Skip to main content

tv   BOS Special Rules Committee 21616  SFGTV  February 21, 2016 7:00pm-9:31pm PST

7:00 pm
>> good afternoon everybody and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors good afternoon everybody and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors of tuesday, february 9 good afternoon everybody and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors of tuesday, february 9, 2060. mdm. clerk please call girl >> supervisor avalos, here. breed, here. campos, here. cohen, here. farrell, here. kim not present, mar,, here.,
7:01 pm
peskin, present., tang not present wiener wu, present. yee not present you have a quorum >> ladies and gentlemen please join us in the pledge of allegiance. >>[pleage of allegiance]the tech thank you madam clerk are there any communications >> there are none to report today >> can you please call the first item >> special order at 2 pm is the appearance by our hon. mayor edward lee. urbino questions omitted from the eligible district supervisors
7:02 pm
the mayor may address the board for up to 5 min. >> thank you. welcome mr. mayor >> thank you supervisor breed and good afternoon supervisors. good afternoon to the audience that here today as well. i want to start off by saying that we had a pretty exciting week in our city and certainly in the bay area. hosting the 50th super bowl. i believe resident visitors and residents alike so rated the best super bowl ever with family friendly events all images of our beautiful city were broadcast to the entire world. in addition to the incredible economic benefits for our city and our region, we know that our bay area charities certainly one in a big way also. the host committee is already donated nearly $8 million to worthy organizations with much more on the way. in fact, we understand by the end of everything accounted for, there will be
7:03 pm
$13 million that will be raised offer nonprofits in the san francisco and bay area. in addition to that thousands of workers in the private sector and in the building trades benefited from increase wages from work or a direct result of hosting super bowl l. i would like to take the opportunity to thank our departments who worked under the great umbrella of the department of management, stepped up to make sure the super bowl in our city was a big success and that includes our police and fire, mta, public works, office of economic and workforce development, among others, and again, i want to say thank you to work for people working collaboratively to give our city safe, moving along, and making sure now that we cleaned everything up, and make sure that our local businesses benefit from that as well. now we get to celebrate, again. to
7:04 pm
everybody,-. i don't have a whole lot of red envelopes so please bear with me. i do want to wish everybody a happy lunar new year. it is, as you have heard the year of the monkey. yesterday we celebrated this and i know families throughout san francisco, asian and non-asian, will all be celebrating and will continue to celebrate for the next two weeks, as we lead up to the most famous and largest illuminated parade in all of our country and that is the chinese new year's parade. i would love to see everyone out there celebrating as well. it's a great time and certainly it helps bring people together. those under the zodiac of the monkey are optimistic and energetic. their confidence. they are inventive. but they
7:05 pm
are also restless. sounds a lot like san francisco, doesn't it ?. i want to say thank you, everybody for joining that celebration finally, today i would like to take this opportunity, supervisors, to honor for deputy marriage commissioners will been volunteering and marrying couples for over 20 years here at city hall. they are, bernice kruk,, james ilich, valerie walker and betty kasten. they are here in the audience. please stand up. >>[applause] >> don't be shy. these four commissioners have probably married over 12,000 couples each , and the volunteer program that started to really get
7:06 pm
getting make city hall getting married in city hall all easier and upper limb was instrumental that year that many of you remember, 2004 that gavin newsom announced he would allow marriages of same-sex couples in our secured our volunteer commissioners have varied over 4000 couples at that time. so, i want to say thank you to all of you here today talking right back to work. appreciate it. >> thank you mr. mayor for being here today. folks, since we have no questions we will get down to visit get madam clerk, please read the consent agenda >> item 1 through 12 comprises consent calendar. these items are considered routine if a member objects and item may be removed and considered subtly.
7:07 pm
>> supervisor tang, would you like to sever an item? >> yes item 7, please >> madam clerk on the remaining items, please call the roll >> supervisor peskin aye, cohen, aye, farrell, aye, kim aye, mar aye, tang aye, wiener aye, yee aye avalos, aye breed, aye. campos aye. there are a lot of aye >> these items are finally passed and approved unanimously. >>[gavel] >> madam clerk, please call item number seven. >> item number seven, a what looks to amend the administrative code to provide notice to tenants facing eviction regarding eligibility for city affordable housing programs and to modify vacancy control requirements applicable to certain agreements with government agencies
7:08 pm
>> supervisor tang >> i have to introduce a amendment to this that mostly because i city attorney has asked to include language to conform our local ordinance. it turns out it's a lot more complicated than it needs to be more work done on this. today we are going to be amend it change it out and as is the legislation will provide tenant notification regarding our cities affordable housing programs when a piece of fiction. >> so supervisor tang has made a amendment. is there a second? second bite supervisor farrell good is their need for clarification? supervisor peskin >> yes. can you repeat what you have copies >> i will circulate a copy to you. >> supervisor tang, can you clarify? in the past you specified the specific kind of
7:09 pm
eviction and at this time you're saying all these evictions in general ? ricks >> no. regarding notification of the >> because were amending part of the ministry of code that touches upon a reference-our city attorney acid to carry that moment in our legislation pretend was never there. this legislation is simply that we are asking our board to provide notifications to tenants about our city's affordable housing program when their advocate >> okay. so is that clear seeing no other names on the roster there has been a motion to amend with a second. can we take that without objection speed? the most the amendment passed. >>[gavel] >> can we take this item same house, same call. can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes.
7:10 pm
>> >>[gavel] >> item 13 is to call for rooms committee pursuant to the board's rules of order. 3.37 are charter amendments filed 15 1274 job prices updating inclusionary affordable housing obligation for housing development projects and setting forth increased interim report is to be proposed to the voters of the june 7, 2016 election to schedule the board of supervisors convened at 3 pm to hold a public hearing on soap said charter amendment? >> rollcall vote on item 13 >> supervisor peskin aye, tang, aye, wiener aye, yee aye avalos aye, breed aye, campos aye, cohen aye farrell aye i'm
7:11 pm
a kim aye, mar aye there are 11 aye >> the motion is approved unanimously the apples. please call item 14 and 15 together >> item 14 is a word which approved and authorized the director of property for the city's real estate division to execute a project delivery agreement with oryx the moment llc for the design and construction of proposed improvements to future city-owned real estate at 555 shelby st. 1975 dallas ave. and 450: street great new facilities for the location of the city's central fleet maintenance shop from 1800 : street great new facilities for the location of the city's central fleet maintenance shop from 1800 gerald st. item 15 is the one list to appropriate a $62 million transfer from the public utilities commission wastewater enterprise fund to the city administrator to the central shops relocation project in fiscal year 2015-16 and 16-17 >> colleagues, can we take
7:12 pm
this item-actually please call the roll on item 14 and 15 >> on item 14 and 15, supervisor peskin ngo nay tang aye wiener aye yee aye, avalos, no, breed, aye, campos nay cohen aye, farrell aye, kim aye, mar aye. there are eight aye and three nay with supervisor peskin compos anomalous in the descendent >> these ordinance are finally passed >>[gavel] >> supervisor kim >> mdm. pres., at the appropriate time i like to recall item number 12.
7:13 pm
>> so you'd like to actually -to the san francisco health authority? >> no. my apologies. mdm. pres. should i apologize good i miss read the board agenda. i take back my motion. >> okay. sounds good. adam clerk, can we please go to the next i'm >> item 16 a ordinance to amend the planning code to provide administrative review of affordable housing permitting it is a pencil used and are applying a planning mission hearing with certain exceptions to affirm the ceqa determination and make people but findings. >> rollcall vote >> peskin aye, tang, aye, wiener, aye, yee aye, avalos, aye, breed, aye, campos aye,
7:14 pm
cohen aye, farrell, aye, kim aye, mar, aye. there are 11 aye. the ordinance is finally passed >>[gavel] >> item number 17 >> item 17, ordinance to amend the ministry of code to acquire the department technology to gather information from city apartments concerning city-owned fiber-optic facilities and to require the public utilities commission to commission any future expansion of city-owned fiber-optic facilities. >> supervisor farrell >> colleagues, our city continues to be technology innovation capital of the world but as we all know many times daily our own city government technologies like and you get well know the importance of internet connectivity in today's world and have all talked about as utility just like water and power looking for. i want to thank supervisor
7:15 pm
mar for his help on this. to enhance our own city operations, i do believe it is critical to understand current state of affairs. so, let's all had the do a survey for the city to privacy catalog our fiber assets in the management of these assets. therefore found these garments were able to estimate their cable links on control the tone of a centralized conference of tracking system for that. they also made two key recommendations. one, we should consider developing legislation or policy to consolidate and satirize data regarding our own assets also include provisions to recommend policy and all my work asset we publicly babble and kept up to date to facilitate any potential future expansion. so, with the cosponsorship of supervisor mar i introduce a ordinance acquiring the city to vote mapping catalog are city-owned fiber-optic acids in digital format. as well as give the
7:16 pm
feature discussion around major city fiber-optic expansion into the hands of the public utility commission again, as the internet continues to be viewed more and more as utility not only at the federal level but the sec reclassification but at the local level. in my opinion, we need to get our own house in order and look forward to expanding in the future good for my perspective the recommendations can be more clear if another serious discussion about expanding fiber optic capabilities really urging the digital divide that exists are many san francisco residence. i do want our city to be on the cutting-edge of broadband expansion and this is simply up or step in that direction. we many more things to come including a larger report from the budget and legislative analyst will hopefully be released sometime this picket again i want to thank supervisor mar for his involvement in that the floor to discussion ahead. >> supervisor mar >> thank you. committing
7:17 pm
themselves and our city to move forward our fiber network. are my hope is it expands to consideration of invisible fiber network lake in chattanooga tennessee in other places. i want to thank supervisor-former supervisor ami anna from 2007 for working with a budget analyst to look at how san francisco could move forward with the municipally owned citywide wireless broadband network and also the budget analyst reports backing from a year ago where they looked at the huge digital divide. over 100,000 people without access to the internet is probably hundreds of thousands more that don't have access to broadband or high-speed ages about 25 mb per second if you look at how fast
7:18 pm
your home is, it's probably not that fast for hundreds of thousands of people in san francisco. i supervisor farrell said, there is a clear digital divide for low income people, communities of color, people over 60 and 65. there's also a lower income kids that don't have fiber to the home were faster speeds at home, unlike others who may have the money to pay for its. i would just say that the budget analyst also identified the site looking potentially municipally owned utilities like municipal fiber network like chattanooga, but also looking at how to increase training for people with disabilities and seniors, digital training for youth outreach with the private companies like comcast to expand internet essentials and other programs. besides looking for the mapping and the managing of the fiber network, i think we also should be looking at how san francisco can't be left behind as a
7:19 pm
potential ticket city like austin, stockholm and other cities. i'm looking forward to this but hoping also keep moving the digital inclusion task force or committee members and also keep pushing on a potential municipal fiber network for our city. >> thank you. seeing no other names on the roster, colleagues, can we take this item same house, same call? passed on the first reading >>[gavel] >> item 18 >> item making ordinance to retroactively authorize the department technology and contacted the station to enter the third amendment of an agreement with the city and the at&t corporation for the city telecommunications services by sending the term of the agreement for additional five years to december 31, 2020 and increasing the total amount of agreement to $122.4 million >> supervisor peskin
7:20 pm
>> i do not have an opportunity to ask this question off-line of the sponsor and i understand the budget analysts recommend approval, but my only question is, why the retroactivity to present? >> supervisor farrell would like to answer that? we have hardly wrote here as well >> i think mr. rose might be more appropriate to make colleague supervisor peskin no surprise from our department was forwarded to the budget committee as well as recommendation from our budget analyst. i would defer to him >> mdm. pres. and members of the board, supervisor peskin, the legislation submitted is retroactive. i believe that apartment was just late in submitting the legislation. i think it was as simple as that.
