Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Budget And Finance Sub-Committee 3217 20170307

Assistance in broadcasting this committee meeting. Madam clerk, do you have any announcement s please silence all cell phones and electron devices. Thank you. Madam clerk, could you call item 1 please. Item 1 resolution endorsing the conceptual term sheets wen of between the port and jppf op acquisitions, llc. Well begin with our presentation. Were going to let supervisor peskin make a few remarks. Thank you chair cohen and colleagues and pier 29 and much of the northeast waterfront is in the supervisorial district i have the honor of representing, district 3. By way of background in 1990, a little while ago, the voters of San Francisco passed proposition h, requiring the acquisition of waterfront plan and put an interim moratorium on waterfront property, and the plan was finished in 1997 after a collaborative process. And that waterfront Land Use Plan is now in the process of being updated. You may all recall that about 15, 16 years ago, there was a proposal for about 500,000 square feet of destination retail, proposed by the Mills Corporation at piers 27, 29 and 31. That project went down to defeat in the early 2000s and today we have our cruise ship terminal at pier 27. This is a proposal next door at pier 29. I wanted to remind my colleagues and members of the public that there is a long, unmet promise of recreation on the northern waterfront and that actually harkens back to the days of mills project that was going to be a recreation project by chelsea. Many of my constituents, who lived through those battles remember that and remember that unfulfilled propose and before us is say term sheet for 20,000 square feet in the bulkhead building at pier 29 and still the potential for that recreational facility in the rest of the pier 29 shed, or at nearby piers. So in consultation with the port, and the ports executive director ms. Forbes i would like to offer a few additional resolves at page 3 starting line 5 and specifically let me read them into the record. I have passed them out to members of the committee. Did supervisor tang get one . Did i give you one . First is insofar as this proposal has been represented as being reserve for San Franciscobased makers i wanted to add that a minimum of onethird of all goods in the retail leasing space will be reserved for San Franciscobased makers in San Francisco and initially i wanted to actually be a third of the space. But as i understand it from the project sponsor, they are not going to lease out stalls in that area. So i have revised it to say onethird of all goods. In addition a further resolve that the Port Commission shall clarify in the lease that the agreement applies only to the pier 29 bulkhead building and does not include any optional use of the pier 29 shed, or beyond minimal exterior uses outside of the pier 29 bulkhead building for short or longterm uses. A third further resolve that future longterm uses of the pier 29 bulkhead building beyond the term of the lease and future longterm uses of pier 29 shed will be informed by the waterfront Land Use Plan update process currently underway. And any future development of pier 29 will be subject to a competitive solicitation process, with any interim leases of pier 29 shed in the meantime limited to no more than 5year lease time and final further resolve the Port Commission shall direct staff to report to the board of supervisors by february 5th, 2018 on recommendations for active recreational uses of pier 29. And other Port Properties that result from the waterfront Land Use Plan update process and provide a plan to achieve those recommendations. I believe i dont want to put words in the ports mouth, but i believe the port supports these, and i want to thank ms. Forbes for working with me and my office on formulating those, and at 10 30 i have to gavel down the government audit committee. Lets go on to our presentation. We have got mr. Boris della pine and i think also do we have dianna she is also going to be presenting this morning. Welcome. These are the port representatives. Thank you the floor is yours. Good morning, supervisors. We would like to give you a quick presentation to review the steps that led us to the term sheet before you today. Im the ports Contract Administration and donned by our assistant Deputy Director of planning, mark our Deputy Director of real estate and our executive director elaine forbes. Pier 29 is located where chest nut meets embarcadero within the Historic District litigationed in the National Register of Historic Places and it was reconstructed after the fire in 2013 and the site of the waikiki restaurant during the americas cup in the summer of 2013. The building is currently vacant. In december of 2015, after authorization from the Port Commission, we issued a request for proposals to retenant the bulkhead portion of the pier shed. The rfp had several strategic objectives that we had in mind and included that we wanted to reopen the building and return to economic use. We wanted a use that would support the cruise ship terminal at pier 27. We sought to provide amenitis for both locals and visitors, and finally we wanted to use the space to highlight and showcase San Francisco manufacturing goods. The lease opportunity was limited to the bulkhead building only. The proposed lease area is approximately 23,000 square feet. The pier 29 shed, which is shaded in pink on this slide is about 100,000 square feet and its excluded from this lease opportunity. Future uses of the pier shed as supervisor peskin mentioned will be addressed in the public process now underway to update the ports Land Use Plan and any future leases or Development Opportunities for the facility will be subject to separate competitive bid processes. We issued the rfp in december of 2015. However, prior to that with Port Commission direction, we confered with the northeast Waterfront Advisory Group or newag and rfp was widely advertised and three separate site tours ensure consideration of Community Value and perspective. A Community Member from the newag served on our fourmember Evaluation Panel and do not normally include members on the solicitation panel, but thought it was important for this project this. Was a full, complete solicitation process and received three proposals in advance of the rfp deadline. Jamestown llp received the highest overall score and outscored their opponents in each of the rfp proposal sections, both written and oral phases. [skwraeuls ]towns previous project experience include Chelsea Market in manhattans meatpacking district a food reality and in atlantic which is say mixeduse Rehabilitation Project that includes a food and Retail Market as well. Their team is familiar with our waterfront, having worked on projects at Ghirardelli Square and exploratorium and the rendering on the slide was part of the proposal and these are conceptual designs that are subject to architectal and historical Design Review and to understand what the current vacant space might look like in future. Jamestown proposes a retail and Craft Beveragebrasion onsite production component. The proposed retail space will feature displays selling goods, made and manufactured in San Francisco, through partnership with sf made, that were very excited about. They also proposed a Craft Beverage operation for the site that may include urban winery, brewery and coffee rotisserie. At this pointly turn i will turn it over it to my colleague, diana oshima. Good morning, supervisors, diana oshima with the ports planning and development division. In terms of this proposed lease, it is as supervisor peskin mentioned, its limited just to the bulkhead building and its considered a small lease by ports standards. Budget that jamestown has for the entitlements and the improvements is relatively limited. Jamestown has been a very collaborative partner. They have met willingly with the neighborhood and in so doing as generated a lot of good support and understanding about the project. When the Port Commission met we have an overwhelming showing of support, but we also have some concerns and opposition that have been expressed on the waterfront opposition. Because of the concerns that have been expressed, jamestown itself is really looking for a bit more certainty before expending more funds to go through the entitlement process, and improvements to the facility. For that reason were here not because its a requirement to appear before the committee today, but were looking for an earlyread to give some clarity and demonstration of support that people understand and support the concept. So that would help us to work with jamestown to encourage them to pursue this project. Its a great opportunity from the ports perspective, because we do seek to have more of a public orientation along the embarcadero rather than replacing the bulkhead building with parking and other prior uses. In terms of policy consideration, supervisor peskin gave a good history on the waterfront plan process. The waterfront plan identifis a menu of acceptable longterm uses for the pier 29 facility, including the bulkhead building, and retail and restaurants are listed as an allowable, acceptable use under the waterfront plan and are also public trust uses. Whether for shortterm or longterm those are the types of uses that bcdc or state lands commissions look to. As with many other projects we had along the waterfront, rehabilitation of our embarcadero historic piers and resources is say high priority and we think that is the jamestown proposal has the ability to showcase that well thank you. Got to get that story down to two minutes. [laughter ]sounds interesting, but you have to shorten it down. [laughter ]. Next speaker. Michael phillips the president of jamestown, and i wanted to thank everyone for hearing this today. Were very excited about this project. Throughout jamestowns history we have focused on largely on inclusionary projects, locally made products in this retail space. If you look at our projects that were cited at Chelsea Market and pond city market, the majority of the retailers, food providers and makers are local. I think our track record and our reputation in San Francisco is very important, being that we most all of the people here from our company today including myself, are locally from the bay area, and San Francisco. So i think as we endeavor to follow this process with the port and the city, we want to deliver on the things that are important to you all, as well as to the community atlarge. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed [ gavel ] i want to ask ms. Diane oshima to come up. And maybe you can give a little bit of clarity on the permissible uses . Okay. It seems to be some discrepancy. I just placed sfgov overhead projector, please. Thank you. So i realized that you cannot read the details of this, but for every property in the waterfront plan document, there is a list of acceptable longterm uses that are listed for the properties. The port is broken up into different geographic subareas and pier 29 in the northeast waterfront subarea. The facilitis are located along named along here, but pier 29 is this line. And all of those as indicate acceptable uses in the categories that unfortunately you cant read, but Recreational Enterprises is an acceptable use listed there and the first block is maritime uses and this block is open space and Public Access uses and these are basically commercial and industry uses. So we allow for a menu of activities for consideration for future development of pier 29 Recreational Enterprises is definitely one of those along with restaurants and retail. Assembly and entertainment type of activities and narrative that describes mixeduse opportunity zones and pier 29 was included within a pier 27, 29 and 31 mixeduse opportunities zone and the narrative there definitely did acknowledge that active Recreation Development is a good opportunity. But its not the only opportunity that waterfront plan does not prescribe or dictate that, because we recognize that any development would have to go through a Community Process before you would arrive at what that rfp should be for that longterm development. The mills project and chelsea pier projects referenced earlier went through a prior indepth Community Process that led to that rfp. When those projects were unsuccessful, and the port then turned its eye to looking at pier 27 for a cruise terminal, we basically dedicated pier 29 to cruise terminal and the future of pier 29 shed or pier 31 are really topics that are going to be addressed in the waterfront plan update public process. So even if we were going to be looking to active recreation use development of this property, we would have to take a look at it in a different context, because we have the cruise terminal there. The other thing that i guess i would add is by going with the lease that is dedicated only to the bulkhead building, that does not preclude active recreation as a possible future use in the shed, because the triangular shape of pier 27 29 is unique and allows access to the length of the shed in ways that no other finger pier can enjoy. So if you were at the americas cup events at all and the americas cup village, i think that was a good illustration of how easy it was to be able to access that facility. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. Supervisor tang, i think you had some remarks. Thank you. I am really thrilled to see this proposal before us, especially with the Strong Partnership with sf made and i think that it doesnt preclude the ability for us to in the future, again, to adapt the rest of the pier to recreational uses. So one of the things that our office is working on is trying to partner with sf made, and have a popup here in city hall. Again, recognizing that there really isnt a place for them to just collectively in one area display all of the goods, the wonderful goods that have been made and manufactured here in San Francisco from local individuals. So i am thrilled for this partnership, but well look forward to your future rfps for what to do with rest of the pier . So with the amendments that supervisor peskin proposed and in addition to supervisor yees additional amendment, i would be happy to move this forward. At this time i will make the motion then to adopt supervisor peskins amendments as he stated in the record and change that in the further resolve clause that was proposed that the lease would contain a minimum of a guess onehalf of all goods in the retail leasing space reserved for San Franciscobased makers in San Francisco. All right. Deputy City Attorney jon givner. Deputy City Attorney jon givner and to clarify as i said in this committee and other committees in past, the board by reso when you adopt a resolution like this, sometimes the board amends to add language about what departments shall do. Those shall clauses are not actually binding directives on the department. In this case, the amendments that the committee is making basically indicate to the department what you expect to see when this lease comes back to you for approval under 9 ~. 11 8. And what the department and jamestown have indicate what intend to do, but the use shall doesnt mean its binding on the department. Thank you for the clarification. Supervisor tang. It is a conceptual term sheet and i think for the purposes of this public hearing, our indication to jamestown to the port this is our intention and we hope that the department will certainly abide by this. So im still comfortable with moving forward this item with the amendments. Any lastminute comments . Supervisor yee . I agree with supervisor tang and the shall is a very strong shall, if it comes back to you. Well deal with it accordingly. A motion has been made and take the resolution as amended. We can do that without objection. [ gavel ] thank you. And then i guess a motion as amended send forth to the full board with positive recommendation. Without objection, [ gavel ] thank you. All right. Madam clerk, please call item 2. Item no. 2 hearing to consider the release of reserved funds to the department of elections in the amount of approximately 2 million to fund Capital Project expenses related to the relocation of the departments warehouse operations to pier 31. Thank you. Welcome. Good to see you, mr. Ernst, representative from department of elections will be presenting for us today. Thank you. Good morning. Chair cohen, john ernst, director of elections and the department is in search of a new warehouse leaving pier 38 and the port agreed and entered into an Mou Department to use pier 31. The original amount on reserve was 2. 5 million to buildout pier 31 space for the departments warehouse uses. After many conversations with Mayors Office and figuring out how to reduce costs the number now is 2. 1 just under 2. 1 million for the buildout for pier 31. There are still many questions outstanding regarding the final costs for the project. So i know that the budget Analyst Report indicated that 400,000 reduction ought to go back to the general fund, but if there is a way for that money to remain on reserve, so if there are cost overages to come back at another time to ask for additional reserves. That is very reasonable. Let me ask you a question what do you store exactly in the warehouses the primary component would be the voting equipment. Also we have the materials for the polling places, and the department. Also we have to archive the election materials from up to 22 months, depending on the type of election. So well have ballots and other election materials up to almost two years, depending on the election, at the warehouse. Thank you. I want to go to the budget legislative analyst and hear their report. Supervisors, my recommendation regarding this 400,000 remains the same. If the port can justify if the department of elections can justify additional funds, then i believe they should come back to the budget and finance committee and well analyze it and absolutely recommend support for those additional funds, if they are justified. On page 12 of our report, we point out that the rent for the space currently leased by the department of elections at pier 48 is 82,598, about 0. 