Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Budget And Finance Sub-Committee 3

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.. >> we'll begin with our presentation. we're 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 port's 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 francisco-based makers i wanted to add that a minimum of one-third of all goods in the retail leasing space will be reserved for san francisco-based 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 one-third 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 long-term uses. a third further resolve that future long-term uses of the pier 29 bulkhead building beyond the term of the lease and future long-term 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 5-year 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 don't want to put words in the port's 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. >> let's 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. i'm the port's 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 america's 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 re-open 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 it's 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 port's 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 four-member 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. [skwra-euls/]town's previous project experience include chelsea market in manhattan's meatpacking district a food reality and in atlantic which is say mixed-use 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 on-site production component. the proposed retail space will feature displays selling goods, made and manufactured in san francisco, through partnership with sf made, that we're 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 port's planning and development division. in terms of this proposed lease, it is as supervisor peskin mentioned, it's limited just to the bulkhead building and it's considered a small lease by port's 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 we're here not because it's a requirement to appear before the committee today, but we're looking for an early-read 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. it's a great opportunity from the port's 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 long-term 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 short-term or long-term 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. we're very excited about this project. throughout jamestown's 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 at-large. 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 long-term 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 can't 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 mixed-use opportunity zones and pier 29 was included within a pier 27, 29 and 31 mixed-use opportunities zone and the narrative there definitely did acknowledge that active recreation development is a good opportunity. but it's 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 long-term development. the mills project and chelsea pier projects referenced earlier went through a prior in-depth 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 america's cup events at all and the america's 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 doesn't 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 pop-up here in city hall. again, recognizing that there really isn't 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 we'll 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 yee's additional amendment, i would be happy to move this forward. at this time i will make the motion then to adopt supervisor peskin's 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 one-half of all goods in the retail leasing space reserved for san francisco-based 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" doesn't mean it's 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 i'm still comfortable with moving forward this item with the amendments. >> any last-minute comments? supervisor yee? >> i agree with supervisor tang and the "shall" is a very strong shall, if it comes back to you. >> we'll 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 department's 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 build-out pier 31 space for the department's warehouse uses. after many conversations with mayor's office and figuring out how to reduce costs the number now is $2.1 -- just under $2.1 million for the build-out 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 we'll 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 we'll 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 five-year 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 mayor's 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 city's 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 we'll 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 wasn't 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 didn't 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 department's budget, and placed on reserve if release $2.1 million. the remaining $400,000 will still be in the department of election's budget on budget reserve. so the action you would be taking today wouldn't be to return it to the general fund. that would require an act of the board to de-appropriate 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. let's 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 department's 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. >> ma'am 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 we're here to ask your approval of the release of reserve funds for the department's 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 community-based organizations over that 14 years from replacement of refrigerators, lighting, solar, the development of the ecocenter out at heron head's park and just been a wonderful program this. is the final allocation of what remains of that program 14 years ago. it's 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 blue-greenway. and the brown field assessments that we're 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 bayview-hunters point neighborhood and support for the bayview-hunters 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. we'll 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. we're 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 i'll 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. i'm 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 city's 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 i'm 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. >> let's 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 don't know if you have any questions for staff? >> no. >> okay we'll 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 ] . >> i'll 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. it's 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. we're 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 city-owned property and on city-own 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 bayview-based groups and to thank brightline defense for bringing this amendment forward. i'm requesting that this committee adopt a small set of amendments that i have distributed, that include clean-up of typo, as well as language in the "findings" section that reflect we're 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 82-2 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 it's 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 city-owned 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. we're moving the language, so it's 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 clean-up 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, we're grateful for supervisor avalos for bringing this landmark legislation. thank you, anything else? >> any questions? >> i don't think so. i think it's pretty straight for the record and we're 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 i'm 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. it's very important to us, because it's 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 we're 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 we're 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 working-class, and keeping people in san francisco, we jump at that opportunity. and it's also a dwindling class that we're trying to bolster and it's