7:21 pm
>> so, you are saying they overspent their $97 million in authority before they came to the board with a third amendments to get the additional increment? >> no. this legislation was not provide any appropriation of funds. it is just the authorization to increase the contact. in fact, we recommended a further increase in the apartment i recommended because based on the data submitted,, they had actually underestimated what their needs are. but, the funds are-no funds can be expended on this that were not appropriated by the board of supervisors. >> i don't want to belabor this. are you saying the previous-the second amendments
7:22 pm
had expired and it was a gap in time? is that what you are saying? >> that is our understanding supervisor peskin >> the tango >> colleagues, can we take this item same house, same call can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. >>[gavel] >> madam clerk, please call item 19 >> item 19, resolution to adopt a fixed to your budgetary cycle for the airport child support services employees retirement system, the port public library, and the public utilities commission. >> supervisor farrell >> colleagues, this item i introduced in the fall. originally it was an idea to increase the number of departments that would go to a fixed year budget cycle. i think it was met with some significant concern here at the board of supervisors and the concern was certainly not my intent.. in working on that, so
7:23 pm
this to me was not meant to be anything controversial about it what we did last week at budget committee i want to be clear the amended this now to be consistent with what we've done for the past four years with the board of supervisors for we have a larger enterprise the province of the continues stay on a fixed your schedule but everything else be amended out this something we have to do anyhow. so that's why we've done what we've dumped it i want to be very clear about the bid or thank my colleagues for their forthrightness and talking about it that think we've done the right thing. >> supervisor yee >> i just want to thank supervisor farrell for listening to the concerns. i assumed you had a lot of concerns about many of the apartments that were listed until we amended them all. i just want to once again let you know how appreciative i am that you actually hurt us. >> supervisor avalos >> i don't recall when the
7:24 pm
employees retirement system and the public library became part of the two-year budget cycle and i recall when i was on budget committee two years ago the employees retirement system budget, especially because we were looking to get televised commission meetings. the public library, i recall, also playing a role in having funds move around year after year, especially ensuring that was greater access for some of the library programs should wondering when these two departments got looped in? it could be there fixed two-year cycle but i'm not really quick. i would want these two departments to be on a fixed two-year cycle. >> mr. rose >> members of the board, we do report the city incremented a
7:25 pm
two-year fixed budget cycle for child support services, the public library, and the retirement system. that was an fiscal year 14-15 an fiscal year team-16 combined for those three departments. so there's just a seven department, bmj, airport, port, public utilities commission, child support services, public library, and retirement system. this legislation is before you now is consistent with the fact that you have been those departments have been on a two-year fixed budget cycle. we do recommend approval of the legislation >> thank you. just a question. if we were to-wanted to make a amendment to the middle of a cycle of the fixed two-year budget for these departments, do we have the ability to do that during budget prices or do we have to special legislation to actually make the appropriation within these apartments?
7:26 pm
>> i believe that if the board wanted to deviate from the legislation, which is before you write out today, you would have to amend this legislation, but i would defer to the city attorney if there's any other response. >> mr. gibner. >> you would be permitted as well to make adjustments to the budget to a supplemental appropriation for my and so the authority of the board is far-reaching and you could do that at any time. >> so we can do that while the rest of the budget is before us . we would have to introduce that awful board meeting legislation. we would not be able to make a amendment on the fly during budget discussions budget committee for these departments? >> that is my understand. it's
7:27 pm
not the case all defer to the city attorney. >> colleagues, i hate to do this but i actually would feel much more comfortable, especially with these two departments that have a great deal of interest in the public, our library system and our retirement system, that these are not part of a fixed two-year budget cycle. we would actually have this divorce every time and i like to make a amendment, a motion to amend, this legislation to take out the employee retirement system and the public library system >> supervisor avalos has made a motion to remove two departments. from this particular. is there a second? moved and seconded. supervisor campos >> i want to echo what supervisor yee noted early. i went on a thank supervisor farrell per listen to the concerns that were raised and i think that it's appreciated. i
7:28 pm
think make sense to move forward really are >> mdm. clerk, on the motion to remove the public library and the retirement system, can you please call the roll on that particular amendment >> supervisor peskin aye, tang aye, wiener, aye, aye, avalos aye, breed aye, campos aye, cohen aye, farrell aye, kim aye, mar aye. there are 11 aye >> on the amendment it passes unanimously. otto >> see no other names on the roster on the item as amended, colleagues can we take this item same house, same call? without objection the resolution is adopted as amended unanimously otto
7:29 pm
>> next item >> item 20, resolution to retroactively authorize the san francisco police apartment to expect expend a $77,000 state grant from the department of parks and recreation division of boating and waterways to procure equipment and gear for the sfpd marine units from october 1, 2015 through september 30, 2030 >> same house, same call adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> item 21 ordinance to amend the ministers go by revising the applicability threshold to 500 ft.2 requirements the development and maintenance of landscaping irrigation control for specified new construction landscapes and landscape rehabilitation projects. >> same house, same call can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. >>[gavel] >> next item >> item 22 resolution to impose interim controls to acquire that the planning commission consider additional is on standards for projects initial place where potrero
7:30 pm
hill, and central waterfront area plans receiving a large project authorization and to affirm the planning department weekly determination >> supervisor cohen >> good afternoon. colleagues, what were doing is hearing this item today. you heard me talk about this time and time again the eastern about his experience in a significant amount of growth. this account along with district 6 is shouldering the majority of san francisco's new housing production. what's critically important we build more housing we can't lose sight of the impact of these developers on our neighborhood. particularly, our neighborhood character. community groups and neighbors in the dogpatch had been working with my office in the pentagon to develop interim design controls for projects in the zoning district. that is
7:31 pm
the urban mixed use zoning the sick. currently, the planning department is working on a citywide control for large residential mixed-use project,, but they won't be done for at least another 6-12 more months. so, what that means is, projects in the districts to go to the planning department large project authorization process do receive design feedback. however, there is no coordinated or systematic strategy or guidelines applied for the design of these particular projects. that is what's creating a problem. as a result, we've had several large projects in potrero hill in the dogpatch that have had a conflicting and often criticized as an on complementary design and aesthetic. without a set of standardized design controls the neighborhood and have been left to design each project and sometimes design can take a backseat on the other project changes. what i am proposing is legislation that would require the planning commission when they are considering a large
7:32 pm
project authorization to also consider whether the design of the project has been demonstrated three key points. first, the awareness of urban patterns. does it harmonize visually and physically with the relationship between existing buildings? streets open spaces natural features as well is the view ordinance? second visit to mistreat and awareness of neighborhood scale and material and render the building façade with texture, detail, and depth? and finally, in modulation of buildings vertically and horizontally with rooftops and decides designed to be seen from multiple vantage points. i want to thank the community leaders who put this together with my office. i particularly want to call out one of our most outstanding community leaders, mr. ron miguel, who's been at the forefront leading
7:33 pm
the neighborhood meetings to develop these guidelines and also want to recognize our architect stan stanwyck for lending a few hours of his time to help the neighbors to identify what they like in terms of building design and what they want to include in these particular guidelines. i also want to think of plenty department for their feedback on this legislation and for welcoming those controls would finalize the citywide control. these neighborhoods have unique and rich histories. a former industrial communities. mixed with a beautiful historic homes and if you like we have a responsibility to ensure these new large developers respect and complement the neighborhood character. i think it's essential to ensuring that we are creating neighborhoods that we can be proud of for generations to come. so, colleagues, i think you'll join me in supporting this. anyone
7:34 pm
that wants to cosponsor more than happy to do so. but i definitely ask for your support. >> thank you. colleagues, can we take this item same house, same call can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. >>[gavel] >> is now past 2:30 pm and we have a few 2:30 pm accommodations and will start with supervisor wiener >> thank you. today i'm honoring nicola steele. colleagues, as you know, much progress as we have made in this country around the rights of the lgbt community, even in this country we still struggle
7:35 pm
in some respects. we still don't have a national law protecting of dbt people living in every corner of this country. but, around the world, there are still massive discrimination and repression against the lgbt community. there are still too many parts of this world we are lgbt people have literally and fear for their lives 365 days a year. but in each of these areas of the world where persecution continues, there are brave individuals who continue to fight at personal risk to themselves and say, i'm honored to be recognizing one of them. nicholas-get nicholas is the founder and executive director of chapter 4 uganda and is in town as a visiting scholar. ucsf global health
7:36 pm
son. he received his bachelors of law degree from uganda christian university in 2004 before pursuing a post graduate diploma in legal practice at the law development center in kampala uganda. he enrolled in the uganda bar and practicing attorney for nearly 10 years. founded chapter 4 uganda in 2013 drawing inspiration from the works of other civil liberty organizations such as the aclu. chapter 4 uganda seeks to become a vocal and principled defender of constitutional guaranteed rights across the spectrum of issues without limitation based on ethnic, religious, or other group identity political affiliation or sexual orientation. additionally, nicholas led a team of lawyers that successfully challenge uganda's anti-sexuality law before the country's constitutional court. amazing coverage of various efforts in uganda to make it illegal to be lgbt. i think
7:37 pm
rachel referred to as the kill the gays law. he also worked with you conduct human rights commission which established the human rights unit in 2012. litigated on the right to health access in uganda's judicial systems including challenging the countries discriminatory provision around hiv and aids prevention. so, nicholas is a real honor to have you here in san francisco. thank you for your work to promote justice and health access and equality under very difficult circumstances and we welcome you to san francisco and want to honor you today. so, thank you very much. >>[applause] >> thank you very much
7:38 pm
supervisor wiener and to the entire board of supervisors. it is an honor for me to stand here today to humbly receive your commendation. i do so on behalf of my colleagues back in kampala come. back in kampala we're condemnation of commendations, so this is extremely inspiring for me and i want to thank you. i also want to thank my good colleague at ucsf some of whom are in the audience today. jeff jensen, kimberly and [calling names] for inviting me to ucsf. more partly i want to thank the support of the american people. impotently in support of the bay area community to our work and we would never have achieved what we have achieved without your support. now i want to take the chance to thank you on the people of the bay area and ask you to continue your support because
7:39 pm
your support makes a difference. sometimes between life and death for individuals in my country. so, thank you very much and again, i appreciate the behalf of my friends and colleagues in kabbalah, thank you again. >>[applause] >> congratulations. thank you again. now i like to recognize supervisor jane kim four for next commendation. >> thank you. so, the group that i'm bringing up today is a group that is in my district. they are celebrating their
7:40 pm
anniversary this year. i do want to bring up accessible. axis of others of emitter activists and caregivers that provide free and safe access to medical cannabis, particularly in a low income disabled veteran communities. they provided unnecessary voice that we have heard both here in this chamber in our community rooms. supporting equitable policies on behalf of patients and providers. the access also provides community meeting space of which i've attended and free meals during holidays to create communities, to great community amongst this group throughout our city. they have a cumbersome many things over the last couple of years, including co-authoring congressional judiciary committee chair john this letter to the dea regarding
7:41 pm
questionable radon clinics. they worked locally on the 2005 medical cannabis act working with our police commission and her board of supervisors. they have teamed up with supervisor david campos great to medical cannabis task force. the task force gathered over 4000 signed postcards to make this a reality. they've also testified on numerous legislation both at the state and local level and also out of state for political prisoners throughout the country. so, i do want to thank you. working to build community which is so important here in our city particularly, i think for many folks that have isolated or alienated and our neighborhoods and our city. but also providing the advocacy you do for many voices. so, thank you for being you. i'm going to turn over the microphone to you. >> thank you supervisor kim.
