stand up and sing. thank you so much. have a great evening. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisor. my name is art. i'm with [inaudible] district and we are here in support for a grant for the arts in the san francisco art's commission. these are a vital -- to do programming for
11:44 pm
the latino district. they provide a lot of opportunities for our youth to get involved. it provides a lot of jobs for folks in the area for other artist and different artist to get involved with the organizations and a culture district. we're also here to ask to provide funding for these organizations, $2.5 million will go a long way to help sustain the organizations and sustain the latino culture district for the future and the future of our kids. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is scott. i'm an unpaid advocate for the arts and i'm native of the bay area and i have lived in san francisco for most of my adult life. any other voting or political contest, that's a land slide but it was shy of the amount we needed. prop f is not asking for new funding,
11:45 pm
but reinstate funds that have been approved for arts budgets in san francisco for the hotel tax fund. there's been millions lost from our budget from previous mayors -- really what we're trying to do is reinstate the money we have removed from these organizations. the arts have been in a state of crisis for years now. and the arts in our -- we've had an conviction for years and the conversation has been shifting not from community crisis to colony collapse. if we don't act now to relieve pressure and not just keep people in place, but actually recede new space for artist, educator and culture contributors to continue to live here and return to their formal homes in order to help create and maintain diverse neighbors and the sort of roles these groups have provided. artist and teachers are -- we
11:46 pm
need to start coming up with a plan to create new housing to help support these organizations and individuals who have been so essential to the landscape and the community of san francisco. it's what san francisco is known for. it's telling a modern times. san francisco in the summer of love. everybody in the world knows about that, and we did not allow them to celebrate in the park. we need your help to start coming through for san francisco culture and not just for the latest housing development. these things are essential to help preserve us be here. again, i've been here most of my life. i have five months left and that's the end of it. we used to house 26 artist. there's no solution to keep any of these people i used to work with these homes. so basically -- >> thank you very much for your comment. thank you. next speaker, please. >> if there any more members of the public who would like to
11:47 pm
provide public comment, please line up. mr. gill, welcome back. >> thank you. it's nice to be back, tom giberta. i was in college 1972. it was a little tit bit that came out from the club of rome and it wasn't catholic and it was limits to growth, and of course it was shu shu. right here i can prove that there's limits to growth and will use the overhead, please. yeah, so the housing plan. the housing plan, we start at the bottom. 20%, community specific needs. seniors affordable homes artist. people from navigation
11:48 pm
systems graduated foster children. 20%. above that, 20% teacher, police, fire, muni employees, above that, 5% seniors who can move out of their homes. 15%, 20 year resident in the local zip codes and that can be 35-year-old people, 55-year-old people. then we go to 10% in the local zip codes for the seniors and then we have 30% open market and if it's residential, our rental is -- it's rent control. we can't do that. there are limits to growth. we can't do that because we're limits -- in this case to profit and the city can't do it on its own 100. we go back to 2nd and 3rd
11:49 pm
grade, no, there's not enough profit. can this stamp plate work? yes, it can. thank you. >> thank you, very much. are there any other members of the public who would like to provide public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is now closed. madam, please read the -- without reference to committee items. >> items 26 and 27 are being considered for adoption without committee reference. a single roll call vote may enact these vote. a member can reject -- speaker: supervisor yee. >> 27. >> all right. roll call on item number 26. >> item 26, supervisor sheehy. >> aye. speaker: tang. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor cohen. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> absent. >> supervisor fewer.
11:50 pm
>> aye. >> supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> supervisor safai. >> there's 10 ayes. >> the resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, i failed to request supervisor farrell had to depart and asked to excused at of 5:22 p.m. is there a motion to excuse him. motioned by supervisor tang and seconded by ronen. without objection, supervisor farrell is excused as of 5:22 p.m.. >> please read the next item. >> item 27 is a resolution to support california state senate bill 807. the teacher reprovement and retention active 2017 activated by stern and le many -- authorizing a
11:51 pm
credit for teachers -- >> supervisor yee. >> thank you, president yee. you don't have to tell this group, but research demonstrates the most important school factor affecting classroom -- peoples with well trained teacher are likely to earn higher salaries, save more for retirement and it's likely to be teenage parents. today, california schools are facing an unprecedented teacher shortage. enrollment in teacher preparation enrollment has plummeted to 76% state wide over the past decade. and currently over 75% of the school district has difficulty filling positions including san francisco unified school district. the shortage is wide
11:52 pm
spread. teachers are leaving the district and the profession and retirements. districts pay is substantial -- trained new teachers. due to high turnover, they're investing in efforts -- professional support about reaping the benefits of many of these investments. today there are over 150,000 students in california being taught by temporarily teachers. the number of teacher permits and waivers being [inaudible] as temporarily fixes has increased by more than 270%. in just four years. this doesn't come -- with the elimination of state and local district financial support for mandatory training and mentoring, some teachers face unexpected paycheck deductions for trainings required to clear
11:53 pm
[inaudible] and legal teachings in california. spc 807 recognizes the session of teachers to the children and the economy of california by providing tax incentives to help new teachers gain the skills they need to be successful and keep experienced teachers in the classrooms. specifically sb 807 addresses the shortage of teachers around the country -- to help teachers complete, require training to remain in the classroom. then it also incentivize qualified teachers to stay in the classroom by exemption teaching income from state income tax. this is why i urge my colleagues to support the state passage of sb 807. the teacher retirement and retention act of 2017 and i want to thank my
11:54 pm
cosponsors, cohen, kim and -- >> please add me as a cosponsor. thank you madam president. speaker: can we take this item, same house, same call. without objection, it's adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please read the end me more yum. speaker: today's adjourned in the beloved individuals at the suggestion of supervisor yee and peskin, for the late mr. philip p. troy with the suggestion of supervisor peskin for the -- on behalf of the board of supervisors, for the late ms. natalie burg. >> thank you, colleague, this brings us to the end of our agenda. madam clerk, any further business before us? >> that concludes our business for today. speaker: okay, we are adjourned. thank you, everyone.
11:55 pm
11:56 pm
11:57 pm
11:58 pm
11:59 pm
12:00 am
>> there we go. >> good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today, tuesday march 21st. mr. clerk, could you call the roll? >> roll call, commissioner breed? >> breed is absent. cohen. >> present. >> farrell. >> absent. >> fewer. >> present. >> kim. >> present. >> peskin. >> present. >> ronen. present. safai. present. >> sheehy. absent, tang absent. yee, absent zeshgs quorum.