95 per square foot or 87,000 square feet and 94,825 or 1. 35 square foot for approximately 70,200 square feet. Although the department of elections would receive a reduction of 16,744 square feet in the proposed location, as compared to the existing space in pier 48, the increase in rent in the first year is 12,227 per month. Total annual rent would be 1,13 7,900, an increase of 14. 8 . We also have a table 2 on page 12 showing total estimated costs of the propose the fiveyear mou including rent and operating costs would be 6,138,464. And again, that is on page 12 of our report. So finally, on page 13 as i just stated, our recommendation would be to approve the requested release consistent with the budget that the Mayors Office and the department of elections has submitted to the budget and finance committee of 2,067,934 and close out the 400,000 400,032 to the citys general fund and the budget and legislative analyst will be absolutely supportive if they come back to the committee. Thank you for your presentation. Supervisor tang and well get to the deputy City Attorney. Thank you, so director ernst, just curious what other site yours department looked at . We looked at several sites in the city and a couple of sites in brisbane and south city and every time especially the sites that were in the city, by the time we even started the conversation they were also leased out to other entities. So there wasnt an opportunity to rent in San Francisco and so we started to focus on outside of San Francisco to have the elections warehouse. The brisbane sites didnt meet what we needs and south city site dtn dtn and [tk rpbt ] and the port came forward and offered pier 31 as a location to move from pier 48. Thank you, i just wanted to know what level of Due Diligence went into looking for the alternative space. Deputy City Attorney jon givner again. A technical point, but right now these funds full 2. 5 million have been appropriated to the departments budget, and placed on reserve if release 2. 1 million. The remaining 400,000 will still be in the department of elections budget on budget reserve. So the action you would be taking today wouldnt be to return it to the general fund. That would require an act of the board to deappropriate it from the department and return it and appropriate it to other purposes. So if you release a portion of it, the remaining portion will still be on Budget Committee reserve. Thank you for the clarification. Again, the department would then have to come back to the budget and finance committee if any additional funds were needed. So i think our recommendation is consistent with what the City Attorney has stated. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Lets go ahead and take Public Comment. Ladies and gentlemen, Public Comment is opened if you would like to comment on item 2, please do so. Any member can come up. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you [ gavel ] supervisor tang, how would you like to handle this . I would like to i guess, well this is a hearing. So i would just make the motion to release the amount that was requested by the department, and as deputy City Attorney stated the remainder would remain in the departments budget. But yes, on reserve still. Thank you. Madam chair, can we file the hearing matter. I will make a motion to fire the hearing. File the hearing without objection [ gavel ]. Thank you. You are welcome. Maam clerk, please call item 3. Item 3, hearing to consider the release of reserved fortunates to the deterrent of environment, for for California Public Utilities Commission Environmental Justice Grant Program awarded in 1998. This is a hearing to release a request to release reserve funds. We have got Guillermo Rodriguez from the department of environment to make the short presentation. Welcome. Good morning, supervisors, Guillermo Rodriguez, San Francisco department of environment and were here to ask your approval of the release of reserve funds for the departments Environmental Justice program. Of approximately 110,000. By way of background, the Environmental Justice program was originally supported by 13 million in funds appropriated in 1998 as part of the state of California Public Utilities Commission and the city as again, as part of the closure of the Hunters Point power plant in the bay view. During the past 14 years, the board has approved releases of funds. Over the years to support the Environmental Justice program at the department. We have done an amazing amount of work with communitybased organizations over that 14 years from replacement of refrigerators, lighting, solar, the development of the ecocenter out at heron heads park and just been a Wonderful Program this. Is the final allocation of what remains of that program 14 years ago. Its for 110,000 to support staffing at the department for Environmental Justice program. The current programming that we have at the department is for the funds to support our efforts on the continued expansion of the bluegreenway. And the brown field assessments that were helping with. Our efforts to reduce toxic pesticides and use, and improve integrated Pest Management and Affordable Housing, our work on addressing Illegal Dumping in the bayviewHunters Point neighborhood and support for the bayviewHunters Point task force and we wanted to acknowledge and thank over the years the Budget Legislative Analyst Office for their efforts to work with us in producing reports over 14 years. To this committee, and we wanted to thank them. There is a report and again, we hope that you support the request. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Rodriguez. Well look to the bla to hear this report. Yes, madam chair, supervisor tang, supervisor fewer, to allocate 110,026 for two positions working on the Environmental Justice program and do recommend that you approve request of the release of 110,o26 on reserve. Thank you very much for that report. All right. Were going to go to Public Comment. Anyone wanting to speak on item 3, please come up . Seeing no Public Comment, Public Comment is closed [ gavel ] thank you. Supervisor tang, could we have a motion. All right. So ill make a motion to release the reserves of 110,026 and then file the hearing. Thank you without objection [ gavel ] okay n. Item. Item no. 4, resolution approving the cooperative agreement between San Francisco and caltrans concerning the zion and construction of the lombard street vision zero project between francisco street and van ness avenue. Thank you, we have shane karens to present from public works. Welcome. Good morning, supervisors. Im shannon from public works to enter into cooperative agreement with caltrans for the design and construction of the lombard street vision zero project. This project features pedestrian and transit curb extensions, as well as sewer and Water Infrastructure improvements funded by the puc. The project extends along lombard street, which is state route 101 from van ness avenue to richardson and francisco street. The cooperative agreement specifies the terms and conditions for the citys design and construction of the project, and for caltrans to provide review and approval of the design document and issue an encroachment permit. May 10th, 2016 the board of supervisors adopted a resolution approving a cooperative agreement between the city and caltrans for the project initiation document or pid for the lombard street vision zero project and it was the first phase in approval for this project and this cooperative agreement im seeking your approval today will be the finality cootive agreement between the city and caltrans. There are no funds exchanged as part of the this agreement. As stated may 25, 2016, the director of public works recommends the board approve this cooperative agreement. Lets go to the budget legislative analyst to hear the report. On page 20 of our report we report under the proposed cooperative agreement the city is responsible for Environmental Design and Construction Cost of the project estimated to be 11,095,215 and those funds previously appropriated by the board of supervisors in the public works budget and we recommend that you approve this resolution. Thank you. Supervisor tang, i dont know if you have any questions for staff . No. Okay well go to Public Comment at this time. Thank you, ms. Karens. Public comment is open for item 4. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed [ gavel ]. Ill make a motion to send forth this resolution with positive recommendation to the full board. Thank you. Motion accepted. Thank you. [ gavel ] and passed unanimously. Item 5, please. Item no. 5, ordinance amending the administrative code to move the local hiring policy from chapter 6 to a new chapter 82 set mandatory participation levels for project work hours permanently at 30 per share for all projects covered by the policy, clarify language regarding application of the policy to projects outside of San Francisco, to change the due date for annual reports regarding the policy to april 1st and make other chair cations to the policy. Thank you. We have got supervisor fewer, who is sponsor for the item. Welcome. Thank you very much. Supervisor cohen, i have been a strong support of local hire at my tenure at the school board and to ensure our local residents get jobs from our projects. Its the best tool we have for reducing unemployment and bring Economic Equity to some of the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. Reports show that the policy has proven to be an highly effective job in guaranteing good paying jobs for residents. Were looking to clarify how the regulations are presented in code and also a reaffirmation to our commitment to local hire. The percent of hours each project must use local employees will be kept at 30 to reflect how strong the current Construction Market has been. This percentage has been maintained the past two years because the number jobs make it difficult to shoot for higher levels. There legislation does not contemplate ever going lower than 30 and would include language to make it clear that the board in the future can adjust upwards. Moving to chapter 82 will help to avoid confusion. Local hire regulations are current currently contained in administrative code, public works contracting policies and procedures, local hiring now applies to more than public works contracts and the city extended the policy to apply to Construction Projects on cityowned property and on cityown Properties Sold for housing development. It was still applied to Affordable Housing section and the section states that project must comply with chapter 82. I would like to thank former Supervisor John Avalos for authoring the local hire legislation and of course local hire would not have happened without the tireless advocacy of in organizations including several bayviewbased groups and to thank brightline defense for bringing this amendment forward. Im requesting that this committee adopt a small set of amendments that i have distributed, that include cleanup of typo, as well as language in the findings section that reflect were still committed to the aspirational goals of the original legislation, and retain the ability to adjust hiring percentages up, should Market Conditions call for it. One line 15 page 28, add chapter 28 local hiring policy for construction. This is a title of the chapter. So it should by in all caps of the starting line 6, page 30. Revisions to the redline document revising the last findings in section 822 e. 3 line 18, page 34 in the second to last line section 28 2. 5b4, change subsection 85. 5c4 to subsection 82. 5b4. 4, line 7, page 48 in the beginning of the third line down, section 82. 9e, remove the comma after 2011. I will now call up director of the office of labor standards and enforcement, pat mulligan who will speak to this and also make himself available for questions. Thank you very much, supervisor fewer. Welcome, mr. Mulligan. Thank you, supervisor cohen and supervisor fewer and supervisor tang. First, thank you for your remark as round local hire, supervisor fewer. So local hire has been a real benefit to the city and county of San Francisco, both to community, labor, and business. It is successful as a workforce training program, and as a policy, but its been successful as a legislative process. When local hire was first introduced by the board of supervisors six years ago, this was unchartered to the. Territory and no other municipality had adopted local hiring mandates so aggressive with such specific language and with severe liquidated damages and appropriately so the board of supervisors included review periods to make accommodations going forward, because of some of the uncertainty around implementation. Board of supervisors utilized that legislative process, and there have been four changes to the policy over the last six years. Twice to make adjustments around the percentage, movaling forward. But there is expansions in local hire to include private development on cityowned property and on property that is transferred by the city and county of San Francisco. Consistent with that language, before you today is really administrative housekeeping. Were moving the language, so its in a more secured place legislatively, into chapter 82, out of chapter 6 and really kind of outgrowth simply applying to City Infrastructure projects. Similarly, there is some cleanup for the consolidation of changes made by resolution, that may be difficult to find for some people who are less familiar with the legislative process. And lastly, to establish 30 as the mandatory hiring requirement. This is a recommendation that is supported by market analysis, by staff, by city build and the office of economic and workforce development. And also, by the advisory committee, which includes representatives both from community, labor, affected city departments, and business. It has been the charge of the city to ensure the continued success of this policy, and it is our opinion that this amendment is necessary to achieve this, and we urge your support. Thank you. Thank you, were grateful for supervisor avalos for bringing this landmark legislation. Thank you, anything else . Any questions . I dont think so. I think its pretty straight for the record and were going to go to Public Comment at this time. Ladies and gentlemen, if you are here to comment on item 5, please come up. You will have two minutes, the soft chime indicates 30 seconds remaining on your time. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, i would like to say welcome and im David Johnson the business agent for local 300, cement masons and we support local hire. I personally have worked with classes, with city build, providing training and curriculum and structure for local residents, including saturday classes, which i personally instruct myself as a business agent to help with the local hire. Its very important to us, because its an opportunity to help all of our local contractors, who are definitely affected by this amendment, and this law of local hire. So i urge the committee to definitely support this amendment, and we look forward to the continuation of this program. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Good morning, supervisor. My name carlos durant, field representative for carpenters local 22 and i just wanted to say were in full support of this amendment. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Hello, my name is chad and speaking on behalf of local 261 and were speaking in support of this policy at current rate of 30 that is being proposed. Any time that we have the opportunity to provide jobs for the workingclass, and keeping people in San Francisco, we jump at that opportunity. And its also a dwindling class that were trying to bolster and its specifically marginalized communities that were trying to keep here. So we want to thank supervisor fewer for sponsoring this piece of legislation and were in support. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning, madam chair, supervisor yee and supervisor fewer, i want to thank you for putting this legislation forward and i had the honor to serve on the mayors Advisory Board and tell you that the committee had a thorough communication discussion on the facts presented and to thank the hard work of the staff the oed and providing us the data to have a proper discussion. We discussed some of the failures and some of the successes that have come with local hire and i think out of gate was confusing for people. As said before it was landmark discussion. It wasnt something that anybody had any experience with. But we have had some excellent successes in the Industry Partnerships growing over the years since it was introduced. Some of the things listed in our meeting, laborers have certified multicraft core curriculum instructor and direct entry and carpenters, iron workers and cement mason as david spoke to earlier and the crafts that have testentry, ibew local 6 and our Industry Partners and jtc have adopted amendments to the plan, where someone successfully completing city build can go straight to interview without having to test in. So we see there is a lot of work to do and well continue to grow with the program, but it has been successful. We think that the 30 is a prudent choice right now. As we expand opportunities for local residents through things, like citywide pla, well actually have more opportunities and in closing to say as far as the success of local hire and our ability to do outreach, 43 of the apprentices registered for local 6 are San Francisco residents now. So i think we have increased [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ] thank you. Thank you john. Next speaker, please. Im field representative for carpenters local 22, the carpenters have been supportive more than [tkwraerpbz ] ago and among the earliest supporters of local hire legislation and continually assisted in implementation. We have tracked its progress and supported all previous legislative changes adopted by the board. This amendment before you today is critical to the continued success of this policy and we urge your support. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Good morning. Eddie, ed he had of brightline. Here first of all to laud the success of Supervisor John Avalos for achieving this land mark policy. We have seen an incredible increase in local hiring due to the passage of mandatory local hire which was originally diping to 20 under good faith to roughly 3741 with 7. 5 million work hours recorded. Its a remarkable success made in large part by buyin from the construction trades and catalog coalition committed to this and for that, we would like to honor his achievement. Second, we would like to thank supervisor fewer for taking this issue and her experience as a champion of local hire at the School District makes her an excellent champion and to washingtchdog this to make sure its met and exceeded and to lead to other industries as winstonsalem. The mandatory local hire policy in construction has been a model for other policies across the country and were additionally interested in how that can be applied to industries such as the tek industry . When we look at how Economic Development can benefit lowincome communities, communities of color, our communities, we would like to see the continued investment of this bdr. Thank you. Board of supervisors. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning members of the board, im here today so support this legislation. I can remember 11 years ago when this whole thing called local hire started right in the bayviewHunters Point at the formerly known pg e power plant, which we just opened up a new project that opens up the shoreline connecting the herons head and indian basin parks together. Also continuing to use local hire as a mechanism for any and all the operations that pg e has done in that project. I want to thank supervisor cohen for her long years of support of these process and so thank supervisor fewer as noted the new champion of local hire and look forward to have you participate more and i just wanted to thank the city and county of San Francisco for being no. 1 local hire city in america and pat, naomi and the rest of the Board Members who fought through this, i want to also acknowledge all of you all. Thank you. Have a great day. Thank you for your kind words, mr. Bryant. Next speaker, please. Good morning, supervisors. My name is jackie flynn the ed of the a. Philip Randolph Institute and to thank former Supervisor John Avalos for championing an effort to draft and essential our original local hire policy, working with Mission Hiring Hall and brightline defense, ycd and also great Strong Community groups like abu and our union trades over the last six years, not only to pass the ordinance, but we also stand in the frontline of preparing the young men and women, primarily from bay view to become tradesmen and women to really build our city. This policy create hundredses of jobs, as you have heard, and establishes a program to create longterm change in the city. This policy was ambitious, one of the first of its kind and in spirit of Holding Public projects accountable for good faith effort and im here in support of supervisor fewers policy to hold the percentage at 30 . Of course, we would like to see more, but its important to analyze the Data Collected over time and to determine the best path and most feasible way to move forward . Supervisor fewer, you have been a leader in broadening the scope of the local hiring ordinance and look to you to continue success of our local hire policy. Ill just close with a very quick story about three gentlemen i actually showed you a photo almost a yearago, supervisor cohen, they were pulled over and all with criminal records coming from the laborers hall, being indentured and they were working at Hunters Shipyard and we appreciate your work and we continue to see efforts just like that. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that sobering reminder. Any other members of the public that would like to speak on item 5 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed [ gavel ] so i will make a motion. I have a question. Supervisor yee has a question. Go ahead, supervisor yee. Thank you very much. I want to thank supervisor fewer for bringing this item to us. First of all, i would like to say the last pla agreement at the school board was made with the provision of local hiring, and it was a discussion i started prior to leaving the school board. It must be in there the pla before that didnt have it and before i left i started the discussion and couldnt finish it. It was really very heartfelt to see at the time supervisor fewer took up the challenge with some of her colleagues and actually make it happen. Now with the proposed legislation from supervisor farrell, the local hiring pieces will be also included in that pla approach. Its very timely that you are doing this, supervisor fewer, because in that in supervisor farrells proposal, it alludes to the provision of it doesnt actually state a percentage. I wanted the 30 and so by having that connection and making it 30 , you know, it guarantees it. So thank you very much. I will be supporting this. Thank you. I appreciate that. Supervisor fewer, any last remarks . Yes. Thank you, supervisor yee, and i just wanted my colleagues to know that i have recommended to supervisor farrell to add in this administrative order no. 82 to his legislation about the project labor agreement, citywide project labor agreement. Thank you. This matter is back in the hands of this body. Supervisor tang, do you have any do you have a motion . I will make a motion. Amend the legislation as supervisor fewer stated earlier and to send to the full board with positive recommendation. Well do that without objection. Thank you. Thank you. Could you please call items 6 and 7 together yes, item of ordinance appropriating approximately 2. 2 million of general reserve to the office of the public defender to create a legal unit to defend immigrants from deportation and item 7, ordinance amending ordinance no. 14616, to reflect the addition of 13 new positions in fiscal year 201617 and additional two new positions in fiscal year 20172018. Thank you very much, this item was continued from two weeks ago. Supervisor fewer is the sponsor for this item and i want to give the mic to her. Thank you very much. Supervisor cohen. Colleagues, i know you have heard loud and clear that peoples lives are at stake and that our immigrant communities are living in fear. I know that you understand the urgency of this issue, but today i want to again speak of why immigrant Legal Defense through the office of the public defender is the right choice for the city and county of San Francisco. We have seen executive orders and directives that explicitly target immigrant communities and we have seen i. C. E. Raids in cities and were living in a new era, an era allowing the president of the United States those without documentation are especially under threat and those there detention are awaiting their fate. But San Franciscos intervening and telling trump no to his threat of withholding funding from sanctuary cities and our communities are getting organized to protect immigrant families. We can, and should do more by funding the office of the public defender. Over 90 communitybased organizes and labor and unions and professional associations and clicks have endorsed this legislation as has the majority of the board of education and the College Community board and this is testament to broad support because they know these are people who are actually living within our community and people who are childcare workers and the students, the parents of students that we represent, and serve. These people are actually in our community and they are under threat. The San Francisco chronicle urges to vote in support of this funding and we would be following the footsteps not only new york city, but also recently Alameda County and with that said, i have heard my colleagues kerks concerns about proposal and suggest the following amendments one change the number of positions in the amend to the annual salary ordinance from 13 to 8 in the Public Defenders Office for the current fiscal year and that would allow one attorney four attorney twos legal asants and one clerk. I have worked with mr. Adachi our public defender to come up with the number that allows the officer to build the new legal unit with the capacity to take on 200300 new cases annually and provided cost analysis of the positions from the controllers office. 2, the cost of hiring these eight position in thes the current fiscal year is approximately 183,000, assuming a may 1st startdate and there is enough money in salary savings in the Public Defenders Office to cover the cost of these positions. 3, im withdrawing the sales resultal legislation from the next fiscal year as i have heard from my colleagues a desire to include the funding as part of the mayors boards budget deliberations for the next fiscal year and 4 finally i propose that we accept the recommendation from the b budget and lal report in order for us to evaluate the program and the need ongoing. Colleagues i know that you support the idea of this legislation, and that we have shared values to protect our immigrant communities. I know you are not antiimmigrant and its important this funding will speak volumes and to address the concerns that i have heard and im asking for your support on these suggested amendments today. I applaud the efforts of the city of San Francisco for funding communitybased organizations. But i remind my colleagues this funding is for those who are currently incarcerated, who are currently being detained in detention facilities. Thank you, colleagues, for your consideration. San francisco public defender jeff adachi and his staff are here to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much for your passionate opening remarks. I would like to do two things. First i want to call up the Mayors Office to make a brief presentation and to also recognize the public defender, jeff adachi, if you would like to make any additional remarks, so inviolate him to do. Good morning, pleased to be with you this morning to share some of the engagement that the Mayors Office has had with the Philanthropic Community about this issue supporting immigration and Immigration Services. Beginninging in early november, obviously after the election, the Mayors Office has been in contact with several philanthropic groups to seek out and understand their interest, as well as to share what the city is planning and what the city will be doing with regards to immigration support and when i say Philanthropic Community to be clear, with the Mayors Office having several meetings with in december, january and february with the Philanthropic Community of 60 plus representatives of the philanthropic private community to talk specifically about one, all of the agenda items that the city is doing, including our new investment, buts also our strategis to support, as well as pathways to citizenship in that effort we at the Mayors Office have been working with the communities to respond to their requests about ways in which they might be able to invest and leverage and to look at several vehicles to do that. We have continued to work with some of the local collaborative fill fill philanthropic communities to create funds to leverage the dollars that the city is now doing. Im happy to nuisance the mayor Just Announced in partnership with the San Francisco Interfaith Council, that the city is joining in partnership for a new immigration defense fund. That fund will allow individuals, corporations, philanthropic organizations to give monies to the challenges that we have been discussing and to leverage dollars to support nonprofits and for workshops and for defense of immigrants, and as well pathways to citizenship. Im pleased to have in the audiences, just so you know, the executive director of the San Francisco Interfaith Council. So that if there are any questions later on, to talk about the fund, be glad to bring him up. With that, i also would like to thank supervisor cohen for her support and her engagement, being the chair of the committee, with wanted to make sure that we engaged her to talk about what that leverage opportunity might be . And why these individual and corporate institutions were asking us to create this kind of opportunity and her support and guidance has helped us in being able to select exactly what they asked for. An agency that is welltrusted. An agency that has a long history of being able to work in this particular area. An and agency that we as a city have partnered with on several efforts like this. Just recently about a yearandahalf ago, two years, we partnered with the San Francisco Interfaith Council to create the Navigation Centers fund. And that kind of example and that kind of leverage shows their ability to one, gather the dollars on behalf of the private institutions, but two, to work with the city to leverage the work that were already doing. Ill stop there and available for any questions that you may have, either about the efforts that we have worked with the nonprofit phinfill an Philanthropic Community, but ind regards to the new fund. Im curious to know when well see this money and be able to actually so that the money will actually materialize into a person or some kind of direct action . Supervisor cohen, the way the fund works we have created a fund we meaning the Mayors Office and the supervisors and asking everybody to give to that cause and donors individually or corporations will resume out [raoefrp ] reach out to the funds. The Interfaith Council is a Nonprofit Organization with the capacity to receive donations for these particular purposes and the growth of that fund in terms of how many people give funds to support that . In regards to interest, one reason we created from specific private donors and corporations saying they wanted an entity independent outside of the city, but working in collaboration and leverage with the city to be able to do that. That is what the mayor is doing right now, is facilitating that process, to have folks give to the fund. I can appreciate the kind words that you gave me, but to share that accolade with supervisor fewer, who began to talk about it in a very conceptualized manner. One thing we discussed about what this fund of money would look like is who would be donating . I know you personally are reaching out to the Philanthropic Community, but what about the other counties . The mix of detainees here in northern california, coming from all over different counties. Do we see a willingness for contribution from Alameda County . Contra costa county and the other counties in the ninecounty bay area . I will be honest in the conversations that we have directly with those who have shown interest, they are talking about funding efforts within San Francisco. That does not limit them from funding efforts across the ninebay area counties as just suggested. One of the opportunities or the strength of having such a fund is the flexibility of that independent fund to be able to fund across the nine counties. I can appreciate that, but the purpose in my opinion of the fund is to galvanize support from other surrounding counties of those detained in San Francisco county are not solely San Francisco county, but still people in need of due process and still in need of representation. So i guess my question again i will pose it have we or do we have intentions of reaching out to the other surrounding countis who have members of their countis who are in detention, that are in custody here in our county . Will they also be contributing to the defense of these people . Supervisor cohen, the intent of the fund is to reach for private dollars. So the folks that were talking to, corporations, or individual donors, they stretch beyond the nine counties. So we have extended that request to all of them. The clarification im trying to make in terms of the fund itself has the capacity to be able to distribute anywhere within that area that you are speaking of. In regards to who puts money in the fund . Its not the Public Institutions were reaching out to and its not Alameda County. Its not contra costa county, but the private corporations and some are local, some statewide and some national in size, but were asking all of them to give to this particular fund. So that it can serve those priorities that we have been talking about throughout this discussion. Okay. So these are San Francisco donors that are going to be contributing and correct me if im wrong, the dollar goes to everyone . The decision where the dollar goes is the decision of the San Francisco Interfaith Council and they are working in partnership with the city to identify what agenciess and services are in need of those dollars . In this union, is there a representative from the Public Defenders Office, also making helping to shape where and how the dollars will be allocated . Not in the discussion that you are talking about. Were in partnership with the San Francisco Interfaith Council. The Interfaith Council