7:42 pm
before we do that >> supervisor campos also wants to say >> all be very brief. thank you for recognizing the access and the point i would make is that i think it's important as we move forward with a new reality in terms of canvas the voice of patients is not forgotten and i think that i'm very grateful for the fact that that has been the point of this organization to make sure that there is a room, that there is a seat at the table for compassion and the needs of patients is taken into account. so, i want to thank the axis of love for that. >> thank you, supervisor kim and supervisor campos for your kind words and your support. most important, bringing patient advocacy to the table
7:43 pm
that we have a lot of work to do this year.. we really are facing sort of an overall corporate takeover in many states that patient advocates have distinguished themselves from industry lobbyists and moving forward with a low income rights to the policy tables to ensure equity and safe access, meaning that were patients are able to receive the same quality, medicine is more affluent patients and consumers. that's one thing that access of love has provided for 15 years. we have made sure not only to sort of popped up talk but also walk the walk and be able to get compassion-compassion being free medical cannabis to several people in our district and i really want to think the
7:44 pm
whole team. there's no way that any of us would be accomplished without a team that scaring the spirit of volunteerism, which is just wonderful. you know, we had a community center longest running committee center for patient advocates in our city we just recently lost our space to developers or the dispensary next to us that we are not sure, but one thing that was just really wonderful as all the volunteers who come into the community center to open it up, to make sure everything was ready for the veterans group. everything was prepared for the women's group. even bingo seems inconsequential but was huge in community building. this is our city. this is our medicine. we really think the progressive
7:45 pm
supervisors and all the supervisors chronology the patient voice. thank you. >>[applause] >> so, to bring up the commendation but i forgot to mention, this is your 15th anniversary. so, congratulations on 15 years. >> thank you. >>[applause] >> thank you and
7:46 pm
congratulations. so, with that will get back to our regular business for the board. adam clarke, john item number 20. i apologize. we do have one more commendation and supervisor campos >> again congratulations to all the honorees today. next, i want to follow-up and one mayor lee said earlier. it is my honor to recognize and call upon for pretty amazing individuals who have been volunteered deputy mayor's commission. just to provide some context, prior to
7:47 pm
1995 civil ceremonies here in city hall were performed by staff on the of the city and those ceremonies were performed without an appointment. they happened at noon. as you can imagine, that did not allow for appropriate staff planning and couples typically had to wait hours, hours after hours, before that time to actually have the ceremonies performed. we are here today to honor for individuals. therefore volunteer commissioners who is the mayor noted, have been volunteering in this program for more than 20 years. they responded to an ad was placed at that time in the independent. remember the independent, the newspaper?. that adam was placed in 1995 inviting people to volunteer to perform marriage ceremonies for
7:48 pm
the city and county of san francisco for the clerk's office. 50 candidates responded and 10 were ultimately selected. three of the volunteers, we are noting today who responded to this ad. bernie's, james ilich and valerie walker who began volunteering at the county clerk's office in april of 1995. our fourth honoree, and we asked them to please come up, our fourth honoree among commissioner betty peskin found out about the program through one of the initial three, valerie walker, so if we can ask betty peskin to come up, who happened to be performing the ceremony of betty's husband cousin's wedding. betty peskin no relation to supervisor peskin as far as we know. so,
7:49 pm
eddie peskin me to call the office accessing interest in the program and has been a commissioner since november of 1995. the four commissioners you see today i probably married more than 12,000 couples each in the last 20 years. that is 48,000 weddings that have there been performed. let's give them a round of applause. 48,000 weddings. >>[applause] >> the volunteers-i don't know. what percentage of the city and county of that? that's pretty impressive but the program has turned out to be so successful that we have a very diverse roster of more than 39 volunteer commissioners performing ceremonies at city hall. between at 10 am and 3:30 pm. let me tell you a little bit about each one of them.
7:50 pm
bernice, there she is, she was born in boston moved to san francisco in 1946 and she loves to volunteer. besides volunteering she also volunteers as an usher at the opera and something she's been doing for more than 20 years. she loves to play bridge, travel and spend time with her three children and grandchildren. her most memorable ceremony about two years ago, two older men came up from los angeles to be married. when asked why they had chosen san francisco, they told her that they had met here in san francisco. bernice's husband had been dead for nine years by then. to personalize when they heard the name, they asked if she knew a fill her husband's name. it turned out that her husband had done an audit one of the couple's office and remembered him well.
7:51 pm
what are the odds of that? even auditors are positively remembered. james ella, commissioner elect has lived in san francisco for more than 42 years. he lives in bernal heights. my district with his partner now husband 28 years barry dots, and the big german shepherd who i have met. he was executive director and hiv the service company for more than 10 years and also served as the director of government relations for project open hand for more than 18 years. he was appointed to the health commission in 2004 by then mayor newsom, and served to, four-year terms including president of alchemist. he also served as a board member and president of the board of st. mary's medical center. a public authority, and coalition of agencies serving the elderly.