specifically marginalized communities that we're trying to keep here. so we want to thank supervisor fewer for sponsoring this piece of legislation and we're 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 mayor's 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 wasn't 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 multi-craft core curriculum instructor and direct entry and carpenters, iron workers and cement mason as david spoke to earlier and the crafts that have test-entry, 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 we'll 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, we'll 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. >> i'm field representative for carpenters local 22, the carpenters have been supportive more than [tkwra-erpbz/] 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 37-41% with 7.5 million work hours recorded. it's a remarkable success made in large part by buy-in 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 it's met and exceeded and to lead to other industries as winston-salem. the mandatory local hire policy in construction has been a model for other policies across the country and we're additionally interested in how that can be applied to industries such as the tek industry? when we look at how economic development can benefit low-income 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, i'm here today so support this legislation. i can remember 11 years ago when this whole thing called local hire started right in the bayview-hunters point at the formerly known pg&e power plant, which we just opened up a new project that opens up the shoreline connecting the heron's 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 long-term 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 i'm here in support of supervisor fewer's policy to hold the percentage at 30%. of course, we would like to see more, but it's 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. i'll just close with a very quick story about three gentlemen i actually showed you a photo almost a year-ago, supervisor cohen, they were pulled over and all with criminal records coming from the laborer's 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 didn't have it and before i left i started the discussion and couldn't 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. it's very timely that you are doing this, supervisor fewer, because in that -- in supervisor farrell's proposal, it alludes to the provision of -- it doesn't 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. >> we'll 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. 146-16, to reflect the addition of 13 new positions in fiscal year 2016-17 and additional two new positions in fiscal year 2017-2018. >> 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 people's 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 we're 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 francisco's 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 community-based 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 child-care 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 defender's 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 200-300 new cases annually and provided cost analysis of the positions from the controller's office. 2, the cost of hiring these eight position in thes the current fiscal year is approximately $183,000, assuming a may 1st start-date and there is enough money in salary savings in the public defender's office to cover the cost of these positions. 3, i'm 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 mayor's board's 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 anti-immigrant and it's important this funding will speak volumes and to address the concerns that i have heard and i'm asking for your support on these suggested amendments today. i applaud the efforts of the city of san francisco for funding community-based 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 mayor's 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 mayor's office has had with the philanthropic community about this issue supporting immigration and immigration services. beginninging in early november, obviously after the election, the mayor's 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 mayor's 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 mayor's 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. i'm 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. i'm 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 well-trusted. 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 year-and-a-half 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 we're already doing. i'll 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 in'd regards to the new fund. i'm curious to know when we'll 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 mayor's office and the supervisors and asking everybody to give to that cause and donors individually or corporations will resume out [rao-efrp/] 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 nine-county 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 nine-bay 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 we're talking to, corporations, or individual donors, they stretch beyond the nine counties. so we have extended that request to all of them. the clarification i'm 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? it's not the public institutions we're reaching out to and it's not alameda county. it's not contra costa county, but the private corporations and some are local, some statewide and some national in size, but we're 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 i'm 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 defender's office, also making -- helping to shape where and how the dollars will be allocated? >> not in the discussion that you are talking about. we're 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 it's 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 it's 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 nine-county bay area or the region that we feel that the -- that the san francisco interfaith council feels is an urgent need. >> the follow-up question would be that -- and i know it's 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 defender's 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 set-up to collect funds, which is the navigation centers. >> yes, sir. >> how much was collected for that? >> supervisor yee. >> since it's 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 one-time 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 it's $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 donor's 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 one-time. often these kinds of efforts are one-time gifts that are given. whether they be by individuals or corporations, large private institutions themselves. some may give multi-year, 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 we're 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 we're at now and we originally requested 10 attorneys and 7 support staff and i understand from speaking to miss white-hours house the mayor's office is proposing two and supervisor fewer's 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 200-250. the nonprofits with the funding provided by the mayor's office would be at about 80 cases, and again, there are three nonprofits funded by the city, who provide detention services. the public defender's 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 we're 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. it's 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 it's such an expensive city, many people who work here, have family here, can't afford to live here. so they live outside, and even according to the most recent census, 27% of people who left san francisco between 2010-2014 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 person's 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, we're 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. rose's office observed to hand a case load of 40-60 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 we'll receive and i will quote a paragraph from that, it's from probably the nation's top immigration attorney, marc vander hout, who practices in [stpo-rpb/] and wrote "the san francisco opened opened's 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 defender's proposed model is