and their board are the ones who actually run the fund. Thank you very much, supervisor yee. Thank you. Good questions. Thank you. So just to clarify, and i think i know your intent coming from the foundation world. Whether its a private foundation or Community Foundation or private citizen, they could be living anywhere and donate to this fund, even the title San Francisco foundation for instance, Community Foundation, which is based in San Francisco. They choose to contribute to this fund that indeed, San Francisco Foundation Actually serves more than San Francisco and serves several counties around here. So i get that piece. There is an understanding that this is a regional issue, and that people that are going to contribute to this understand that its trying to address a regional issue is that correct . Supervisor yee, that is correct. First of all in your first point, the fund will be contributed to by anyone, someone who is international, someone across the country or can be someone local that can put money in the fund. The capacity of the fund as i was explaining a little earlier is that the distribution can be made anywhere. The focus of the request that we had that helped to us create the idea of the fund and thank you, supervisor cohen for mentioning, supervisor fewer. Yes her efforts to reach out to talk about the creation of a fund and effort to thank her and congratulate her as well. The questions we got from specifically those individuals, or potential donors what specifically will the fund le able to reach items, programs within San Francisco and the answer to that is yes. In terms of your second point, the distribution can occur anywhere within the bay area or ninecounty bay area or the region that we feel that the that the San Francisco Interfaith Council feels is an urgent need. The followup question would be that and i know its very difficult to project or predict how big this fund can be, unless you have some indications from particular donors that is a well we have at least 2 million already. Did you have that . Supervisor yee, i do not have an estimation. Okay. But i do want to make a point that i apologize if i have not made clear the fund could be used for funding defense. And specifically for the kinds of things that the Public Defenders Office has asked for. The fund is not limited to a smaller area and says it cannot be funded for these particular things around immigration and if i was not clear about that, the flexibility of this fund allows for those particular types of uses. So which is good clarification and a lot of what you can do with it is dependent on how much you can raise. A related question, because you mentioned it, there was another activity that was setup to collect funds, which is the Navigation Centers. Yes, sir. How much was collected for that . Supervisor yee. Since its been going on for a while. The original amount was approximately 3 million. And since its initial creation, we have had several other millions provided for this creation of the additional Navigation Centers. But the initial amount when we partnered with San Francisco Interfaith Council was 3 million. Which gives us anyway, the scope of well how much can there be . The last question really is related to what you just said, which is, again, myself having very little experience in the foundation world, understand what is going on . People will make initial sort of gifts, and at some point, usually maybe two, three years out, the gives moves over to some other activity. So i think we all have to understand whatever we get from these donations, that they are onetime only generally. They are not something to support ongoing activities. So i want to be sure that i throw it out there, not wanting to have people think, okay the 3 million, wow it must be every year its 3 million. That is not the case. Supervisor yee, you are exactly correct and i appreciate you making the point and to clarify another thing you brought up. Part of the creation in the fund and the fund this way was because of the potential investors in the fund have asked a series of questions. Some funders will give to government directly and some will not give to government directly at all and some funders asked specifically for an independent agency. That partnership with San Francisco Interfaith Council gives us that opportunity to do that. To your specific pointly also say we also have to remember something about donors intent and they are giving the dollar to the wide spectrums of issues that i just talked about. But the donor may say to go to this and that limited area to your last point about this being onetime. Often these kinds of efforts are onetime gifts that are given. Whether they be by individuals or corporations, large private institutions themselves. Some may give multiyear, but often to a fund, what they do is give a lump sum amount and they wait to see how the situation is, and they may give once again, but not generally giving every year. So i think the points you brought up are really important and i appreciate the opportunity to clarify how such a fund works. That last point was just to make sure we understand that if were thinking that this fund could fund any ongoing thing for a good length of time, that we have to be really careful with that motion. Sure. I can actually have my comments after the Public Comments since i know he is on a time schedule. Thank you for your consideration. I would like to bring up mr. Jeff adachi, welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Would i would just like to specifically address the questions that you raised after the last hearing. If we can go to the first slide. Overhead, please. One question that the board had was of the cases of detained immigrants in the San Francisco court, how that would be distributed amongst other agencies, who are doing detained work . In our original proposal, i understand where were at now and we originally requested 10 attorneys and 7 support staff and i understand from speaking to miss whitehours house the Mayors Office is proposing two and supervisor fewers proposal would strike somewhat of a balance, but we would want at least one more support staff to balance the ratio of attorneys to support staff. Being that as it is, that would reduce the number of cases that we were able to handle to about 200250. The nonprofits with the funding provided by the Mayors Office would be at about 80 cases, and again, there are three nonprofits funded by the city, who provide detention services. The Public Defenders Office and Alameda County has four funded positions. And so that would be about 120 cases according to their estimates. The santa clara public defender has not yet committed yet, but were hoping that they will. And that would still leave a large number of cases where individuals would not receive representation. But i wanted to make it very clear, that as public defender, i will commit to advocating in all of the other counties. And there are over two dozen counties, most of them very small, but the larger ones, sacramento, contra costa and san mateo and santa clara and to advocate for them to also provide legal representation to detained immigrants. The other question that was asked, why should San Francisco provide representation to detainees who live outside of San Francisco . San francisco was s one of 60 what they call base cities nationwide where Immigration Courts are located and that is really the biggest reason, because legal representation is usually provided at the courthouse location. Its that way in our criminal courts and all over our county and because we happen to be in San Francisco, people have no choice except to attend or to be subject to the jurisdiction of the San Francisco court. Also as you know, 256,000 people commute to San Francisco every day, because its such an expensive city, many people who work here, have family here, cant afford to live here. So they live outside, and even according to the most recent census, 27 of people who left San Francisco between 20102014 settled in bay area cities. 25 moved to the peninsula. So nearly 50 of the people who left in that time period are here in the bay area, including many immigrants. How will we decide who to represent . If we have limited resources . Well, this is the criteria that we would look at one we look at a persons connection to San Francisco. Whether they live, work, and have immediate family here . Prior representation by our office would also be a factor. Humanitarian factors such as look ing at whether the family is broken up and do they have children without parents and what are the Health Issues . Are they seniors . Is this egregious Law Enforcement conduct involved, wishing sweeps in this country, were seeing raids, labor violations, survivors of violence and Domestic Violence and to be able to prioritize those cases. We already prioritize cases where there is mandatory defense or Strong Defense of asylum or other immigration relief and also receive referrals from other service providers. In terms of the caseload as mr. Roses office observed to hand a case load of 4060 cases per lawyer, average of 30 attorney hours per case and 17 paralegal hours and 7 Legal Process hours and we need the support staff to allow our attorneys to focus on the legal work. There a letter well receive and i will quote a paragraph from that, its from probably the nations top immigration attorney, marc vander hout, who practices in [stporpb ] and wrote the San Francisco opened openeds is in the benefit position to stand in and provide representation to the detained ip grants before the San Francisco Immigration Court. The offices has a experience providing Legal Services to high volume of individuals in a detained setting and i believe the public defenders proposed model is wellpositioned to create a successful and highquality team of immigration defense attorneys. The other question that was raised is whether or not the other nonprofits, who are doing this work, and thank god that they have been doing this work for so many years. Whether they support the public defender providing representation of detained immigrants . And there is a letter that has been delivered to your Office Yesterday where they say, were grateful for the funding that you approved for the 21sfildc organizations to provide muchneeded services to our community, focusing on nondetained immigrant services. We now also urge you to consider the familis and individuals who are not fully funded, the detains individuals. And you see here, signed by 91, 91 organizations, who support this proposal. So i understand the constraints that you are operating under and certainly, i respect that. You have a tough job. And what im saying today is with the reduction in the proposal and again, i hope we could add one support staff, we will show you that this program is worth well more than what it would cost to operate, and i understand the funds for this fiscal year would come out of our own savings. And of course, you know, we agree with that. And so, again, this is a very personal issue to me; as i said my parents and grandparents were intered in world war ii with other japaneseamericans and even though it was 75 years ago, its still very real. They did not have attorneys, and i always told myself in a was in a position to make a difference, that i would. And so were here today, asking you to support this i thank all of you for your consideration. I thank supervisor sandra fewer for championing this. Thank you very much. [ applause ] now i know all you have know the rules i know you have been in this chamber before and you know you are supposed to use your spirit fingers let me see the spirit fingers. All right, thank you very much. Okay. Supervisor fewer. Yes, thank you very much. I just wanted to address the issue of this creation, and im so glad this is something about a super fund regionally i have spoken to you, supervisor cohen and s to the Mayors Office and im so glad that the Mayors Office is taking leadership on this. Because i actually think its a wonderful idea. Its an idea that will compliment of exactly what i am proposing here today. Were talking about 200300 cases and currently know immigration cases and clearly San Francisco cant fund all those in detention and these are who were talking about. So while i know a variety of activities are really important to support immigrant populations such as know your rights workshops and those things of that nature, i would just caution about the public funding and this is a thing that i think its great that people want to pitch in with their private funds, but lets not separate people, and lets not have the conversation and allowing individuals to say these people have a right to be defended and these people do not. Which i think is some of the trump narrative and i think its an excellent idea and again, i have mentioned it to the Mayors Office and supervisor cohen and im glad there is getting some traction on this. I will say it does compliment exactly what im here today to promote. One, is because our public defender in this current proposal, which is i think a deep compromise, will only serve 200300 and we know there are 1500 people in detention. Our bla report states those people in detention, seven times more likely to be successful if they have representation and quite frankly, we might have four more years of trump and we dont know how many more people are going to be detained in these Detention Centers . Quite frankly, also, the president has also said that he is going to look into opening private Detention Centers meaning there is more people. Also from the analysis that we have seen, were not just serving english speakers, but chinese and spanish speakers and will need Language Access and translation and this is where the super fund actually can be really instrumental in complimenting what we are actually proposing here today. I also want to say that were talking about people in detention. There are people the if nonprofits are serving people out of detention and not everybody going to Immigration Court is in detention, but there are 1500 individuals today, who are in detention. That is a lockdown prison facility. And twothirds of them have no prior criminal record. When we speak to an administrative when we speak to an immigration judge, she says what they come before her, her first statement of defense must be in flood english and i applaud the effort of the mayor, Interfaith Council to get the funds because that funding stretch further to support and serve more people. So thank you so much for your work. Im so glad that were all working together on this. I think the Public Defenders Office can only do so much with this funding. This funding is a compromise. And as we mentioned, only 200300 cases a year when we know there are over a thousand cases that come to San Francisco court regarding deportation and thank you, public defender for your comments. Thank you very much. Let me see, colleagues are there any questions or feedback that you would like to give . All right. Were going to hear from the budget legislative analyst. Thank you. Yes, Budget Legislative Analyst Office, between the two weeks for this legislation we revised our recommendations from priority legislation and recommended reduction in the supplemental appropriation from the current amount of 2. 2 million to revised amount of 2. 1 million and that is basically to account for the fact that if these 13 positions in 1617 to be approved couldnt be hired before may 1st at the earliest and also recommend under this supplemental appropriation a provision for 13 positions in 1617 and the positions in 1718 and also recommend of the 15 positions requested for 1718 that seven of those positions be placed as limited tenure for no more than years. Quick question, you highlight limited tenure for three years. How did you come to select the number three . Three is actually the maximum amount that the allowed for limited tenure position. Thank you very much. I dont know if there is flig else. Anything else. If the mayors Budget Office wants to take a few remarks. Melissa white house mayors budget director and in particular i want to thank mr. Agarta, giving us a lot of helpful information. From our perspective, i think that there is a larger context here. Right now we have 350 million budget deficit. I have been spending a lot of time over the past couple of weekses working with the City Attorneys office with the declaration of lawsuit against the Trump Administration. So when we talk about this, were talking about adding funding to our budget before we have seen the full picture and before i know more information. So we dont take this lightly and really been paying attention to this and something that we said and the mayor said from the beginning, he is willing to and is paying very close attention to what is happening on the ground and will spend more money where and when needed and come to believe since september, there is a need for this funding and will compliment using the public defenders currentyears savings, and the spending would be on top of that. When i think about that, from our perspective, and when i have looked at the numbers it looks like we could cover all detain and nondetained San Francisco residents and pim people in our community as the defender said earlier. That is where were at right now and i think it makes a lot of sense and i think as we have been saying from the beginning, were open to new information and working with the public defender through the budget proximate if it becomes clear that more resources are needed to talk about that for this issue or others. There are many issues facing our community right now and i dont know exactly what the Trump Administration is going to do on this and on health care and many other things and the mayors perspective is that we need to be disciplined and prepared for us in future. Thank you very much. Lets go to Public Comment. Ladies and gentlemen, if you have come to speak on items 6 and 7, please courtroom. Come up. We would love to hear from you. Its our courtesy to allow our seniors and disabled members to speak at the front of the line. Next speaker, please come up. First off, i find it hard to hear the conversation around the funding for this issue. It sounds like a charity. The United States Government Politics and their economic policies that have created most of the immigrants coming to this country and most of these immigrants, probably 99 are working people, men and women like myself, who are trying to make a better lives for themselves and their families. I think its the policy of San Francisco since its inception that we try to take care of people like this and i was wondering what the nativeamericans should have done to the mayflower when they landed . The rich have the right to, and do buy their citizenship rights. I think its cost half a million right now and trump will probably raise that a bit throwing money into the Republican Party or his corporations. So i really quibbling over money like this, when its the United States Government Policies that created this problem. And the idea that were going to i just heard a report at the Labor Council meeting on monday, from the central valley, and these i. C. E. Agents are just terrorizing the communities. Whether you are a citizen or not, if you dont look like archie bunker, were going to check you out and that is what is happening throughout the country. Over 33 of the population of this city are immigrants. Citizens. And obama deported 2,500,000. Trump wants to raise that a little bit though. So lets open up your pockets and your heart a little bit, San Francisco. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please good afternoon, im Robert Reuben civil rights attorney in San Francisco and author of the sanctuary ordinance in 1989. Just to respond to one thing that was just said. I think the problem with the native americans that they had bad immigration laws and that was probably the consequence of everything that has happened since. But i would urge the board in this regard that delays defeat. If you delay or you dont fund this program to the maximum extent possible, well lose people who will not come back. These are folks who are going to go forward in their deportation hearings without representation. You heard supervisor fewer talk about the percentage of people likely to lose their deportion hearings if they are lacking counsel, and that is very real. These are not things that can be made up. These folks will be deported and in some instances to countries where they will face persecution, if not death. And therefore, i would strongly urge you to pass this piece of legislation in line with what the public defender adachi talked about. I think one other thing that i would like to mention, there isnt a play between what you do here and the sanctuary ordinance, which is that if you dont fund lawyers for these immigrants, we wont know about violations of the sanctuary ordinance and there wont be anybody here to talk about it. So your failure to fund this Program Fully will undermine your efforts for compliance with the sanctuary ordinance and urge you to fund this at fullest level possible and to save these immigrants to persecution or worse they are without representation. Thank you, next speaker. Good afternoon, im the Development Director on 16thing and valencia and anticipating and preparing for the worst and that time has come. We cannot have sanctuary city without universal representation and just like my colleagues said before me, that is completely true. The mayor has spoken on the good immigrant bad immigrant and daca and nondaca and we have i wanted seen an increase of i. C. E. Presence all over the country as supervisor fewer has explained. We cannot just yesterday, dea inspector and i. C. E. Were conducting raid and they are becoming increasingly strategic in conducting raids in the city and there is more investigation. There will be an increase of immigrant detainees. As nonprofits we need the public defenders leadership and guidance and resources to ensure the protection of our immigrant community and i urge this committee and the board of supervisors to approve at maximum capacity. Thank you. Thank you,. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon we urge to support the budget increasing funding for Legal Support for immigrants. As a city we can say were sanctuary and provide Additional Resources to really show our city. So please support the request and help out all immigrants. Its the right thing to do. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please. Hi. My name is tim kingston, the investigator with the San Francisco Public Defenders Office and im here on my own time and strongly support full funding of the measure. They are the people in the streets and courts defending the people. We know how to do it and this funding may increase the workload of the investigators, but were willing to do that to make sure that San Francisco remain a sanctuary city. Its crucial this legislation support the people in this city. Were all residents. We all need protection. Thank you. Ing thank you, next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisor. My name is andy stone, the director of advocacy pangea services one of the organizations currently funded by the city of San Francisco that provide Legal Services to immigrants and were one of the three nonprofits that provides detained representation. Detention, in fact, impacts entire families and communities. We have arrived a moment of great moral urgency and its imperative take a lead and according to a new york study, 50 have lived in u. S. For over ten years. The fact of the matter is that the detention actually has severe Economic Impacts and financial impacts for the family, and for the entire community. One study from the new york family unity project report clearly states that the program would generate nearly 1. 9 million in annual savings to new york city by reducing spending on Public Health Insurance Programs and Foster Care Services and capturing tax revenues that would otherwise be lost; right . We have to realize the impact of these raids is rippling through our communities and the people are afraid, afraid to go to school and afraid to would go to work and these ripple effects are real. According to a study in San Francisco area, we had an ongoing gap in services for detained immigrants and to decrease this the communitybased organizations worked with the Public Defenders Office to champion this initiative along with support of supervisor fewer. Thank you so much for championing this initiative. Its extremely important, and we have to be bold and make a strong statement. We live in a very urgent moment. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisor, thank you for giving this me this opportunity to speak. My name is Trevor Martin a proud husband of a beautiful colombian immigrant and record amounts of families sought sanctuary from their homelands these dockets move on expedited pace and efforts to process these deportation as quickly as possible. We have a xenophobe there office and i. C. E. Agents showing up at centers and checking ids on domestic flights out of San Francisco. This community is threatened. Their Due Process Rights are threatened by the ability to find attorneys and properly present their cases in court and family and children suffering from these traumatic experiences and having little resources to obtain counsel. Since late 2016 the sf Immigration Court has seen the highest number of families on these. Statistics show that immigrants with representation have a better chance in court and supervisor fewer mentioned the study saying seven times. I found a study saying 14 times more successful. We need to protect those who cannot afford or dont understand that they need representation. We cannot only provide sanctuary, but we must provide legal representation. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please. Translator my name is mariam. We urge you to support the budget request to increase funding for Legal Support to immigrants in the city. As a city, we cannot just say that we are say sanctuary city and not provide the support that we need. That we need to be able to take the real action, the right action to support immigrants all over the city. I also think as god says, were born here. We grow up on these lands and we all have a right to live here on this land. We dont have were not all fortunate to be born in golden cribs. Some of us have to migrate to other lands where were not born to be able to survive and to live and thrive. And i think this is the right proposal to be able to support everybody and give everybody equal rights. Thank you. Hi everybody, my name is carolina morales and here as the harvey milk lgbt club with support of this legislation and think its important to be we are sanctuary and not just say were sanctuary in particular for queer and transgender immigrants who come here seeking safety, not only from other countries, but also from other cities in the United States. Its very important that when especially queer and transpeople of color interfaith with the police at higher rates and that puts them at higher risk to be in deportation proceedings, and we need the public defender to be able oto have the resources to do their job and provide due process to erving. Thank you. Lelo supervisors. Tom, a member of the City College Board of trustees and here on behalf of all six my colleagues, all of us have endorsed and supported the legislation before you today. And more importantly, i am here on behalf of all of our undocumented students and their families. At city college, we have over 600 ab540 students, those are students who through state legislation have been able to, despite being undocumented take advantage of instate tuition here in california. Our undocumented students are scared. They are scared that they or their family or someone that they love may end up as one of the 1500 people being held here in San Francisco for detention without legal representation. That has a tremendous, tremendous impact on their daily lives, not to mention their academic performance. At city college, were proud to be a sanctuary campus for our students. As a san franciscan, i am proud to live in a sanctuary city, and as an elected representative here in San Francisco i was proud to stand with each and every one of you on the steps of city hall after the election of our president , and to say, and to hold cardss saying we stand as one. I want to remind you we all stood there and said that and its an opportunity to do more than speak, but to stand with them. I want to thank the Mayors Office, and our Philanthropic Partners for finding additional funding, but to remind the board of supervisors, there is a difference between philanthropic interests having your back and the city of San Francisco and public defender of San Francisco having your back. So please support this legislation today. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak in front of this committee. My name is claire and im the managing director of a private foundation here in San Francisco, half of our portfolio is Legal Services,. In addition, im one of the founders of the Legal Service funder network, which brings together over 60 organizations in the bay area, all who fund Legal Services. So why do we do it . Because we believe we actually know Legal Services is the most effective povertyalleviation strategy dollarfordollar for every one dollar that goes into Legal Service funding, 7 is recouped. I brought with me social return on investment reports that document this advantage. Legal service invests outweigh the investments in micro finance, Early Childhood education, shelters, food, you name it, Legal Services gets you more bang for your buck. How does to do it . It cancels debt. It sets up support payments. It recovers property. It helps avoid people being terminated from jobs and from homes. So for every dollar that you invest in this project, the city will not only save that money in materials terms of people not come back for Government Fund buck i will see the money in the hands of the individuals. Why is there proposal the right proposal . Its very simple. This is the proposal that will afford the people who are currently being detained the best possible opportunity for representation. These are complex cases. They take expertise. They take time. So pro bono is not the avenue to meet this need. Why are the cbos not in the position to do this . As you heard before, there are only three Legal Services agencies in this community that work with the detainee population and have that expertise. [ inaudible ] im sorry, claire, your time is up. Supervisor yee has a question for you. You made a comment about there is a couple of questions that i have one of them being maybe you already stated it, but earlier there was a presentation of the Mayors Office trying to create with other donors private funding to support our efforts in the city. Were you are part of that . And the other question i have, when you talk about the savings for every dollar spent, it almost sounds like a head start study for every dollar we spend on early education, we save 7 on the backend. Can you explain that . Absolutely. First your question in terms of engagement, we have been part of meeting since november, addressing this issue. Because we extremely strongly believe that the two primary issues here to think about are partnership and capacity. We are eager to be partners in this project and work with the city in order to meet these need. And were also aware of the capacity, which is something that every time i look at a grantee application, im always looking at the capacity for them to do their work and to achieve their outcomes. We know that the Public Defenders Offices has the capacity to do this work at multiplierlevel much higher than the ngo organizations. They can handle twice the number of twices that an ngo attorney can handle. In terms of the number you asked for before, when it comes to how do we know this . I have brought with me an example. This was done by the bayviewHunters Point organization and based on the metric created by the Robin Hood Foundation in new york and able to show direct dollars saving and deferred Dollar Savings from savings that would occur from other clients not going through the same process. Im sorry, im going to cut this off, this is Public Comment and not an opportunity to make presentation and its in repect to the other folks in line. Supervisor yee, your last one. This is my last one. I will make it good. So when you looked at the capacity of the cbos, versus the public defenders and you funded cbos, have you . Absolutely. Have you funded the Public Defenders Office . We as an entity are not allowed to provide funding directly to the government. So as a private foundation, we have to give money to other private 501 c 3 s. How did you come to the conclusion then in terms of them being able to serve twice as many people . So in terms of why our engagement is here because of the grantee organizations that we do work with. As you saw before, their interest in partnering with the Public Defenders Office is why our organization got involved and there terms of numbers were relying on the Public Defenders Office for that information. Thank you. Well have to continue with Public Comment. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is ian figurosi and im here with evolve california, also a board member of the latina Young Democrats of San Francisco. Both organizations have signed on to this letter in support of this ordinance. And i believe this is such an incredibly important opportunity right now for us to not just in San Francisco, but in the struggle for the soul of our nation to prove here in San Francisco that we truly stand for the values that we espouse. I am very grateful to hear about the philanthropic efforts that the Mayors Office is making, and i think that will be a great supplement to this legislation. But its not a substitute. And i think its very important that we remember that we must defer to who is most qualified . And will be most effective at defending these immigrants . And that is clearly the Public Defenders Office. So i urge you to support this legislation and really take a stand for what we believe in in San Francisco. This is is an incredibly important moment and thank you, supervisor fewer, for putting forward this ordinance. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Jennifer Worley and im here as Vice President of American Federation of teachers local 2121 and we represent the faculty at city college of San Francisco. And our union fully supports this measure. We believe that its vital to protect so many of our students, who are now living they are living in terror for their family members, for their friends, for their communities. And the day after the election last november i went in to teach my evening class, and i asked my students, do you want to talk about it . And they wanted to talk about it. And my students were crying. They had tears running down their faces. They were terrified for their families, for themselves. And we made a commitment and i know all of you stood up a few days after the election and said, San Francisco is here to stand up for our residents. We really need today to put our money where our mouth, is and to protect the people, those people who are live in terror. So please urge you to support this and my students. Thank you thank you, next speaker, please. Thank you chair cohen for ensuring Public Comment. My name is vanessa and i too with the organization and young latina democrats of San Francisco. Before i begin, something that i heard recently and you think all of my life, whether its television or film, if you do not have a lawyer, one will be provided for you. Something were recognizing here is that there arent enough lawyers or folks to represent people of our own Public Defenders Office and our county citylevel. While we have a lot of philanthropic folks coming to defend this, its really up to us and our county to kind of further these efforts. Were recognizing here that i recently looked at our own San Francisco board of supervisors website and our 20,000 23,000 clients that the board actually the Public Defenders Office is predominantly 51 African American and we have also other communities that it serves with all of these lawyers, really serving over 60 hours a week to really serve their already caseloads before we dedicate Additional Units to the immigrant defense fund. So we need to recognize its really all ben sugar that these communities are served, wellrepresented, and that we go ahead and put our monies where our mouth is. Thank you so much. I agree with supervisor fewer, that i dont think any of us here are antiimmigrant, and we should really just make sure we can give the Public Defenders Office sufficient resources to do the job they are advocating for. Thank you, next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is dave roarec and constituent of district 1. I am proud that my city is a sanctuary city and i think this is the time when we can set an example for all of california and even the rest of the country with the city defending immigrants who do not have direct access to counsel. An oped this week compared the Immigration Service with its expanded expedited removal playing great power in the hands of agents and abu ghraib occurred as the oped pointed out is poor leadership and now more than ever you need lawyers for immigrants as people as i understand it in the constitution, there is due process for every person in the country, and yet, i immigrants are not guaranteed that legal help. I spent 30 years placing cases in pro bono and know what a difference the lawyers make. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time, my name is angel villas and im an immigrant and my entire family is immigrants and i can tell you firsthand, immigrants documented or undocumented come with one goal, to achieve the american dream. They seem refuge and come to work hard. Immigrants contribute to our economy; they pay taxes. So there comes a time where you have to stand and be counted. Supervisors, this is one of those of times. It is an immigration issue. Therefore, its a human rights issue. So please support this legislation. Without representation, this particular segment of our community are the most vulnerable. They need your support and i hope you provide that Legal Support and provide the funds. Thank you. Supervisors, ian lewis, restaurant workers and 80 of us were born overseas and our union pulled resources for a legal fund, but those of us in the private sector cant do this work alone. Its not just a matter of justice and humanitarianism and the money were talking about is a drop in the bucket compared to the disruption of industries that depend on i am grant workers. Immigrant workers. Please support this. Hello Committee Members, amy aguilar with my coworkers listing coworkers. A lot has happened in the last two weeks. We see the new administration further attacking our immigrant communities and the definition of criminal has become very, very loose. Well start to see priorities deportations forpeople of shoplifting and entering illegally, as well as not complying with the final orders of removal. We know that a lot of times that means family separation and returning to countries where peoples lives are atrisk. And so for this reason, i also want to thank you for providing funding to various immigration legal organizations and Community Groups to continue to do the immigrant rights protection and work in the city. But also, we think its really important now that criminals is being defined very loosely, that we continue to support the Public Defenders Office, who has the expertise and in criminal law and can further support our Immigration Attorneys in the city of San Francisco. They also have the economy of scale; they have the capacity, and theyll be able to provide a lot of support for our immigrant communities. So we hope that you also will support the supplemental funding for the Public Defenders Office. Thank you. Thank you, ladies. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Pablo from Community United against violence in the mission district. Im sorry, what is the name of the organization. Kuus Community United against violence. So in my mind i am echoing what has been said already. We work with survivors of violence and Police Discrimination and for us its a moment of intense concern for our clients. The majority of our clients are immigrant, monolingual, with cases of asylum and some undocumented and some had brushs with the law and some have criminal records. Were intensely concerned for our clients and for folks who call our support line asking what to do. Were not lawyers. We may connect you, but we dont have that expertise and i think what the community is asking for the city to bulk that up expertise and basically were playing catch up. Were playing catchup with what the previous president ial the previous president did of creating a system, and smoothing out that system that trump has now inherented. N inherited our clients sometimes dont have a clue what their next steps are. Were not legal experts, but were in the moment providing support to survivors who are also atrisk of potentially not being able to go and do a Police Report for Domestic Violence for fear that they are going to be picked up. This is where were, playing catchup and we hope this will pass. Thank you, supervisor fewer. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Supervisors, and chairwoman cohen, i first want to thank you for supporting our sanctuary city and supervisor cohens recent legislation regarding muslim registry. My name is laurel, im the secretary of the San Francisco latina Democratic Club, one of the 96 organizations that signed on in sunday of this funding. In support of this funding. Im here today as a mother and grandmother and care deeply about the individuals being ripped from their familis and communities. Im here to urge support for the Public Defenders Office to provide counsel. You may be saying lets wait and see what happens . But there is no time to wait. Approximately 1500 individuals are being held in detention today. Were not a sanctuary city if we continue to allow this to happen. Lets send a strong message to washington, d. C. , that we will not look the other way, when members of our community are detained. Please send this budget request to the board with your full support. To delay this request puts human lives atrisk. Were better than this. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisor. Any name is jose munuz and that was my wife who just spoke to you. I want to talk to you about a simple issue here. Its a human rights issue, plain and simple. If we dont support the people here that are here either legally or illegally, it makes no difference. I hold here the universal declaration of human rights. And if there it says you have to have lawyers representing you, if you an immigrant, plain and simple and the mayor trying to get funding from the businesses you could have start a gofundme and would have easily gotten the money for immigrants. So i urge support and i hope it passes the board of supervisors. Next speaker. Thank you for this Public Comment. My name is tammy bryant, resident of district 5, and i took the time off from work today, because this is that important. As a private citizen, who was once married to of a salvadoran who fled the civil war, and as someone who works with primarily spanishspeaking immigrants and know how deeply there is is impacting the community. They are fleeing death in their homelands that they love and we owe it to them to give them legal representation and protection. Im here in full support of fully funding universal representation and im so heartbroken its already march and this is still not settled. Every day that we delay, theplore people will suffer devastating consequences. So please support universal preparation and thank you, supervisor fewer for this legislation. Thank you. Next speaker. Im here to strongly urge support for this funding legislation. Have you guys ever stepped into an Immigration Courtroom . I have and i have done it several times for different Family Friends and loved ones. Its a terrifying experience when your family or your friends or loved ones are on the line and you dont know if they are going to make it back after that proceeding . For me, sorry i realize my friends and familis and loved ones were in a position of privilege, because they had attorneys. Whether when i was in the courtroom, i realized the majority of folks didnt have legal representation and i was heartbroken. Please support this legislation and everyone person in this proceeding should have representation and please realized that every dollar that you add or cut to this legislation means lifeanddeath to some of our most vulnerable. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Laura Sanchez and im the legal director of the Central American Center Located in heart of mission. I am here to request and support the public defenders funding. Just to give you some information, every day at the office, if you go by cesar chavez and mission there is a line of people waiting for our consultations and this line begins at 9 00 a. M. I have gone in earlier and its there at 8 00 a. M. And what these individuals are looking for is representation and looking for other types of benefit, but the majority are representation. These are individuals that are afraid of what ifs . They come to my door also looking for representation of those loved ones currently detained and the expertise of public defenders s office will allow support and we urge you to support this increased funding for the Public Defenders Officer. Thank you so much. Thank you im here in duel capacity as legal director for gender studies at hastings and a member of execute committee of the Bernal Heights Democratic Club and both rassing in full support of the maximum amount of funding for the public defender. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. Supervisor tang, supervisor fewer, who is in my district and supervisor cohen and supervisor yee, my name is michelle tong and work with the San Francisco Public Defenders Office. And this issue touches every aspect of my life essentially. Im a child of immigrant parents as supervisor tang. I was a paralegal for immigrants rights project and i was the one with the support staff. I met with peoples family members and did intakes and prepared voluminous packages to be submitted to the Immigration Court and anyone in immigration laws know were talking about filings this thick, inches and that is what support staff did and we were on the front lines. At the Lawyer Committee for civil rights has been doing this work for over 30 years and things have not changed 20 years ago and even know. Like the young lady before me asked, do you have a lawyer to go to Immigration Court for me because the families get a lawyer from ins saying that you have an appointment to face removal proceedings. So they need a lawyer and we have been giving the one page same piece of paper calling these people and its the same 1020 people that immigrants have been calling for the last 1020 years and i am asking that you push this Budget Proposal through. The Public Defenders Office, my office, we are the best law firm that money cannot buy. And francisco, he he cannot do it all himself. We need lawyers. We need support staff. Because he has to drive to richmond and kearney street and as a paralegal in my office as well we need all of these services. Thank you, next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is leila, and im a board member of the San Francisco womens Political Committee and im here today representing Mission Neighborhood centers and we urge you to support full funding of legal immigrant defense through the Public Defenders Office. We have eleven sites across San Francisco, and as an actively engaged Community Center nonprofit and having a long standing relationship with the immigrant community and compels the board of supervisors to protect these individuals. San francisco has a long history of welcoming these individualss and these residents have enriched our community as our neighbors. The students, working professionals, religious and other leaders that shape San Francisco in the city that we know and love. We have a moral imperative and rejects unjust policies you will immigrants should be awarded rights to a fair, speedy and public trail. Trial. The San Francisco public 13 01 57 trial. Defenders office is best speedy and public trail. 13 01 57 trial. Speedy and public trail. 13 01 57 trial. 13 01 59 the San Francisco public 13 02 04 Defenders Office is best Defenders Office is best Defenders Office is best Defenders Office is best Defenders Office is best Defenders Office is best speaker not understood thank you sandy for putting forth this legislation and urge to support funding and believe that the Public Defenders Office has the experience and knowhow. Its a human rights issue and i believe every immigrant should have representation. If we have the Public Defenders Office doing this now, we should continue doing it and not stopping in in way. San francisco is a sanctuary city. We all voted for that. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is maria guien and by way of honoring the previous speakers that were so eloquent, i will keep my comments very simple. The Sanctuary Movement is growing. Thank you San Francisco for being in the forefront of you have shown your best side and inspired others by your leadership, but you now being challenged to show the depth of your humanity . Does your generosity stop at the most critical moment . Do your principles for protecting immigrant families take an abrut stop with Budget Constraints . Especially when we have a sound proposal to fund the sf Public Defenders Office to provide scales of justice we hope not, because who wins if we fail ourselves . Only those who want to impose barriers, build walls and deny a just world. Thank you. Anyone else wishing for Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed [ gavel ]. Supervisor yee. Clarification, supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer. What i have in front of me, is this yours . That is from the controllers office. Its from me though, but from the controllers office. Okay. I thought earlier, when we started this item, you had suggested that you wanted to allow for whatever savings the public deferreds Office Public Defenders Office to allow them to staff up to the numbers this year, which are eight . Yes. Which includes the attorney, four other attorneys and legal assistant and one senior Legal Process person. That is correct, supervisor. And the other part, you eliminated the supplemental, is that what you said . That is correct, supervisor. I would like to make a motion to accept the suggestion by supervisor fewer of staffing pattern that im seeing here, that could be paid out of the savings that the Public Defenders Office has already identified for this year, and to get rid of the supplemental piece. That is my motion. All right. There is a motion. Is there a second to that motion . Motion fails [ gavel ] supervisor tang. Thank you. I didnt want to second yet because i wanted to say a few words first. I want to extend my huge gratitude to everyone who came out, the Public Defenders Office and the organizations and the pioneers of this work in San Francisco in terms of the legal representation, now bringing that forth to the Public Defenders Office. I have so much respect for everything that you do, because you have to exercise so much compassion to serve a community, when a lot of other people probably wouldnt care so much for them. And you know, Immigration Courts, although they are a civil its a civil setting, its feels like a criminal setting. And so of course, sitting in there, we want people to have representation. And i think everything that everyone came up here to say, i absolutely agree with. In my opinion, i heard a lot of comments about we need to put our money where our mouth is, and i actually do believe that San Francisco has done that. We spend more per capita, compared to any other city in the United States to help support our immigrant communities, whether its regarding Legal Defense, other education outreach services. Were doing that and as i mentioned at the last hearing, spending 6. 8 million on ongoing basis, 6. 8 million on ongoing basis to support our immigrant community is something that our board of supervisors supported unanimously, and i mentioned this time and time again, i dont support supplementals, but i supported that. The other thing is that i heard comments about we dont want to delay this. Actually, my issue is not with what the Public Defenders Office because i agree and we didnt even need the aso amendment. So i want to put that very clear on the record, that we could have done that. I know there is a bit of consternation not to delay the funding and our budget season around the corner and to give the Public Defenders Office to get your units up and running until the end of the fiscal year, but and budget deliberations will begin. 