7:52 pm
on cop on top of that, he was also on the board of directors of the lgbt democratic club from us 20 years. so commissioner elect. ilich. eddie peskin as i noted no relation to supervisor peskin moved to san francisco in 1969. two years prior. she had visited her sister in san francisco where she saw a man fully dressed like a king including the crown and she realized that this person went unnoticed in san francisco. she knew then that this was the place for her. she taught language arts and drama for more than four decades at the cathedral school for boys and for the last 20 years, again served honorably this capacity but also on the board of the neighborhood association. she is recently retired and enjoys traveling with her partner as well as bicycling, spending
7:53 pm
time with her friends, politics and attending community events. valerie walker has lived in san francisco since 1973. she volunteered for several years for the san francisco spca doing animal assisted therapy under until her dog passed away. and was drawn to the volunteer deputy marriage commissioner at since she always enjoyed working with people. so much that she stayed in touch and established with some of the out-of-town couples she has varied over the years. she said her most memorable sorry she was told to move things along faster since she's already very quick, very speedy she cannot understand why. she was then told by the bride she was actively in labor and needed to head out to the hospital and it is the fastest sermonic she is ever performed. to the four individuals on behalf of that city and county of san francisco i certificates
7:54 pm
from the board and mayor lee if you would like to say a couple words?? >> i want to save the great privilege to be hasn't at this key moment in the lives of over 12,000 couples. i been doing this hasn't at this key moment in the lives of over 12,000 couples. i been doing this since september 1993. 23 years of this. but the most important thing is i reckon is that i'm representing you in the in the city and county of san francisco. that's why people come to city hall because we give them an experience that they remember for a lifetime. i know this because every place i go people come up to me and say, you marry me and i said that, and you're still married, aren't you. they always are. >> i have also been doing this since probably 1994 but i must say, supervisors, fellow
7:55 pm
commissioners, i think i get more out of this than i could possibly give. because marrying couples in san francisco in our beautiful city hall is a treat for everyone. so, thank you for allowing me to be a commissioner. i hope to do it for many more years. thank you. >> well, i just like to say it's been an honor. it's been a privilege and a real joy to perform all these thousands of marriages for all these years. i would like to thank the city for allowing me to do that. i like to think nancy alfaro, formerly of the county clerk but now with 311 for getting the ball rolling and having this program began. i can't think of a better way to spend
7:56 pm
all these thursday afternoon is been marrying all these thousands of people, and the other thing, the other acknowledgments, these people that come here and allow us to join them and give them a significant moment in their lives, it really is an honor and pleasure and a privilege. so, thanks to everybody. >> ashley ahrens peskin are related but we won't talk about it. i echo all the sentiments my fellow commissioners and i want to add that dumping extraordinary happened and people need to acknowledge this especially our lieut. gov. gavin newsom is state sen. mark leno who allow this to be an issue of marriage for justice for all people. i'm grateful to be part of that am grateful for everything that took place
7:57 pm
prior to civil rights for all. thank you. >> thank you, and if i may ask nancy alfaro to join us the current acting director of the county clerk's office and was now heading 311 and is doing double duty for the circuit thank you, nancy for what you do. >>[applause] >> supervisor peskin >> say the record when betty peskin was a schoolteacher i would get calls at my home because i had a listed number unlike eddie peskin from
7:58 pm
parents leaving messages saying that their kid was going to be late for school. true story. >> thank you supervisor peskin. never a dull moment at the board chambers. thank you and congratulations and thank you so much for your service to san francisco. >>[applause] >> is truly truly appreciate. thank you. okay, with that, madam clerk move on to the next item >> item 23, a charter amendment's first act to amend the charter of the city to require an annual baseline appropriation for the park recreation and open space fund based on city spending for parks and recreation purposes in fiscal year 2015-16 to extend the annual set-aside baseline appropriation for 15 years to the schoolyard .45-2046 and to modify the parks and recreation planning
7:59 pm
obligations to include equity analysis and board of supervisors review had an election to be held on june 7, 2016 >> supervisor farrell >> colleagues all see my comments for when we speak out in a few weeks here. this i want to take a moment to think on my cosponsors worked on this for quite a while as well as physically supervisor avalos's were together it was committee on this for quite okay with that i like to make a motion to continue this item toefl board meeting on february 3 >> supervisor farrell has made a motion to continue item 23. to the meeting of february 23, 2016. moved and seconded. can we take this continuance without objection? without objection the continuous passes unanimously >>[gavel] >> madam clerk, go to the next item please >> item 24 a motion to append you looking around the to the
8:00 pm
entertainment commission. >> super supervisor kim >> i know these commissioned opponents are always very challenging for the board of supervisors as we often get more qualified applicants than we have seeds on these bodies that serve our city and represent the board on these very important issues. like nighttime and entertainment. however, after reviewing the applicants and resumes that came before us, i do believe the most qualified applicant is laura thomas. i'd like to make a motion to amend item 24 to appoint laura thomas instead of you looking around the to the entertainment commission for the public health figured i don't laura for quite a number of years as most of this board
8:01 pm
as well. her expertise in advocacy about issues of hiv and public health are well known. she is someone that has advised the sport and previous boards on numerous pieces of legislation in regard to how we work to mitigate and serve members of our community who are homeless. who are sick. who are addicted, and has done a tremendous amount of work in this policy arena. this seat was made for. not only is she someone who is a passionate advocate of nightlife. she is someone who understands the public health components of this he did i know she regretted she had missed an opportunity to apply last time this he had opened. despite all i know about laura i do not know much about lara as i thought until i read her full application that she submitted to rules committee and am even more impressed by her two decades of work in this community. and seeing her up
8:02 pm
options and what she's done on behalf of san francisco. so, i make a motion today to amend this item. i do want to thank our other applicants including walking who is fortuitous from the rules committee thank you for his work as a get i just think it's clear we have a candidate that is far more experience, who has worked quite intimately with the sport and i think would be a great member of our entertainment commission. >> thank you get supervisor kim has made a motion to amend. is there a second? moved and seconded. supervisor wiener >> in the five years that i've been on the board i think this is the third time we've had a motion on the floor of the board to replace a rules committee recommended entertainment commissioner. i guess that means this is well
8:03 pm
regarded and respected commission, which is a good thing. i am not-i'm going to be voting against this motion. not out of any animus to ms. thomas whom i admire greatly, but because i'm very supportive of walking castille ronna for this position. and we did just appoint ms. thomas to the cannabis legalization task force just a few weeks ago or a month ago and i think it's important to bring more people into the public decision-making process in san francisco and i think bringing joachim on this commission will be a positive thing. he has an extensive history in public health and currently works in public health. he also has worked in the nightlife and works in a
8:04 pm
dance club. so he is someone who understands firsthand nightlife notches as a patron but as a worker working in nightlife. and also has a deep understanding of public health. he is ideally suited for the seat. i want to think the rules committee for recommending him. i will also say that, in terms of bringing maximum diversity to the commission, a few weeks ago i was speaking at the latino democratic club and one of the issues at the club raised with me is there are not enough latino commissioners. this is an opportunity for us to put our money where our mouth is to talk about latino representation in our commissions. and to support a highly highly qualified latino lgbt candidates. so i'll be voting against this motion today >> thank you. supervisor cohen >> i do impede voting against
8:05 pm
this motion again it's not a site thomas thomas or qualification good as i did supporter at the cannabis legalization task force a little less than two months ago. but i found what king castille a right not to be outstanding, well-qualified and frankly a breath of fresh air when it comes to bringing diversity. i think this but he does a lot of talk with comes to a desire to see more diversity and react very qualified candidates that are stepped up and shown a willingness to serve , not only professionally as well as education, mentoring this very important commission appointment for my but because i believe their politics at play and ms. thomas smart and well-connected and will do a very good job on the cannabis task force, but i do think it's unfair that she will be allowed
8:06 pm
to possibly serve in both roles. so i think we have a responsibility to cultivate him bring up new leadership and i see that new viewership up and coming with walking. so, i don't know if you're here in the chamber but i guess i want to encourage you not to give up whatever the end result will be from this today that you are certainly an up-and-coming leader and if not this seat possibly something in the future. to ms. thomas, have demonstrated professionally an incredible body of work that of which am extremely grateful for. i definitely see i to eye on drug policy issues and how unfair the justice system has been to particular people of color. so, i will be voting against this motion a by supervisor kim. >> with that, see no other names on the roster, madam
8:07 pm
clerk, on the motion to amend this item to appoint laura thomas instead month please >>[call of the roll] on the motion >> peskin aye, tang nay wiener nay aye, avalos aye, breed aye, campos aye, cohen nay, farrell nay, kim aye, mar aye. there are seven aye and three nay.. in the >> the appomattox paso. >>[gavel] >> to adopt the actual motion to approve the item, madam clerk, please call the roll >> item 24 as amended, supervisor peskin aye, tang
8:08 pm
aye, wiener, aye aye, avalos aye, breed, aye campos cohen aye, farrell aye, kim aye, mar aye dara levens got >> the motion is approved unanimously >>[gavel] >> congratulations ms. thomas. mdm. clerk please go to the next item >> item 25 motion to appoint zia mollett to the children and families commission term ending april 29, 2018 >> supervisor cohen >> thank you for allowing me to speak briefly on dr. mahler's qualifications. she's a brilliant doctor that she document his work in the bayview community as well as
8:09 pm
the mission district. she is helping young children find themselves and to stay healthy. i do hope you accept the rules committee recognition by pointer. >> tang. say no other names on the roster colleagues can we take this item same house, same call can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. >>[gavel] >> item 26 >> item 26, motion to appoint scott joyner to the veterans affairs commission term ending january 31, 2019 >> same house, same call can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. >>[gavel] >> let's go to our next item >> item 27,-30 comprise a special order at 3 pm for public hearing of persons interested in the proposed commuter shuttle permit program and the categorical exemption from the environmental review under the california premature
8:10 pm
cardiac and determined by the planning department dated october 22, 2015 and further conformed by the san francisco initial transportation agency on november 17, 2015. item 28 is a motion to affirm the categorical assumption. i'm 29, reversed the department categorical exemption and item 30 motion to direct proportion proper preparation of finances >> supervisor campos >> colleagues, i'd like to make a motion to continue this item to our meeting of february 23 and simply note a couple of points. first, i want to thank pres. breed, supervisor and their respective staff, and my office for the last our three offices have been meeting with all of the parties that are involved this very
8:11 pm
important issue. including our mta staff. our different stakeholders who filed this appeal as well as representatives from bay area council and copper corporations part of this program including facebook, google, apple, and genentech. when i will be introducing during introductions along with my colleagues is we believe a framework that, if approved, through action by the mta, and if there is a final agreement by the appellants and by the parties, we believe could provide a way forward with respect to this issue. i will
8:12 pm
be speaking more specifically about the resolution during introductions, but we believe that a framework that is embedded in the resolution that we would be introducing provides a way for this program to move forward for one year with the understanding that there will be a review within six months to look into issues that we believe need to be addressed, including the issue of the most efficient way of operating this program, including considering the option of having a hub, or several clubs, and therefore impacting the number of stations. also, taking steps to address the issue of air
8:13 pm
quality since the approach would not require a full environmental impact report, and looking at the issue of displacement to the extent that might be an impact on that and i think that the idea embedded here is that there will be a review, a study, and objective study, of whether or not there is any nexus between this program and the displacement we are seeing out in our city. i believe that the approach that will be outlined in this resolution provides a way to continue to have this program. i believe that the benefits of this program to the 8500 people on a daily basis will i on the program are very clear and have been discussed i all of my colleagues. i think the approach we have outlined that
8:14 pm
will be introducing by way of a resolution recognizes the benefits, and then recognizes that not withstanding the benefit, there still issues that need to be addressed and it does so without actually requiring the full environmental reports. which we know if we conducted such a report would essentially kill the program. so i'm very proud of the approach and with that, i make a motion to do continue to the item, the items, until the 23rd of this month.. thank you. >> supervisor campos has made a motion. second by supervisor at this time i like to recognize supervisor-just to be clear supervisor campos made a motion to continue this item to the meeting of february 23,
8:15 pm
2016. it was seconded by supervisor at this time like to recognize supervisor wiener >> as i did two weeks ago i be voting against discontinuance today. discontinuance is part of the continuing effort basically to tear down the shuttle program and to make the shuttles essentially unusable to make them go away. i know there's been a lot of rhetoric about how i think two weeks ago this will make the shuttle program stronger and more robust. today we heard about the 8500 s.f. residents writing it in the future they can get to work. well, if we want this to be a good robust program these people can actually get to work that's what the shuttle program that mta adopted does. what is being proposed and the
8:16 pm
direction this board may be heading if the mta capitulates to at this board wants, and if the companies who employ these writers capitulate to what some of my colleagues want will be the tearing down of the shuttle program over time by making it so hard for people to use it. using it. of course, we know that although they are behind some of the efforts here to tear down the shuttle for them at least by some, it is motivation that we want technology workers to leave san francisco. what everyone's view on that issue is, and i personally we don't get to decide who lives here. people make decisions for themselves to live-that we know from survey after survey after survey that the writers of each shuttle are not going to leave even if the shuttle evaporated. they're going to carpal bill find alternative jobs in san