well-positioned to create a successful and high-quality 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, "we're grateful for the funding that you approved for the 21sfildc organizations to provide much-needed services to our community, focusing on non-detained 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 i'm 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 japanese-americans and even though it was 75 years ago, it's 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 we're 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 i'm so glad -- this is something about a super fund regionally i have spoken to you, supervisor cohen and s to the mayor's office and i'm so glad that the mayor's office is taking leadership on this. because i actually think it's a wonderful idea. it's an idea that will compliment of exactly what i am proposing here today. we're talking about 200-300 cases and currently know immigration cases and clearly san francisco can't fund all those in detention and these are who we're 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 it's great that people want to pitch in with their private funds, but let's not separate people, and let's 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 it's an excellent idea and again, i have mentioned it to the mayor's office and supervisor cohen and i'm glad there is getting some traction on this. i will say it does compliment exactly what i'm here today to promote. one, is because our public defender in this current proposal, which is i think a deep compromise, will only serve 200-300 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 don't 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, we're 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 we're 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 lock-down prison facility. and two-thirds 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. i'm so glad that we're all working together on this. i think the public defender's office can only do so much with this funding. this funding is a compromise. and as we mentioned, only 200-300 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. we're 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 '16-17 to be approved couldn't be hired before may 1st at the earliest and also recommend under this supplemental appropriation: a provision for 13 positions in '16-17 and the positions in '17-18 and also recommend of the 15 positions requested for '17-18 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 don't know if there is flig else. anything else. if the mayor's budget office wants to take a few remarks. >> melissa white house mayor's 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 attorney's office with the declaration of lawsuit against the trump administration. so when we talk about this, we're talking about adding funding to our budget before we have seen the full picture and before i know more information. so we don't 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 defender's current-year's 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 non-detained san francisco residents and pim people in our community as the defender said earlier. that is where we're at right now and i think it makes a lot of sense and i think as we have been saying from the beginning, we're 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 don't know exactly what the trump administration is going to do on this and on health care and many other things and the mayor's perspective is that we need to be disciplined and prepared for us in future. >> thank you very much. let's 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. it's 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 it's the policy of san francisco since its inception that we try to take care of people like this and i was wondering what the native-americans should have done to the mayflower when they landed? the rich have the right to, and do buy their citizenship rights. i think it's 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 it's the united states government policies that created this problem. and the idea that we're 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 don't look like archie bunker, we're 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 let's open up your pockets and your heart a little bit, san francisco. thank you. thank you, next speaker, please >> good afternoon, i'm 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 don't fund this program to the maximum extent possible, we'll 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 isn't a play between what you do here and the sanctuary ordinance, which is that if you don't fund lawyers for these immigrants, we won't know about violations of the sanctuary ordinance and there won't 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, i'm 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 non-daca 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 defender's 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 we're sanctuary and provide additional resources to really show our city. so please support the request and help out all immigrants. it's 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 defender's office and i'm 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 we're willing to do that to make sure that san francisco remain a sanctuary city. it's crucial this legislation support the people in this city. we're 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 we're 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 it's 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 community-based organizations worked with the public defender's office to champion this initiative along with support of supervisor fewer. thank you so much for championing this initiative. it's 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 don't 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, we're born here. we grow up on these lands and we all have a right to live here on this land. we don't have -- we're not all fortunate to be born in golden cribs. some of us have to migrate to other lands where we're 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 it's important to be we are sanctuary and not just say we're 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. it's 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 in-state 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, we're 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 it's an opportunity to do more than speak, but to stand with them. i want to thank the mayor's 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 i'm the managing director of a private foundation here in san francisco, half of our portfolio is legal services,. in addition, i'm 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 poverty-alleviation strategy dollar-for-dollar 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? it's 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 ] >> i'm 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 mayor's 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 back-end. 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 we're also aware of the capacity, which is something that every time i look at a grantee application, i'm always looking at the capacity for them to do their work and to achieve their outcomes. we know that the public defender's offices has the capacity to do this work at multiplier-level 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 bayview-hunters 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. >> i'm sorry, i'm going to cut this off, this is public comment and not an opportunity to make' presentation and it's 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 defender's 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 defender's office is why our organization got involved and there terms of numbers we're relying on the public defender's office for that information. >> thank you. we'll have to continue with public comment. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is ian figurosi and i'm 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 mayor's office is making, and i think that will be a great supplement to this legislation. but it's not a substitute. and i think it's 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 defender's 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 i'm 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 it's 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 it's television or film, if you do not have a lawyer, one will be provided for you. something we're recognizing here is that there aren't enough lawyers or folks to represent people of our own public defender's office and our county city-level. while we have a lot of philanthropic folks coming to defend this, it's really up to us and our county to kind of further these efforts. we're 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 it's really all ben sugar that these communities are served, well-represented, and that we go ahead and put our monies where our mouth is. thank you so much. i agree with supervisor fewer, that i don't think any of us here are anti-immigrant, and we should really just make sure we can give the public defender's 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 op-ed 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 op-ed 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 i'm 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, it's 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 can't do this work alone. it's not just a matter of justice and humanitarianism and the money we're 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 co-workers -- listing co-workers. 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. we'll 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 people's lives are at-risk. 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 it's really important now that criminals is being defined very loosely, that we continue to support the public defender's 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 they'll 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 defender's office. thank you. >> thank you, ladies. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. pablo from community united against violence in the mission district. >> i'm 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 it's 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. we're intensely concerned for our clients and for folks who call our support line asking what to do. we're not lawyers. we may connect you, but we don't have that expertise and i think what the community is asking for the city to bulk that up expertise and basically we're playing catch up. we're playing catch-up with what the previous presidential -- the previous president did of creating a system, and smoothing out that system that trump has now inherented. n inherited our clients sometimes don't have a clue what their next steps are. we're not legal experts, but we're in the moment providing support to survivors who are also at-risk 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 we're, playing catch-up 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 cohen's recent legislation regarding muslim registry. my name is laurel, i'm 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. i'm here today as a mother and grandmother and care deeply about the individuals being ripped from their familis and communities. i'm here to urge support for the public defender's office to provide counsel. you may be saying let's wait and see what happens? but there is no time to wait. approximately 1500 individuals are being held in detention today. we're not a sanctuary city if we continue to allow this to happen. let's 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 at-risk. we're better than this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisor. any name is josé munuz and that was my wife who just spoke to you. i want to talk to you about a simple issue here. it's a human rights issue, plain and simple. if we don't 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 spanish-speaking 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. i'm here in full support of fully funding universal representation and i'm so heartbroken it's 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. >> i'm 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. it's a terrifying experience when your family or your friends or loved ones are on the line and you don't 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 didn't 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 life-and-death to some of our most vulnerable. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is laura sanchez and i'm 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 it's 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 i'm 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 defender's office. and this issue touches every aspect of my life essentially. i'm 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 people's family members and did intakes and prepared voluminous packages to be submitted to the immigration court and anyone in immigration laws know we're 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 it's the same 10-20 people that immigrants have been calling for the last 10-20 years and i am asking that you push this budget proposal through. the public defender's 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 i'm a board member of the san francisco women's political committee and i'm 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. defender's 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 defender's office is best defender's office is best defender's office is best defender's office is best defender's office is best defender's office is best (speaker not understood) >> thank you sandy for putting forth this legislation and urge to support funding and believe that the public defender's office has the experience and know-how. it's a human rights issue and i believe every immigrant should have representation. if we have the public defender's 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 defender's 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 controller's office. it's from me though, but from the controller's 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 i'm seeing here, that could be paid out of the savings that the public defender's 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 didn't 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 defender's 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 defender's 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 wouldn't care so much for them. and you know, immigration courts, although they are a civil -- it's a civil setting, it's 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 it's regarding legal defense, other education outreach services. we're 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 don't support supplementals, but i supported that. the other thing is that i heard comments about we don't want to delay this. actually, my issue is not with what the public defender's office because i agree and we didn't 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 defender's 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 defender's 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 analyst's analysis of the other counties they were contracting out for the work and we're here taking you astand to say i want to staff up the office and i don't care that we're 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 we're very much in agreement. we're puting our money where our mouth is. we're 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 mayor's 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 i'm saying. we were talking a lot about the mayor's office -- i know that there was some public comment reaction to oh, we need to see what

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Mission District , California , Japan , Indian Basin , Alameda County , Bernal Heights , Chad , City College , Embarcadero , Washington , Valencia , Carabobo , Venezuela , Central Valley , China , Colombia , Brisbane , Queensland , Australia , Bay View , San Francisco , Jamestown , El Salvador , Sacramento , San Francisco County , Spain , Colombian , Americans , America , Spanish , Chinese , Salvadoran , Japanese , American , Jackie Flynn , Cesar Chavez , Trevor Martin , Ian Lewis , Diana Oshima , David Johnson , Marc Vander Hout , Amy Aguilar , Robin Hood , Francisco Latina , Santa Clara , Michael Phillips , Pat Mulligan , Tammy Bryant , Jeff Adachi , Diane Oshima , Abu Ghraib , Linda Wong , Jennifer Worley , Malia Cohen , John Avalos , Elaine Forbes , Robert Reuben , Laura Sanchez , John Ernst , Shane Karens , Guillermo Rodriguez ,