90 days per chair cohen. I support the Public Defenders Office and what you were trying to do and were other ways to approach this from a budgeting perspective. The other thing that i want to bring up is that based on the budget analysts analysis of the other counties they were contracting out for the work and were here taking you astand to say i want to staff up the office and i dont care that were going to represent people from outside of San Francisco. I did not have a disagreement with that. I simply wanted to know the data and the accuracy of the facts presented. So all that to say that were very much in agreement. Were puting our money where our mouth is. Were not trying to delay anything. I want to give you the staff right now to begin, and of course, i would like to also go to the Mayors Office, and get their commitment on record. But my idea was to give your office right now two attorneys and one legal assistant to carry through for the duration of this current fiscal year and then when we have our budget deliberations in about 90 days, we can discuss how we want is to staff up permanently your department. That is all im saying. We were talking a lot about the Mayors Office i know that there was some Public Comment reaction to oh, we need to see what other things will come down from the federal government from our Trump Administration . What happens when dph over here, hsa gets up in front of us and the Homeless Department gets in front of us with there are other federal cuts and yes, lives are at take as well for the people that they serve also . We do have to take that into consideration. So in the context of our 350 million current deficit that were facing at in very movement, moment, i think its fair to authorize you to have certain positions right now to begin the work immediately. With that i want to get the commitment from the Mayors Office that as you are going to approving requisitions, my proposal was two attorneys, one legal assistant, limited tenure positions until, again, the start of our budget deliberations for the next fiscal year. Melissa Mayors Office budget director and definitely commit to that. I think its totally reasonable they would also need support staff. So we can commit that well approve those positions as they come to my desk today, would be happy to approve them and to explain from a data and policy perspective why that is the right number. Last time we had the hearing there was a lot of questions around data and we have gotten a lot of that data. What we have observed there were about 1500 people that are detained that do not have lawyers. Of that group, we cant know the Public Defenders Office has told us how many San Francisco residents and i totally understand that. But the data that we do have has shown that us there was a report done by the budget analyst in 2014 when we were considering unaccompanied minors and the report showed vary of lawyers that found 15 were San Francisco residents. So when we move forward the undocumented minors proposal, that actually also had a similar assumption around 15 . We didnt say cbos you must turn people away if they are not san franciscans, which is not what were saying today, but to allocate resources to make sure we take care of our community, our residents, people working, living, and going to school and families here first and then try to do everything that we can as we are San Francisco to take care of everyone else and why the mayor is supporting the fund and getting the resources you in the door, right now using the public defenders budget today, well approve these positions. I want to say that is based on data and policy and its the right move for today. As we have committed well continue to work with the Public Defenders Office and it if there more need or seeing an uptick in the number of people being detained to continue to talk about that. Thank you. I want to pivot back to the deputy Public Defenders Office to discuss the motion put forward. One question and one clarification on process and my understanding that supervisor yee was to make the i just wanted to make sure that is correct. That is what i understood him to say. Is that correct, supervisorsee . On the process point because 3person committee, no second is required for a motion. So if is supervisor yees motion is on the floor at some point in the meeting to call for roll call. Well do that. Thank you very much for the clarification. I have a few comments that i would like to make and then go to talking a little bit about the remarks. First of all, again, echoing the comments that we have heard earlier, thank you to the folks that have come out and dedicated their time. And i want to recognize public defender jeff adachi, who went to Great Lengths to ensure he was here today. He had to leave earlier to honor another commitment. One that he committed to prior to scheduling of this item. And i want to lift up and just recognize a man that i dont know well, but you have come to well in last several year, francisco agarti, thank you for your leadership on everything, sanctuary city, immigration, just exactly what this department needs. Supervisor fewer, i want to say thank you to you, being a newbie taking such an amazing effort on this item and i appreciate you not being afraid to grow in the spotlight. And i also want to recognize your hlc, who has also been just as instrumental and part of this entire conversation. Also i want to recognize the aide in my office, yoyo chan, talking to all the different stakeholders and not to be remiss, supervisor yee and supervisor tang you have incredible aides as well. There is enough aide love to go around. What i heard today from the advocates was very impassioned and thoughtful comments. And i want to im grateful for supervisor tang and her ability to always surmise where we are today and how we got there . Budget supplementals that we have taken in the previous last year, and that are dealing with immigration. From my perspective as the chair of the budget and finance committee is to take extreme precision when it comes to dealing with the budget. At all costs we need to avoid speaking in broad generalities because when it come downs to it, its clear and precise language all the way down to the decimal point. And i am, as the chair, uncomfortable committing future dollars when we are such a world of uncertainty. President trump has already demonstrated by virtue of the statements that we heard today, a willingness to beef up border patrol, i. C. E. , immigration raids, and it hasnt even been 100 days yet. So it would be naive of me and this body to take his other threats not seriously. And those other threats are serious, because were talking around 350 million. In frankly, Home Health Care services, support services, homeless our seniors, our homeless community, very, very vulnerable communities. And i want to be cautious that we dont create a conversation that were often guilty of pitting one against the other. To the advocates, im not going to be able to cast a vote to support the entire request made and put forward by supervisor fewer, and the public defender, jeff adachi. However, i am prepared to move to try to move, because im just one vote to move some resources with a sense of urgence to the Public Defenders Office, recognizing the existing backlog and impending sense of urgency. My approach is a little bit different than supervisor tang, what she is suggesting. And its a little bit of a departure from what supervisor yee is suggesting. I want to put something out for consideration i would like to table the appropriation ordinance. I would like to can i borrow your notes for a second . Thanks. I would like to propose three staff attorneys, and of that three attorneys, one being a head attorney. And two staff attorneys excuse me, a total of three attorneys and one legal assistant. This is for a limited tenure position that will be used with salary savings. And also want to recognize supervisor fewers leadership in heeding my request that we not take supplementals out of line of the entire budget process. So what im proposing would allow us to get through this year, this year being the end of june 30th. And allow the Public Defenders Office to make these hires immediately, and begin to rampup. I also would like to suggest that we require a report come back to this body detailing the case load. I just want you to quantify these numbers that we heard in the presentation today are what i would consider to be round numbers and estimations. I would love for the Public Defenders Office, when we in the next 90 days, when we begin the budget process, to come back and to be able to quantify your caseload . And i want you to justify your request for more attorneys . Can i . Sure, we can hear from melissa on that, miss white house. Thank you, chair cohen and i have to say that right now, at this moment, the first time im hearing this and never has anyone asked me to far to this date, a head attorney verse another attorney and i havent had a chance to talk to the mayor about this. I would be happy to talk to the mayor about this after committee and if were not moving forward its a requisite conversation and there is no legislation to move forward and im happy to have that conversation with you. Great, thank you. So i want to give supervisor yee an opportunity to share his thoughts. Just you said three attorneys and one . Paralegal or staff person, yes. First of all, thank you for offering your solution, maybe, to this and keep the dialogue going a little bit here. First of all, we want to have input, of course, from Mayors Office staff and it understand the difference and although i think im willing to bend more and me not being a lawyer or familiar with working in a lawyers office, but what i would hate to see is that the attorneys not having the correct proportion of other staff that they end up doing the other staffs type of work. So i would like to maybe amend yours to suggest there should be two support staff for three attorneys, otherwise it may look a little inefficient. Its like if we didnt have our legislative aides and what wed be doing all day long . So to make sure that the people that are in the courtroom are in courtroom and not photocopying things. Thank you. I can appreciate that. What is unclear to me at this point, what is the exact appropriate ratio . Is it 1 1 or one attorney to two paralegals . I dont know, i am putting this to the Committee Members. And i also wanted to add to my statement, i forget to mention about the appropriation excuse me the salary ordinance and to see the public defender hire up to his 218,000 salary savings is that the correct figure . 200,000 in salary savings this year. Even . Approximately, i think. Approximately . Yes. I thought it was a little bit more than 200,000. Was it 238,000 . It is, i thought so. Im sorry, its 238,000. That is what i thought. 238,000. So that there is some immediacy there. I see supervisor fewer and then im acknowledge supervisor tang. Yes. So colleagues, i just want to thank you for having this thoughtful conversation and also considering further compromise. I think it really expresses how you have listened, and i think i have demonstrated a willingness also to compromise and also a learning process for me. Around procedure and i understand and i want to thank the Mayors Office for their thoughtful comments. I just want to pushback a little bit about the amount, percentage of people that are San Francisco residents and i want to say no disrespect, but its disingenuous to say its 6 . It ensure our people are taken care of, this is what the beginning of the conversation of dividing us starts. So i just want to pushback on that kind of conversation, and also how we frame the conversation . And also, i just want to emphasize that yes, we do support our San Francisco immigrant community, because you know what . Were San Francisco and its what we do best, but we should. We have 44,000 people in San Francisco that are undocumented and of course we would support them and im so proud that we do, but that support is not Legal Support of people in detention facilities and i want to end last night, yesterday was my 60th birthday and this is the conversation i had on my 60th birthday and they spent the day meeting with their family members who are undocumented and the conversations that they have having. Make sure that you have money in case you must flee immediately and take nothing with you, so you have a place to stay. Make sure that your u. S. Born children have identified someone to take care of your u. S. Born children and those papers are notarized so no one can take your children away. While you are detained in these prisons. Also, save money for bail. Because you will have to get out get bail to get out of jail, so that you can continue to support your u. S. Born children and i think what we have seen here today is testimony that not only expresses the economic i think, costs, of what happens when people are detained and people are detained and not able to support their u. S. Born familis and also, what happens to our san franciscans what we pick up that cost, too . So in your willingness to compromise, i have to say thank you so much and thank you for your leadership, supervisor cohen. I think i just want to leave you with this, is that i know this is a difficult time, and forgive me for being so passionate about it, but last night, when i saw this when i heard these stories issues must say in my 60 years of life and being in San Francisco, i thought would he we would never come to this point, but yet here we have. I want to thank you for your leadership and thank to my colleagues on the board. Thank you, supervisor tang. Thank you. I would be remiss if i didnt thank supervisor fewer for all of your important work on this issue. And again, just reiterating some of the comments made earlier, were in full agreement with you in your intentions and what you are trying to accomplish. So recognizing what i think i heard on the table here, i wanted to say if there is way to bridge all of the different requests here, and that is to request for three staff attorneys, and one legal assistant, and i just want to confirm, because i wrote down that that would amount to 223,000 in current year with annualized cost of 934,000. And that is not with the head attorney position, but three staff positions three staff attorneys and one legal assistant. Im just confirming the costs of three attorneys, plus one legal assistant, three staff attorneys. Thank you, supervisor tang. Were calculating it would be 223,000 in the current year and almost 1 million in the budget year. Colleagues, i wanted to see if that is a way to get the extra attorney . Because i know the head attorney is say cost of 28 6,000 a year including fringe and is amenable to the Community Members three staff attorneys and one assistant at 223,000 for the year and to talk during the budget about making positions permanent. Can you clarify to me what is the difference between staff attorney and head attorney . Some assumptions im making is head attorney is more senior and more costly. Is their job function more. Matt gonzalez, chief attorney at Public Defenders Office, chiefly someone with more experience, leading a unit or one would be of our top trial lawyers. I must just point out that in terms of ratio, when we have looked at the ratio between head attorneys and staff attorneys in our office, we have always been historically lower than the District Attorney and City Attorneys offices and there is already that imbalance, frankly in our office. Supervisor yee has a question what i suggested in looking at your original proposal for attorney versus not versus, but number of attorneys that you asked for originally and legal assistants and Legal Process clerk. So i was suggesting if according to your ratios, that were there attorneys, we could use their time more efficiently if we had you had, not me, two nonattorney staff to help the attorneys and i stated i dont know if that is true or false . Im just going on your original proposal. That is correct. Okay. And one more question if we were allowed if we were to vote on something today that allows us to hire up a few more people, realistically, what is the soonest date you could think you could actually hire somebody . Its not like next week, is it . We can hire very quickly, because its not Civil Service as it relates to the attorneys. So march 2nd, and i guess were calculating right now what were calculate right now is were calculating as if we could hire somebody today . Right. Which means if im asking for an Additional Support staff, you wouldnt have enough money to hire everybody today . I guess in my mind, realistically you couldnt hire everybody today, but it would take a liest a month or so . Think as long as the board gives us position authority, and i understand that the policy decision is that it be with the salary savings that were able to maintain for the fiscal year, than we will make it work. We could hire attorneys, i think within ten days or two weeks, but if that wouldnt work numberswise, obviously, we would stretch that out. So given that, if there is a commitment that would go over to budget this year . Yes. I would still like to suggest to bring one more what do they call them . I see clerks and i see paralegal s } the request was for paralegals and also request for Legal Process clerk . What is the need . I think ideally paralegals. Okay. And the majority of paralegals in our office are trained as lawyers and probably threequarters of our paralegals have actual lawyer training. Okay. So if im understanding correctly, one head attorney costs about 286,000. Hold on hold on. Is that the number for the entire year . So this is until june 30th, is that correct . Im sorry, supervisor, chair cohen, that whole year annualized cost of that