8:17 pm
francisco. so we can have all this nice talk about air quality. but tell you about air quality start pushing people into their cars particularly buses that's going to be a detriment to airport. it's not going to help the housing situation one bit even if 8500 people could have a meaningful impact on the housing situation in san francisco. the fact is, we are in the housing crisis and san francisco not because of the shuttles and we need to stop trying to say that the shuttles are causing gentrification and lack of housing affordability in san francisco. it's a convenient argument is a just claim about buses. just blame these shuttles. there's possible for our woes. responsible for housing woes. housing policy in san francisco for a long time and we need to confront that and a better housing quality in san francisco
8:18 pm
and more affordable housing and more housing overall rather than trying to mislead people into believing if those shuttles just went away warehousing problems would be better. that is absolutely untrue. i also-this is a sequel process. we don't have jurisdiction at the board of supervisors over the shuttle program. only the mta does. but we have jurisdiction over is the ceqa appeal. we are heading down a very dangerous path if we are seen that ceqa somehow requires that we make it harder for people to ride public transportation because of this notion that public transportation, whether it is a poor shuttle were any other kind of bus service leads to gentrification. the same gentrification argument that we are hearing with respect to the shuttle program could be made
8:19 pm
with respect to any improvement to public transportation.. we are about to make a huge investment in improving powhatan. we were trying to improve conductivity between muni and couch on. so the people are able to get. san francisco and the peninsula without having to god. are we going to start hearing arguments we cannot improve how can i not improve conductivity to catch on because a make it too easy for people to make back and forth and therefore lead to increased housing costs and gentrification. that is a very dangerous path to go down. anything we can do to get people out of their cars and onto any form of mass transit is a good thing for the environment and for congestion for quality of life. so, i'm very concerned with the direction where talks or negotiations or whatever they are going. i hope that whatever
8:20 pm
nonbinding resolution members of this board of supervisors put out making any number of different demands that the mta will do what is right in terms of its mission of getting people out of their cars and on to mass transit, and i hope that the employers will do what is right by the workers need to be a will to get to work. so i'll be voting no on this continuous >> thank you. supervisor h >> santos part of the discussion in regard to the shuttle buses, i just like to share my perspective what i thought happened and that's why was a part of this. the reason i want a continuance is to say what is it, what can you prove this program? can be summed
8:21 pm
come to some kind of consensus? for the most part the things we talked with pretty close group consensus. nobody's strong-armed anybody. the things that were talked about i think it proves it. for instance, there's 125 stops right now that's already on the books. originally programmed those going to be presented would allow for 200 stops total. so, the question was asked, do we want to go to 200 stops? do we need 200 stops? is there proof we need to enter stops? can we make adjustments? and whether it's the company that won the shuttles or mta, agree if you have two it might be too many and 125 is on. nobody is arguing about that. there's
8:22 pm
other issues that we talked about that i feel like we improved the system and it was really about improving the program for the shuttle stops, not blaming not having much of a discussion around housing ideas will make sure that at least my perspective the what actually happened at these meetings. >> thank you. supervisor kim >> i was not going to say a lot on this item, but i do think it's important to note i've not heard a single member of this board state they would like to dismantle the commuter shuttle bus program. i know that many individuals may have certain strong feelings about what this commuter shuttle bus contributes to our city, but i think we all knowledge that this program is going to stay
8:23 pm
away to balance a number of different needs as we move the program forward. but we are essentially talked about is legalizing a private mass transit system that pays for these 40 shuttle programs, but also gets to decide who rides them. if are going to legalize a program like this, which i think might be ongoing for far longer than the google shuttle buses because we know the companies have been providing these types of services for their employees a smaller scale. i think we should set up a public infrastructure were system for how we legalize these privately run transportation systems. rebecca called his commuter shuttle buses basically a roving gated community. that is where i think some of the resentment has stirred within the community when they see this alternate transportation system that is not for everyone, but is using public space similar to what our public how the
8:24 pm
public uses our space weather tire muni system or otherwise. since we have in many ways moved beyond that argument of whether we want to allow a system like that or not, i think most of us said, let's keep the system and figure out how to legalize it, i do think this conversation deserves further dialogue in terms of what the system looks like. so, we need to balance neighborhood needs and priorities with the convenience of these workers. i think one of the questions are, honey steps to we really need? how far do we want workers to walk to get on these privately funded commuter shuttle buses? let's accept the commuter shuttle buses are here but if that's the right in front of your home? work can employees get on muni go to different hubs different parts of the city? if i had actually created identified a magic wand i created this program actually think we should expect all of our workers to go downtown knowing that there are plenty
8:25 pm
of muni lines ago from every single neighborhood into the downtown arena. the shuttle buses picked him up at parking lots throughout the south of market in these areas where there's conductivity. have them invest in muni, bimonthly passes and then get straight on the freeway where they have fairly little interference with our neighborhood and then conveniently get to work. we know that couch and effective basket i accept the fact that on public transportation system cannot provide the need of all these workers are moving back and forth between the housing is where the jobs are and where they prefer to live and prefer to work. we have a system in place, but it doesn't have to be the system that has come before us. i think that is where the ultimate disagreement is amongst the members of this board and our city departments. so, i do think this conversation is important. so reduce the number of cars on a road and support this privately funded transportation system that gets workers from their home to their jobs down in the
8:26 pm
peninsula but we can balance that with the needs we hear from the neighborhood. we hear so much from residents that complain about the incredibly large shuttle buses that costs very narrow streets that take up our public bus stops, cause delays, etc., even when we say we use the underlying utilize stops i think there's a question of how much we want to allow private shuttle buses to be able to use these public spaces. i think we can do that and still reduce the number of cars on the road. the minor inconvenience of taking a bus to a different part of your neighborhood and being able to walk out in front of your door is worth the balance of what we've heard from our other commuters that cannot write on these private commuter shuttle buses. it's a balance of these people one can easily overtake the priorities of everybody else. we have to balance everyone's priorities. the probe program that's come before us is not balance always had a reason as why think this
8:27 pm
additional time is important all be supporting the continuance. i think the program that's coming before us now does not pass the muster the densely although we've not heard all sides of the argument by to see program that comes before us that does pass muster in terms of environmental determination that comes before this board because we don't want to see this program and because we know it will continue regardless whether it's legal or not. so, i do think this conversation is important. i'll be supporting this continuance today. >> thank you. supervisor wiener >> i want to thank supervisor kim for those remarks because they were refreshingly candid in terms of what is actually behind the arguments for changing this program, and that is to be blunt, and hostility to the shuttle program. so we
8:28 pm
can say the shuttle program is great but if you make it essentially very difficult or impossible for people to use it will fall apart. before not to use it and oh drive instead. i am referring to the shuttles is a roving gated community. this was-that phrase was coined by the same person, the same writer who wrote some incredibly disparaging remarks by brushing technology workers, just very very offensive. so, you can call them supervisor kim roving gated communities. these are shuttles people use to get to work. it's not roving gated community. this whole issue of having the hope and spoke system, what supervisor kim reverser is a minor inconvenience to get to a help somewhere, first of all, putting aside the fact that i'm not sure where these hubs are going to be, and i would not be
8:29 pm
one of the people lives right by one of those hubs where you're going to have maybe 50 or 100 buses a day driving to that hub instead of it instead of having more dispersed but it's not a minor inconvenience. right now, when you talk about having to get to for thinking to take coltrane to the peninsula, that's a very challenging thing to do for most parts of san francisco. even if you live on a dropped by slime that can easily add 45 min. to your commute if you live on the inner sunset try getting from the inner sun and said to for thinking and switching to caltrans. a lot of people will not do it and though start driving. moving to a how the system is not about people getting on a bus in front of their house. it's about being able to get on the bus in their neighborhood and not having to take one or maybe two different buses halfway across town to be able to do
8:30 pm
that. so this notion of a help system, which is one of the ideas in this proposal, is designed to tear down the shuttle program because it will cause a dramatic drop in ridership and people will get in their cars to the awkwardly spiffing. the just drive instead of taking the bus. so i appreciate the candid comments in terms of what this is about inspire hostility to the shuttle program. >> supervisor farrell >> colleagues at bishop comments from everybody today. i was ready to support this program a few weeks ago. i think this committee shuttle program has become a very necessary. the city of san francisco. countless residents have spoken with across our city in every single neighborhood are using the shuttles to get to work that you think if something is a city we should be supporting. i mentioned the other week that i would support it a two-week continuance but
8:31 pm
that would be it. i do appreciate the fact my neighborhoods in district 2 and others, we been working very consistently to make sure any inconveniences whether the idling on our apartment buildings or neighborhood issues resolved. i've a feeling this will continue to be the case will continue to work on them and think would go to do a decent job getting this mitigated as they happen. at this point time i'm prepared to see us go through. i do respect my colleagues from the work they've done to try to bring resolution here. i am skeptical and do not like some of the way some of these discussions ongoing in terms of the topics but from my perspective we should have this go forward. it's been over a year two years in the making. from my perspective, my residence perspective that all those residents i speak with that use the shuttles to get to work,
8:32 pm
it's a vital part of their lives i would want to put those in jeopardy. >> thank you. supervisor mar >> i want to thank the three colleagues for sitting down with the various tech and other companies that administer with the mta these shuttle programs i want to thank the planning and mta staff within the state structure doing their best for our city. i do see environmental benefits of shared ridesharing and shuttles and i know their time to balance that with displacement and housing dislocation impact. i want to thank, also, the three negotiators for bringing up clean air vehicles is one of the issue. i know what the mta pilot also did that but i like the trigger when you have more vehicles on the street for
8:33 pm
ensuring that we are paying attention to where quality is no supervisor avalos and i sit on the bay area air quality management district as well. i know that the pilots and as we move forward not addressing the displacement impacts and my hope is we look at other ways to mitigate housing displacement that's going on around where the tech shuttles are. i'm hoping to be hub process and look forward in the next two weeks to see what other ideas we have to mitigate the impacts they see it as a balance and appreciative of this effort that as we move forward in two weeks with this continuance, which am supportive of, we can have an even stronger pilot program that allows the shuttles to continue but also protects the various neighborhoods and clean air and other issues were trying to address as a board. >> thank you. supervisor kim >> i just want to add a couple
8:34 pm
words. and it's a little early to criticize with the hub system was canceled this program would discourage ridership. i think there's a way to set up a public program that balances against the inconveniences a lot of different members and stakeholders here in the city. yes, it may be slowing more intervening to travel a little bit further to be able to get onto commuter shuttle bus to go to work, but we also know there inconveniences that are stated by other residents by having his lunch commuter shuttle buses going to all of our different neighborhoods and we've heard in public comments. here in e-mails. we are about members of the disability community that are unable to be -who are often went out of their muni bus not at the bust up but often in the middle of the street because there might be a commuter shuttle bus that's using the muni stop. it's a lot of different inconveniences the legalization of this program. i think, when
8:35 pm
we talk about developing a program we want to balance all the different inconvenience. how can we say only one groups inconvenience is more important than the other. i think we should be able to do this in a way that doesn't encourage more people to get into cars but are still able to use committee shuttle bus program. i would not nicely support of private transit system from a philosophical standpoint but because i'd knowledge of current public transportation system cannot actually address the need of many of these workers and their commuting between our city and the peninsula to their job, that is why i think we should legalize this program and in a way that workers will continue to use the program and not increase driving as the mode to get to these jobs. i do think we can provide a better balance given all the different concerns the we've heard throughout the city. finally, i will say whether we think the commuter shuttle bus is the sole cause
8:36 pm
were one of the causes of justification displacement in the city or not, we do note close to 69% of all the evictions have occurred within a certain radius of the stops in the city now, that is not to say the commuter shuttle bus contributes to these infections, but it is certainly a feeling and sentiment that's out there. i don't think dismantling commuter shuttle bus program will address this. i don't think evictions will go down or rent prices will go down or housing prices will go down. i do think, however, the point that many of our residents bring up, which is, how can we build a city that is balance with all our different needs, whether you're a tech worker or not in san francisco. so, again, i think there's still some work to do and will be supporting this continuance today. >> thank you. see no other names on the roster i will open it up to public comment. for anyone who like to speak on the continuance of this item only. please come forward.
8:37 pm
>> [inaudible] i notice you have certain areas there is no address on. this is a problem to get to hearings we have. these are some of the issues that i have. as far as going to general health program because i think the shuttle program should be issued to exact
8:38 pm
places. [inaudible]. chest rotation should be transferred to where people in the united states would not suffer like this. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >>, gilbert e and i left the piece of paper that i left and dropped off at your offices at last week. everybody that's getting on and off the shuttle bus should have a muni pass. in monthly pass. if they're stopping at a stop >> can you speak to the continuance only? this is
8:39 pm
public comment on the continuance not the actual program. >> sorry, guys. >> that's okay, tom. next speaker, please >> before i go i guess continuing. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is albert mccullough. work with the mapping project. we are a technology group that fights infections. when not anti-technology. but we are concerned around the impact the private shuttles are having on housing and evictions. as supervisor kim mentioned, our study concluded 69% no-fault evictions the 2011 and 2013 are within four blocks of how the tech bus stops >> can you please speak to the continuance. this is not about the actual item. but whether or not you support or don't support the continuance?
8:40 pm
>> i do support the continuance. the current pilot program did not recognize that impact and does not recognize that addiction are skyrocketing in san francisco so continuance is needed to conclude that a greater breakeven program is needed to prevent evictions and keep on time san franciscans in their home >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is-. i'm a teacher at san jose university training the next generation of bay area teachers and social worker. i used to live in the mission but as the google buses the shuttle buses came to the neighborhood the rent for my apartment skyrocketed and i moved to the
8:41 pm
outer richmond could not to drive my car to caltrans. i speak in support of the continuation because while mr. rep. wiener talks about the time in importance and time for people to travel to their work, actually, my travel to my work has increased tremendously. because i do not work for facebook or google. so i support the continuance. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is honey rivera. a minute ago i was first the continuance. this meeting am opposed to the continuance. even just i live in district 11. i ride before a knife to come to the meeting. i think that it's been a year since this program has been in existence, and i think it gives
8:42 pm
us enough time to come to a resolution and make a decision. i think that the more you prolong it, the more items are going to be adding and i feel like it's been on enough. we see the program on tv. we see the meetings on tv. we study it. i think there's been a enough study so far. so i'm opposed to the continuance. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am supporting a continuance. i want to say thank you to all the supervisors who been working so hard on the past two weeks for this issue. i know you've been in meetings with lots of people putting their heads together and come up with some sort of resolution that you can all support. it looks pretty good. has a lot of good stuff. thank you so much.
8:43 pm
if anybody-i got the original legislation passed by the board of directors on november 17 and if anybody wants to sit down and talk to me about that a lot of you know how to contact me. be happy to sit down with you again. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good after get ariana casanova pendulum. i want to thank supervisor kim for her comments today and also for several weeks ago initiating this process that has brought us to supervisor breed, supervisors campos, to discuss with all parties would be a good balance program to get us to a better place to meet the needs of both the folks who need the jobs that go to facebook and google as well as those that do live in are impacted our community here in the city and county of san
8:44 pm
francisco did i do i thank mta and most of the board of supervisors on the work and listening and going through this. we do need more time. we are close. we have made a lot of progress i look forward to working with all of you moving forward the various issues that we have not resolved were john too many. so i think were the better space and we have been an ally thank everyone again for that time and look forward to continuing the discussion in the next few weeks so that we can move forward with a time-limited program that will be helpful to everyone here. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm in favor of the continuation. i think the environmental impact report data lacks the information of what happens between the stops because you've got intercity buses making right turns that impact the neighborhoods we
8:45 pm
fail to evaluate the engine noise in the air conditioning, which was not evaluated. it's just a diesel bus and compared to muni it's a diesel but they never considered the electric trolley, especially on the 24th bus service not an even comparison. a bus zone delays and i will say this, 36 years ago i was faced with the same situation. i took sunny pacific to san jose to go to work. and returned back. then, six months later a stylish residency and santa clara county. i've been there done that and is the impact it has on the neighborhood now. the negative impact. so, i think those are the considerations. so i certainly vote for extending the appeal. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
8:46 pm
>> i am for the continuance. the last time around when i spoke on this topic i asked the planning apartment and i see today listening to the people but you need to represent the constituents of san francisco. this shuttle buses do not respect ada. these shuttle buses and accumulated pollution that you want to wave aside. there are so many elements that have not been discussed and we need to discuss it with the experts. the last time around, when i was listening to a discussion, the discussion from the right side was convoluted. do you represent the people? yes or no of? because do the
8:47 pm
people of san francisco hey you yes or no speak? these are the questions just ask yourself and report to the board of supervisors that we've a number of board of supervisors here and one board of supervisors who articulates but the majority of the board of supervisors back and do the right thing. the time has come now where we don't rubberstamp you there are some people here rubberstamping. not feeling for the poor. not doing for the physically challenged. nothing for the mentally challenged. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i just want to remind everyone but the urgent questions related to housing displacement. i know there are some policy questions out there whether not there is a displacement effect would ask if anyone has those questions still might use off questions about whether tech buses, with the shadows caused displacement
8:48 pm
in san francisco, you know me. you have my e-mail address. we looked it up. there were 500 listings, 500 listings on craigslist that listed proximity to a tech shuttlebus and amenity in the recently could charge $3000 for a bedroom, $6000 for a two-bedroom and so on and sort. please let me know if you still may need any evidence of that time. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak specifically about the continuance of this particular item.? please come forward. >> minus christopher doll. my name is christopher doll. i passed through the google bus stop at eighth and market. not an unused stock. i'm in favor of a continuance. possibly
8:49 pm
members wiener can educate himself as to why muni is not capable of handling the load. muni has been gutted for the last 20 years. so that the poor and those of us who do not want to drive are able to get around. you are subverting public space for private use tax-free and muni and fair free. please continue maybe the education will do you some good. >> thank you. are there any mothers of the public that would like to speak about the continuance specifically seeing none, >>[closed session] >>[gavel] >> see no names on the roster on the motion to continue clerk please call the roll >> on the motion to continue on the motion to continue item 27-32 february 23 supervisor
8:50 pm
peskin aye, tang, nay wiener nay, speedy aye, avalos aye, breed aye, campos aye, cohen aye, farrell nay, kim aye, the mark aye. there are eight aye and three nay with supervisor in the sun. >> the motion to continue to the meeting of in the sun. >> the motion to continue to the meeting of february 23, 2016 passes. >>[gavel] >> clerk, please call item 31 and 32 together >> buddy 31 and 32 were considered by the budget and finance committee at a special meeting on monday, february 8 and were forwarded without recommendation as committee reports good item 31 as resolution to determine and declare the public interest and necessity demand the construction acquisition
8:51 pm
movement seismic strengthening and betterment of critical community and mental health services emergency response and safety and homeless shelter and service facilities and payment related costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes. is to to occur from the general fund. item 32, and ordinance to call for and provide a special election to be held in the city and county of san francisco on tuesday, june 7, 2016 for the purposes of submitting the item to the voters. >> thank you. supervisor peskin >> colleagues, it's with a little bit of a heavy heart that i rise to indicate that i'm not going to be able to speak out in support of this. i have in my eight year history on the board, i think voted for
8:52 pm
every bond measure that came before us. a decade ago my then colleague supervisors sean ellsberg did extensive work with the controller's office in many departments at city hall to create a capital planning process that i think really de-politicized how we put bonds forward and it came at a time that was a critical juncture where the city government needed to gain trust with the voters of san francisco with regard to general obligation bonds. i have to say, at that program has been remarkably successful. i am troubled by the recent relatively last-minute changes in the structure of this bond and the fact that the capital planning process has been obviated to a
8:53 pm
certain extent. when $54 million comes out and is replaced with things that were not vetted sufficiently through the capital planning process, i feel that is creating a precedent that could be down the road will be continually stop using the capital planning process. at your 10 we should be recommitting to the capital process and not starting to ignore it. so, while all of the replacement projects are worthy and virtuous, i think that adhering to the process and keeping our bonding process and the sanctity of the whole is more important than creating a whole and filling it in. i could vote for a bond those $54 million less in size. i could vote for the ponderosa originally proposed a "for the bond before us today. >> thank you. supervisor tang >> i echo everything that
8:54 pm
supervisor peskin yes said. however, when deviation is that i will support the bond overall because i don't want to see this not passes of board of supervisors. i think the majority of the projects here originally not subject to the recent addition of the $54 million i think that all of those were great. they were well vetted through the process we normally have and i did have a lot of concerns about what had happened at the last minute. i really hope to not see that happen again. in fact, i would like to work with the capital planning team who works very hard on this and thank you very much to all the staff who spent so much time putting this together to make sure that our process is one that will not