one position. What im trying to do here is to develop a bridge between here and now and to get into the budget cycle. So we can have this entire conversation at the appropriate space during the budget process. So my question is there is 283,000 in salary savings that we know that has not been spent. So basically and correct me if im wrong, from my perspective it seems that the public defender should be able to allocate should be able to provide some direction on where or how they would like that money to be allocated . You can still stand. In terms of the number of attorneys that they want to hire versus number of clerks versus number of paralegals . May i comment . Please. A couple of things technically. The first thing i would say any decisions that you are making now from my perspective are likely to be ongoing decisions although we can say well revisit [tpwhupblgts ] process, i have observed that its difficult to bring on staff and lay them off a month later. Another thing to think about is if this Public Defenders Office can hire as quickly as they are saying i was basing numbers on april 1st startdate and supervisor tangs proposal would fit within the 238,000. If it started later or earlier, it to change the estimates. And then i guess i would say [speaker not understood]. In the budget legislative Analyst Report, they actually comment that they have amended their report to reflect figures that would compliment may 1st startdate is that right servin campbell . We are working with the public defenders number to show step 1, i believe the mayor talking about step 5 higher cost and we talk our numbers from the public defenders. When we put it in the budget system, unless we manually bring it down, which would be a discussion with the Public Defenders Office it will be calculated at top staff, a technicality. This is new information and i didnt realize there was a discrepancy. Supervisor tang. Mr. Gonzales, in terms of what level you think you are bringing in these attorneys, what would be most helpful . Its going to depend primarily on what their experience is historically . I dont think that we necessarily have a problem with a step 5 theory when you are talking about a situation of 16 steps. It may very well be that we may even find a position that would start at a position below that. However, i know that for the public defender its important there be a head attorney among this group. Because whenever we staffup, and we always start with those bottomsteps, we just historically fall further and further behind in what is the appropriate ratio between those head attorneys and staff attorneys. So my question to ms. Towers for the head attorney position based on april 1st startdate, what is that amount then . One moment, please. All right. Head attorney in the current year 68,000. And annually ongoing costs about 286,000. Thank you. X when you say ongoing, you are talking into fiscal year 17 . 1718, yep. And there are a set of assumptions to make with these. Im of the mind its not unreasonable to assume that were going to need to continue our defense for those folks that are in Detention Centers. Yes. I mean, well obviously see an entirely different situation with the federal cuts, but to agree it those in the upcoming budget. I think that is why feeling like we really need to pick a number that we think we can afford and we can move forward. Thank you. Supervisor tang. I put out there the proposal for three staff attorneys and one paralegal, but im also hearing from Committee Members the desire for one head attorney, two staff attorneys and two paralegals. I stand by what i proposed earlier, but again, im willing to think about, based on any further discussion some of the other ideas on the table . Supervisor yee . So i think what im hearing from the discussion is that if regardless of which numbers were talking about, if its the 3 2, 3 1 and im also hearing from the Public Defenders Office that they will not, for this year anyways, go over whatever monies they have. And they and do by scaffolding hiring and so i understand that piece. If they hired everybody in ten days they wouldnt have enough money. So it sounds like they know how to manage that. By hiring certain people a little bit later, so they can actually be within their budget. So that shouldnt be a concern in terms of having them go over their budget. They made the commitment not to go over their budget. So i come back to again correct me if im wrong, mr. Gonzalez . When i look at the ratios of attorneys to support staff, is this would it be better or more efficient use of the attorneys with these support staff in place . And in the 3 1 seems to be lower than what you are asking for in terms of support staff . My answer would be yes, just to be totally candid though, the typical ratio between attorneys and paralegals would not be it would not look like that. It wouldnt be 3 2. It probably be more like 3 1 or maybe even 4 1. However, those efficiencies, i dont think you would get with such a small unit. So i think the analysis that you applied earlier of how much you can get from those paralegals in such a small unit would be very successful. I dont want to undermine the position that i support here, but candidly, in a larger unit, those ratios would be different. And then i guess i was also thinking the senior Legal Process clerk what function does that person have in terms of efficiency . That position is not going to be doing direct legal or quasilegal work. Its going to be more of perhaps serving documents and that kind of work, more clerical work. We had obviously made that request because as you build up a unit, youll have those things and it would be better not to have paralegals or lawyers doing that work. You know, in the universe of choices we would always prefer paralegals with a unit that is just starting out, because well be able to get more out of them. Im going to step in for a section. Second. Seraphin . Somebody sent me the budgets documents from june and in terms of staffing ratios in their budget right now they have 12 head attorneys to 80 staff attorneys. So its a ratio of 7 1. Just to put that in perspective and in terms of looking at the paralegals as legal assistants to attorneys its ratio of 5 attorneys to paralegal. Thank you for that clarification. We have gotten a little messy. We have got a couple motions that we need to take votes on. I want to take supervisor yees motion first. Because it came to the board first. I would ask that we have a rollcall vote. I think were all on the same page on what that motion is. Chair cohen . Yes. Im withdrawing my motion. Okay. What i want to do is be supportive of the compromises. Okay. And in particular yours and to suggest to add that one more support person to make it a lot more palatable. Based on the information ms. Campbell has just suggested that the Staffing Levels are 7 1 and what were proposing to have 3 attorneys and to me it doesnt make sense that we step outside of that already established model and we should be consistent. So if were going to be allocating three attorneys, then i think we should be allocating one paralegal to that. So ms. Campbells information was helpful in helping me get clarity and i dont know in supervisor tang wanted to add anything to that . I do agree with that based on information and it because 5 1 ratio to staff attorneys to paralegals and i think the other question was in terms of three attorneys, whether there is agreement or disagreement on three staff attorneys. I originally proposed three staff attorneys, but we can maybe decide on that separately im most comfortable with one head attorney, two staff attorney and one paralegal. Supervisor tang . Supervisor yee . So i would like to backup for a moment. Supervisor tang, you believe i made a motion as well. Would you like to withdraw it or would you like it to go for a vote . Through the chair, i guess i would like to hear if supervisor yee has a preference for one head attorney or three staff attorneys . If they could fit it within their budget, there is some logical argument that you would start with a head attorney, and if they were to build the unit, you wouldnt need another head attorney. So for the sake of coordination and everything else, i would support a head attorney. Point of clarification, mr. Agarte, are you considered a head attorney . No. You are not, really . [laughter ] okay i was the pilot program. Im sorry, i didnt hear you . Mr. Gonzalez, i wanted to address the question about the ratio of paralegals. Sure. I think its important. We have about 90, 95 lawyers in the department and we have entire staff of 180. So arguably you could say its 1 1 ratio between attorneys and other employees. When i give you the ratio, im giving you what is happen in a felony trial situation because were including attorneys that have assignments and units that are outside of the a trial unit. So the support staff in the analysis around that is still very much, i think, what i heard earlier. I certainly dont want you to think that were trying to suggest that the ratio, if you are looking at the entire department, you could argue its 1 1. Its one lawyer for one support person. Supervisor tang has some thoughts. This is just to get us across the line through the nexfiscal year. So i am okay with one head attorney, two staff attorneys, one paralegal, based on april 1st startdate. So we want you to be able to hire immediately. And then have the two items tabled. So you can again have the requisitions approved immediately by the Mayors Office as was committed earlier. Sorry, i take that back, you committed to two positions and were saying three. So that would be my motion then. Okay. Can i make one more comment . Yes. Which is that even though i never worked in a law firm, my wife was a legal something i dont know what they call them. It was earlier on in her career, and what she had were two lawyers that she supported; so what im talking about is not that out of whack and what mr. Gonzalez is talking about seems to confirm what i remember of my wife. Okay. Thank you. So supervisor tang, i think you still had an original motion out. So i will withdraw the original motion and my amended motion then is to approve one head attorney, two staff attorneys, one paralegal, april 1st, startdate and tabling the two items before us, because these can be funded through the current salary savings. I would like to amend that to require a report be made to the budget and finance committee on the case load and this is for the public defender to come back. Madam chair, were tabling item 6 and item 7. Through the chair i thought tabling both because they are temporary positions and well discuss it during the regular budget season . Is that a motion to table items no. 6 and 7 . That is correct. No, supervisor tang, that is not how i understand it. We need to make a motion to table 6. Lets take it one item, although they were called together at the same time. I would like to make a motion to table item 6. I will make that. Roll call. On the motion to table item no. 6, supervisor cohen. Aye. Cohen aye. Supervisor tang. Aye. Supervisor yee . Aye. Three ayes. Thank you. That motion passes without objection. Now item no. 7. Item no. 7 is to amendment the annual security ordinance for the office of the public defender a legal unit to defend immigrants in deportations fiscal year 1617 and 1718. Servin, could you supervisor tang is suggesting that because were using the budget savings of 238,000 for these positions, these four positions that we highlighted earlier, that we do not need to that we need to table this item . Im under the impression that is incorrect. I said that i thought we didnt need to amend the aso and we could table it because they are temporary positions and not because were using salary savings. In a understand correctly two different options here, one is that the department can hire temporary exempt positions that would then have to become permanent in the 1718 budget and other option to create permanent positions. Based on our recommendation our recommendation isnt do one or the other, but permanent positions were hired we recommended that they be limited tenure, which are permanent positions, but limited to 3year term. Of. Those are the two options. So my motion was to make them temporary positions and with the understanding they probably will be permanent through the formal budget process happening in about 90 days and this would also give them the ability the Public Defenders Office to hire immediately beginning april 1st and, in fact but probably the requisitions would be approved like today. That sounds good. I can support that. Thank you. Supervisor yee . I get the notion, but we could decide to make these either permanent or temporary for three years . I guess my question is, if your office is hiring people, and im applying for a job and this says its temporary for two months, im not so sure what kind of people where we we would have applying for this . If supervisor that would be our concern. I think a one or twomonth position would not, i think it would just be very difficult for us. Supervisor tang. I want to clarify request the mayors Budget Office, were not talking about go months [stkwhrf ] its project bayh andum to three Years Limited term and even if we do fix it in the budget as servin mentioned to agree to be limited term, so its consistent. Again, im not talking about two months here. Chair. Please, supervisor yee. What you are talking about if its a 3month temporary, we dont have to get any staff approval i conferred with the head of hr this morning and there is something along the category of temporary exempt position up to three years on projectbased position and this definitely seems like aproject to me. So i believe that would be no problem and i discussed this with hr this morning. Thank you for the clarification. Lets are we ready to vote . Im ready to vote. Okay. Supervisor yee, are you ready to go . Yes. Madam clerk, please call the roll. On the motion . Yes. Item 7. Articulated by supervisor tang. Yes. Supervisor tang . Point of clarification, i just want to clarify, we need to table item 7. Deputy City Attorney is nodding his head and to make it clear, were tabling the item to have one head attorney, two staff attorneys and one paralegal. That is correct. Yes. Aye. Motion by supervisor tang. Tang aye. Supervisor yee . So sorry supervisor, you have to once the roll has been called, you have take the vote and later you can rescind the vote and have the conversation, but you must vote aye or no. But so if we rescind not rescind, but voted to get rid of that, then how does the office, the Public Defenders Office hire when there is no permission, temporarily to hire . Let me suggest at this point you complete the vote and then potentially make a motion to rescind to engage in further conversations . Should not be having conversations during the roll call of the vote. You are either for it or against it. Three attorneys and one paralegal. I will follow our deputy City Attorneys suggestion. Aye. Yee aye. Supervisor cohen . Aye. Cohen aye. Three ayes } thank you, the motion passes. [ gavel ] to answer supervisor yees question, his question is how do we expedite how does one get hired . The answer is through requisition. The requisition of approval and the Mayors Office is nodding yes, which means that once the public defenders have identified who they want, the requisition will be approved. Please. So i would like to clarify one point, would i like to well approve today two attorneys and one assistant and im going to bring the head attorney to the mayor. Three attorneys. Is it three attorneys . One head attorney, two attorneys, and one whatever. Yes, sorry, can i get clarification, im confused on the number of positions. I think i clarification should come from the clerk. It would be one head attorney, two staff attorneys, and one paralegal. So i think two attorneys, one paralegal i would be happy to approve today and the one head attorney i have to bring to the mayor, because i havent discussed it with him yet. Im hearing that is what the board would like to do. That is what the board would like to do and there was unanimous decision. Supervisor yee. What guarantee is that . Im sorry . Its like were asking for something. All right do we need to put legislation to do that now . Is that what you are saying . Im certainly not trying to make anyone upset and happy to talk to the mayor and this suggestion of head attorney came you up during committee and hear whating the department wants, i would be happy to come back and if want you me to come back and report to you, i would be happy to. Whatever you like. I would ask that mr. Gonzalez, with all due respect, Public Comment is closed. We have to deal with this. Im sorry, i cannot allow you im just trying to address im understand that is what you are trying to do. So i will have to ask you not to speak. I would look to the deputy City Attorney any comment that you want to give . No . As far as what i understand, this body took up an issue. We made a decision, and melissa, you go back to the mayor, let the mayor know this is what we have decided. And based on his decision, well take it from there. Is there any other questions . Okay. Madam clerk supervisor, may i just clarify, so everybody is on the same page . Once its tabled, its not pending in this committee anymore and can be revived by supervisor at the board. If you wanted to keep the aso amendment alive in the committee until you hear back from the Mayors Office, that would require the committee to rescind the item and continue the aso item and i dont know if that is what you intend to do, but to understand. Supervisor yee is expressing that is something he is interested in doing because there is no guarantee the Mayors Office would com