8:55 pm
eventually turn into something that is happened i think this if it was disappointing to see that outcome could however, i didn't recognize in the grand scheme of things these projects are very important to san francisco and they should move forward. with that said, i will also be introducing a piece of legislation later to when the capital plan in light of the animal care and control shelter those removed from the bond and i want to thank all the 10 cosponsors on that. i'll talk about that later, but again, i hope that today we understand that moving forward our capital planning process should be respected and no more last-minute changes. >> thank you. supervisor wiener >> i'm of two minds of this. i'll be honest i struggled with this. i'm not voted against the bond since coming on the board of supervisors. i was tempted to do so here because i also thought it was an absolutely horrible process that led to the removal of the shelter from
8:56 pm
this bond. on the one hand, as supervisor peskin articulated, i'm a big believer in the capital planning process. on the other hand, also i am a big fan of the-or am very aware-it's the 11 of us, the board of supervisors as the elected representatives of the people the ultimate responsibility and decision-making power to place or not place bonds in the ballots and to craft that bond. i believe the removal of animal care and control for the bond fails either test. it fails the test of capital planning process because it was removed at the last minute. i think frankly in a very transparent way that i think it also fails the political test in terms of the views of this board of supervisors as supervisor tang
8:57 pm
just mentioned, i think every member of the board is a cosponsor of the resolution to change the capital plan in terms of making sure we fund the renovations needed to shelter and so despite the fact the strong support on this board and it was part of a planning process, it was still removed at the last minute. that doesn't sit well with me. i don't think it's a way to go and it's my expectation that this will not happen in the future. we have to get a new shelter. right now, the shelter is seismically unsafe and that impacts the thousands of animals who are in these shelters and also impacts the workers who, every day, working in the shelter that is seismically unsafe. so, this is not an option. something we have to do. so i'm glad to cosponsor
8:58 pm
supervisor tang's measure make sure we move forward with making new shelter reality. but i will vote for the bond today. despite my misgivings about the process. a number of very important capital projects in this bond and i'm not prepared to disregard that and vote against it even though this is not a good process. >> thank you. supervisor campos >> yet again i rise to agree with supervisor wiener and supervisor tang. let me say that i am concerned by the process and i understand and appreciate what supervisor peskin said and i really thought long and hard about how i should vote and the
8:59 pm
specific issue for me has been the issue of animal care and control. i don't really know exactly how that decision to take out animal care and control came about. i'm a big supporter of mental health, but i also believe and i think it's something i quoted before, the greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated. i really believe that. i believe the idea that we would move forward without, with a bond, without taking care of animals is something that goes against my principles and what i believe. in deciding how to vote i ended up airing on the side of supporting the bond out of deference to the process and my colleagues and because i also know that there
9:00 pm
is a commitment to make sure that animal care and control is taken care of it so, it is with that understanding, that i will support the bond today and also supports the cosponsor the effort by supervisor tang to ensure there's proper funding of animal care and control. if i believe, as this process moves forward, though we haven't taken enough action or haven't done enough to address the needs of animal care and control, i withhold the right to withdraw my support, but it seems that were going to do everything we can as a city to take care of animal care and ginger. the issue of mental health and animal care, they're directly linked. you can't really do one without the other. i think that the reason why
9:01 pm
you want to make sure there's a commons approach that includes the issue of taking care of animals is that i just don't think it would have the success you need to have on the mental health side without doing that. so, with the understanding that we are going to take care of animal care and control, i will be supporting the bond but again i will continue to monitor the situation to make sure we're doing what we can and especially san francisco, i can tell you this, not just in my district and i don't say this because i'm a gay man, but there's no way that san franciscans will support a bond if they feel that were not doing right by the animals of san francisco. i don't see that happening. i think it's in our interest because it's the right thing to do but also politically to make sure we get this right. >> tang. supervisor yee
9:02 pm
>> agreements agree with the comments that have been made. in regards to this vote it was difficult because of the budget committee there was a reason why it wasn't passed out without positive recommendation to the board and partially because of the issues that were already noted. the process itself, there's been a process that was developed for these type of decisions and i was going to fully support what was originally presented that included the animal care and control shelter, so two things about this vote that makes it difficult to one, we might have lost the opportunity to shoot
9:03 pm
the care of that shop i just visited the shelter of a few weeks ago and it's deplorable. the conditions people to work in and the animals living there and something needs to be done. so, i will also be supporting or cosponsoring the supervisor tang resolution to make sure this is going to happen. i think the process again i want to be respectful of the people that took the time to vote these concepts and the vetting of what to put on the bond. it seems at this point is somewhat of a process that didn't quite fit that. it's really easy for one to get up upset with that and not support this bond, but there are so many things that need to be done that was on the
9:04 pm
original bond. when i weigh out the factors, i will be supporting this item. i might have to bite my tongue on this but i will support it. >> supervisor cohen >> i think it's an interesting time that we are living where nuns in a soup kitchen are getting addicted we can't even get our act together to rebuild an animal care and control shelter where we've got seniors struggling to remain in san francisco and our young children are afraid of the police. that is-those are many of the issues were dealing with here at this board one thing that has been consistent them at least a couple weeks in this chamber, has been a desire to
9:05 pm
see process and established process, followed through. no shortcuts. i am hopeful that department heads and staff as well as those in the mayor's office are listening and paying attention that it's unfair for people to come to us in the 11th hour with urgent requests and expect us to ignore our process. it's unfair to the people san francisco. iso funded a little ironic that we have a process discussion last week where an item was asked to not go to committee to come to the full board when we guess it's a board rule but we have a process that we send legislation through to the rules committee. so, i had to point out that. i also want to
9:06 pm
point out something that is phenomenal in the bond that is incredibly important in the southeast part of san francisco. last week, we don't with the wastewater treatment plant and this week i want to talk about the southeast health clinic. there are some phenomenal pieces, phenomenal projects, that are in dire need of support. first, is general hospital. you know we are going through many upgrades with general hospital and general hospital, think by her own admission, previous occasions, recognizes the importance that the staff, doctors and researchers, the wonderful work they do time in an timeout is oftentimes a thankless job-san
9:07 pm
francisco general hospital is slated to receive $222 million of this bond. department of public health community centers and clinics slated to receive 50 million and again 30 of that 59 is slated for the southeast health client. ambulance deployment facility and they put fire station which again is in bayview slated to receive $50 million of much-needed upgrades. then, of course the albatross in the room, homelessness, homeless service sites program also slated to receive $20 million. this is quite a significant bond that we are going to be debating and hopefully putting forward to voters in the november election. but, i want to ask a few questions to the capital planning team is here with us in the chamber. please excuse my back. a couple questions for you. so, many of the changes
9:08 pm
have been proposed as last-minute change. perhaps you can talk to us about your staff internal process on how you came to-with things like swapout one 11 project for other project could maybe you can talk about how that came about? >> brian strom. the capital planning program. the addition to the bond are items that that are noted in the capital plan that we had to get a capital planning committee eating with was up amendment to bond. that's what we have a consideration of putting animal shelter into the cop program, which the capital planning committee was fully supportive of. then, also had discussion about looking at these three
9:09 pm
other programs. the fire stations are certainly a large need in the capital plan and the part of an ongoing program. that program addresses these needs progressively over time, so we know that we could actually put considerably more money in the fire stations and was still being significant need that. that was a summer situation with our health clinic where we know over the next five years, this close to $60 million in renewals, just to keep the health facilities in the state of good repair. then we've also received a number of requests over the years from the department of public health around trying to implement this new more family centric wellness model. we also have that as a deferred item in our capital plan. so those are there. the shelter the homeless service sites are sites that are
9:10 pm
we have less definition over. we do know we have three shelters that have significant needs. again, just to keep them in a good state of repair and renewal. >> thank you very much >> thank you. supervisor kim >> i'm not can repeat the concerns brought up by supervisors but i think there were a lot of questions around the process, which mr. strom just somewhat addressed today. i know this is in theyou can refresh my memory, is the additional cost of moving the animal care and control shelter out of the program into certificates of partitioned participation program? >> nadia-office of public finance. a capital plan proposes in the toolbox to fund capital
9:11 pm
projects. the general obligation bon certificates of participation. general obligation bonds are highly rated. with certificates of participation, their notch or two differentials in terms of rating and because it doesn't have the full faith and credit is the least obligation and is more cosseted so the premium price to it. for purpose of this analysis, infinity, is a 60 basis point differential and as a result in additional interest cost. >> what is that additional amount.? i understand the bond and the cop. >> under this structure be required to have use and occupancy of the acid. because of the construction permit >> what is the dollar amount difference?
9:12 pm
>> because they notice the dollar difference is 36 million properties of this and ousted based on second assumptions it could be lower >> right now were projecting a $36 million difference if you can walk me through, again, why this was determined to be more cost-effective or perhaps it was not the reason behind moving the shelter out? i assume in the swapout maybe other capital projects were considered under the cop program. is that the case? i want understand the rational one when into the program and what's been recommended for the cop? >> i can't say that by adding the animal control under the certificate of participation program or the general fund program would still meet capital plan policy, which is 3.25% of discretionary revenue. we had capacity sword falls within that capacity but beyond that the other option was to pay cash
9:13 pm
>> i don't want to interrupt you but my question is not to i questions, visit we get the animal care and control shelter in the bond and then the items were put in. so it's mainly the fire station, the new health centers, and a variety of different neighborhoods, and is it right to say the city-owned assaulters and subsides rabbit? >> yes >> sophie knotts walked in those programs and get the animal care and control, what would've happened to these three other additions to the bond program equips how we have funded it? what would be a schedule look like? i just want to understand what we weighed before this ultimately came before us? >> brian strom with a capital planning committee. city administrator's office. as i mentioned, we have a lot of needs in the capital plan. so, these three projects were
9:14 pm
proposed to eight amendment process. i mentioned with the neighborhood fire station, ongoing needs with evident fires this meet if they were not prettier they would probably would be expected to take part in the next earthquake safety emergency response bond which is an 5-6 years. if you're talking about the health clinics, we have a bond of believe it's in 2020 or 2021 and as with some of those of the next the address where they would been deferred from the plant. as you recall, we have seen the room-this bond was originally a higher amount. may room so we could also do the housing bond that was last november. so, those are sort of part of the decisions. the shelter the homeless service sites, we actually have an submerging it in the capital plan working with human services agency departments to look at how they can better utilize their space.. that's ongoing. though in the past year there's been discussion about a new department so will
9:15 pm
effectively needs around that new department as well >> i do understand that our d is much greater than any single bond we put before the voters can accommodate and i don't have -i only a member of this board has any issues with us rehabilitating i need fire stations, community health clinics, or homeless shelters and service sites. i just want to summarize what you said. if we do put the in this bond [inaudible] it shows they would been part of a greater bond so that maidens and rehab would be deferred. so i understand that. so it's completely new kind of concept new kind of addition in terms of ethical finance. we were considering other types of improvements for the cop?
9:16 pm
>> correct. >> i think my final question, by the way, i really do want us to improve our high demand to make health centers. i do think we need to expand our access t mental health and urgent care substance abuse and other services it for years we've needed to rehabilitate many of her home assaulters like next door and msc south. i'm glad that consideration was put in the bond and i fully supported. by one hesitation is that it doesn't seem to be well-developed plan in the sense we have not identified with the needs are and what the priorities are good so, can you articulate what the process would look like after we approve this bond? >> yes. every second it shot at it. since this is since were talking letter program were not icy to lay out specific projects and specific sites because we don't have ceqa determination or them. so the expectation is we have a public process in the
9:17 pm
sense we are to have a summit of needs is a measure of its run $29 for the three sites. we have a >> which three are you referring to? is it three? time to recall. sam dodge is one that can help better. i know hamilton houses one of them. >> supervisors, embassy south on fifth and bryant, 1001 cold st. which is next door in hamilton family shelter in the tenderloin >> those were the three that were identified potentially for bond use since we can't do that find them in the bond program? >> that's right. >> those three shoulders aren't incredibly neat in repairs and dda of grace. i am fairly shocked about the need
9:18 pm
of there. thank you. supervisor farrell >> colleagues a matter reiterate much was said. i agree with concerns on the process over this bond. however i will should also take perspective here that the net-it is incredibly positive we have a commitment on behalf of this board to move for the animal care control shelter. i want to specific commands supervisor tang for advocacy on a. both on the resolution today that we introduced as well as her comments budget committee process and general advocacy. within this building on the topic. i figure something we also stood out in advocacy that issue. at the same point in time, on the flipside, we have from a potential passing
9:19 pm
the voters perspective and the point perspective, but stronger bond here in terms of the items included in it and i think in particular, we can't ignore the fact but is now been included in terms of additional money for our firehouses in neighborhoods as well as mental health and homelessness, this is a glaring issue we've all talked about it quite a bit on the homelessness and mental the issue of sexism in our neighborhoods racing all day. we hear from residents inside and out of our own disappeared every survey in the city of san francisco. thing opportunity to put a significant investment in the services and resources the time of significant need in the city cannot be overlooked. i think it's critically important that something am strongly in favor of. why agree with the comments about process i think we should take a step back and think where we are today we have in front of us on both sides the cop is going forward as well as the bond something we should be proud of i think the residents of our city would benefit from greatly. >> >> supervisor mar >> i want to say i'm in
9:20 pm
agreement with what supervisor farrell just that. thank you so much to the mayor for advocating for i would say this incredibly equitable bonds because it's looking after homeless services, mental-health issues department of public health. it's more equitable by adding in various programs. i'm in agreement to be surprised by the process but when it comes down to it, i'm very pleased that se. health ctr. supervisor cohen mentioned, to the various neighborhood fire stations in the homeless services that they are included. thank you supervisor tang to pick up the animal care and control which i totally support but i think what it comes down to do we support it's an either/or, i support human services over the animal care and control. adding a little bit different than supervisor campos his comments but i would say it's not an either/or. we could do both but the
9:21 pm
certificates of participation is not yet mentioned, may cost us more over time, i'm seeing this as a whole passage we have a whole equitable health and safety bond that's moving forward and making commitment to animal care and control which absolutely needs to be rebuilt and like supervisor he mentioned i visited to see the conditions i think our communities are safer when we have a strong animal care and control that can take care of our needs and our neighbors. tonight he and brian, and the capital planning committee i know it's a hard job balancing all the different capital deferred maintenance at all the different needs the city has good i think this is a win-win and e bond but also a commitment for honorable animal care and control for the future. >> thank you. president breed >> is your representative on capital planning committee i take full responsibility i apologize for this bus. my
9:22 pm
issue and why this came about has a lot to do during the process when we all together rejected the jail. it was clear that folks in the city wanted to see others to do something differently we want to make sure we were hearing the combines what's happening out there every civil date on our streets. there are homeless individuals without services and without a place to go. there are people who, unfortunately, sadly, have mental health weighted issues, citizens of issues and other things and we do not have the capacity to support that. process can't get in the way of process. we have work to do. we have make some hard decisions to get that work done. not just the need to rehabilitate the
9:23 pm
homeless shelters. there is a need to make sure that these clinics in our neighborhood have the capacity with these patients on a day-to-day basis. we made it clear that we do not want to see these individuals taken to jail get we didn't want to see them taken to general. we wanted them to get services. we wanted them to get treatment and part of that is making sure that we have these facilities within our neighborhood have the capacity to support these individuals that we are doing everything we can to make this a priority. it does not mean that we don't care about having the kind of animal care and control facility that the city needs good what this does mean, from my perspective, i am hearing what my constituents are saying to me every day about the issues around homeless about the issues around mental health, wanting me as a member of the board to do something. so, i
9:24 pm
want to apologize again because i do know that we all care about process. we want to make sure that when this process is put into place that means something. i get that. but i do want bureaucracy and process to get in the way what we need right now today and they need to get this bond passed by the voters and get this implemented sooner rather than later. i know that it's not a solution to all of the problems. it's capital supports and there will be a need for operation support. part of why i asked for a thorough combines of budget and legislative analyst reports on homeless related services in the report that we get to program brought the city to understand how our dollars are being spent and how maybe we need to be redirected or directed to other programs. this is not an either/or for me. there is a commitment to
9:25 pm
make sure that we rebuild animal care and control, but from my perspective, this is something that we need to address public health, something that is sadly not something that i believe what we see with our eyes. not what we hear about in numbers. now we what we hear about in progress we see with our eyes having everyday and are sick people need help and lead to make sure we make adjustments accordingly to help them it changing the font is the right thing to do. the responsible thing to do. i understand we want to be responsible legislators responsible two-way process so people know it's open and transparent and in this particular case i think the most responsible thing to do is answer the call was happening on our streets rainout i make inappropriate adjustment and i do hope that each and every one of you will strongly consider not only supporting this bond but making sure that we get it
9:26 pm
passed by the voters in november. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor peskin >> first of all i want to say that i do not question the prerogative of this board to enact and put before the voters whatever chooses. as i listen to the conversation today, pursuant to supervisor kim's question, by ignoring the capital planning process we are going to end up costing the general fund overtime and additional $36 million in money that we could be using on the operational side. that we could be using to address homelessness, street repaving public safety. that's precisely why we've had a rational capital planning process. that's the cicely what we are abandoning in here today. with that i hear from mr. dobbs by
9:27 pm
the utmost respect for but is been in the shop for three months? this an emerging need. they don't know how precisely they're going to spend this $20 million. the underpinning of the capital planning process was that it forced departments to go out and figure what kind of deferred maintenance that they had. it forced departments to actually put together cogent conference of plans. let's be honest with one another. homeless is not an emerging need against defendant it was a problem 15 years ago. it's become an acute problem now. we've all known that. we don't come along at the last minute and start shoveling $20 million into a whole because we packed a project out. that's not responsible. particularly when we know it's point across the general fund $36 million overtime. it gives me no pleasure to stand before you and the voters of the san francisco to dissent in this
9:28 pm
matter, absolutely comfortable that it's a 10-1 decided i'm doing it as a point of principle and i respect our presidents comments relative to the sanctity of the capital planning process i'm making a point and the point is, let's adhere to that. yes, we can change the capital plan as emerging needs emerge. but let's do it that way. the fact that this i mean homelessness did not just start happening in the last month. it makes no sense. so, i'm doing this, colleagues, and i don't in any way need to be sanctimonious, to remind us, let's not do this again in the future. with that i'm not to spend the next five months of my life going to have a community meeting to say to vote no honest pop is me i want to be a learning moment and for this body >> >> bit president breed >> thank you supervisor peskin. i can appreciate your comments i want to say that we
9:29 pm
can get this bond passed by two thirds vote i do know forever going to not only get to these projects but even get to the animal shelter and fulfill our obligation to basically seismically upgrade many these facilities that we promised to rebuild and to make available for the concept of services we need to provide to those folks out there sleeping on our street. yes, sadly homelessness is existed since i can recall born and raised in the city and every so, i see somebody living on the street who has clearly out of their mind, clearly a struggling. it breaks my heart that i think we have to work faster to get this stuff done and sometimes, again, process gets in the way and i don't see that happen this time around. but i do really appreciate and respect your comments. >> supervisor peskin >> through the chair to the president had leapt pay for cop? seal these are paid back through-to the extent we have a
9:30 pm
not yet fully formed not yet totally fully baked emerging need for $20 million in money for msc south, next or what have you, i would much rather pay-use rents for $20 million to retire bonded indebtedness and for $54 million to retire bonded indebtedness as mr. dodge and his team worked through that. we spent a quarter of $1 billion per annum on the most is on the stump it i do with you it's sidewise. i agree it needs to be fixed if there's no question about that. but we need to have a robust general fund in order to do that. if were going to float cop's, when we float $29 and cop's and put $54 million into a general obligation bond because that money frankly, is cheaper. >> see no additional names on


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on