Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Replay Rules Committee 20170309

Thank you. Got to get that story down to two minutes. [laughter ]sounds interesting, but you have to shorten it down. [laughter ]. Next speaker. Michael phillips the president of jamestown, and i wanted to thank everyone for hearing this today. Were very excited about this project. Throughout jamestowns history we have focused on largely on inclusionary projects, locally made products in this retail space. If you look at our projects that were cited at Chelsea Market and pond city market, the majority of the retailers, food providers and makers are local. I think our track record and our reputation in San Francisco is very important, being that we most all of the people here from our company today including myself, are locally from the bay area, and San Francisco. So i think as we endeavor to follow this process with the port and the city, we want to deliver on the things that are important to you all, as well as to the community atlarge. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed [ gavel ] i want to ask ms. Diane oshima to come up. And maybe you can give a little bit of clarity on the permissible uses . Okay. It seems to be some discrepancy. I just placed sfgov overhead projector, please. Thank you. So i realized that you cannot read the details of this, but for every property in the waterfront plan document, there is a list of acceptable longterm uses that are listed for the properties. The port is broken up into different geographic subareas and pier 29 in the northeast waterfront subarea. The facilitis are located along named along here, but pier 29 is this line. And all of those as indicate acceptable uses in the categories that unfortunately you cant read, but Recreational Enterprises is an acceptable use listed there and the first block is maritime uses and this block is open space and Public Access uses and these are basically commercial and industry uses. So we allow for a menu of activities for consideration for future development of pier 29 Recreational Enterprises is definitely one of those along with restaurants and retail. Assembly and entertainment type of activities and narrative that describes mixeduse opportunity zones and pier 29 was included within a pier 27, 29 and 31 mixeduse opportunities zone and the narrative there definitely did acknowledge that active Recreation Development is a good opportunity. But its not the only opportunity that waterfront plan does not prescribe or dictate that, because we recognize that any development would have to go through a Community Process before you would arrive at what that rfp should be for that longterm development. The mills project and chelsea pier projects referenced earlier went through a prior indepth Community Process that led to that rfp. When those projects were unsuccessful, and the port then turned its eye to looking at pier 27 for a cruise terminal, we basically dedicated pier 29 to cruise terminal and the future of pier 29 shed or pier 31 are really topics that are going to be addressed in the waterfront plan update public process. So even if we were going to be looking to active recreation use development of this property, we would have to take a look at it in a different context, because we have the cruise terminal there. The other thing that i guess i would add is by going with the lease that is dedicated only to the bulkhead building, that does not preclude active recreation as a possible future use in the shed, because the triangular shape of pier 27 29 is unique and allows access to the length of the shed in ways that no other finger pier can enjoy. So if you were at the americas cup events at all and the americas cup village, i think that was a good illustration of how easy it was to be able to access that facility. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. Supervisor tang, i think you had some remarks. Thank you. I am really thrilled to see this proposal before us, especially with the Strong Partnership with sf made and i think that it doesnt preclude the ability for us to in the future, again, to adapt the rest of the pier to recreational uses. So one of the things that our office is working on is trying to partner with sf made, and have a popup here in city hall. Again, recognizing that there really isnt a place for them to just collectively in one area display all of the goods, the wonderful goods that have been made and manufactured here in San Francisco from local individuals. So i am thrilled for this partnership, but well look forward to your future rfps for what to do with rest of the pier . So with the amendments that supervisor peskin proposed and in addition to supervisor yees additional amendment, i would be happy to move this forward. At this time i will make the motion then to adopt supervisor peskins amendments as he stated in the record and change that in the further resolve clause that was proposed that the lease would contain a minimum of a guess onehalf of all goods in the retail leasing space reserved for San Franciscobased makers in San Francisco. All right. Deputy City Attorney jon givner. Deputy City Attorney jon givner and to clarify as i said in this committee and other committees in past, the board by reso when you adopt a resolution like this, sometimes the board amends to add language about what departments shall do. Those shall clauses are not actually binding directives on the department. In this case, the amendments that the committee is making basically indicate to the department what you expect to see when this lease comes back to you for approval under 9 ~. 11 8. And what the department and jamestown have indicate what intend to do, but the use shall doesnt mean its binding on the department. Thank you for the clarification. Supervisor tang. It is a conceptual term sheet and i think for the purposes of this public hearing, our indication to jamestown to the port this is our intention and we hope that the department will certainly abide by this. So im still comfortable with moving forward this item with the amendments. Any lastminute comments . Supervisor yee . I agree with supervisor tang and the shall is a very strong shall, if it comes back to you. Well deal with it accordingly. A motion has been made and take the resolution as amended. We can do that without objection. [ gavel ] thank you. And then i guess a motion as amended send forth to the full board with positive recommendation. Without objection, [ gavel ] thank you. All right. Madam clerk, please call item 2. Item no. 2 hearing to consider the release of reserved funds to the department of elections in the amount of approximately 2 million to fund Capital Project expenses related to the relocation of the departments warehouse operations to pier 31. Thank you. Welcome. Good to see you, mr. Ernst, representative from department of elections will be presenting for us today. Thank you. Good morning. Chair cohen, john ernst, director of elections and the department is in search of a new warehouse leaving pier 38 and the port agreed and entered into an Mou Department to use pier 31. The original amount on reserve was 2. 5 million to buildout pier 31 space for the departments warehouse uses. After many conversations with Mayors Office and figuring out how to reduce costs the number now is 2. 1 just under 2. 1 million for the buildout for pier 31. There are still many questions outstanding regarding the final costs for the project. So i know that the budget Analyst Report indicated that 400,000 reduction ought to go back to the general fund, but if there is a way for that money to remain on reserve, so if there are cost overages to come back at another time to ask for additional reserves. That is very reasonable. Let me ask you a question what do you store exactly in the warehouses the primary component would be the voting equipment. Also we have the materials for the polling places, and the department. Also we have to archive the election materials from up to 22 months, depending on the type of election. So well have ballots and other election materials up to almost two years, depending on the election, at the warehouse. Thank you. I want to go to the budget legislative analyst and hear their report. Supervisors, my recommendation regarding this 400,000 remains the same. If the port can justify if the department of elections can justify additional funds, then i believe they should come back to the budget and finance committee and well analyze it and absolutely recommend support for those additional funds, if they are justified. On page 12 of our report, we point out that the rent for the space currently leased by the department of elections at pier 48 is 82,598, about 0. 95 per square foot or 87,000 square feet and 94,825 or 1. 35 square foot for approximately 70,200 square feet. Although the department of elections would receive a reduction of 16,744 square feet in the proposed location, as compared to the existing space in pier 48, the increase in rent in the first year is 12,227 per month. Total annual rent would be 1,13 7,900, an increase of 14. 8 . We also have a table 2 on page 12 showing total estimated costs of the propose the fiveyear mou including rent and operating costs would be 6,138,464. And again, that is on page 12 of our report. So finally, on page 13 as i just stated, our recommendation would be to approve the requested release consistent with the budget that the Mayors Office and the department of elections has submitted to the budget and finance committee of 2,067,934 and close out the 400,000 400,032 to the citys general fund and the budget and legislative analyst will be absolutely supportive if they come back to the committee. Thank you for your presentation. Supervisor tang and well get to the deputy City Attorney. Thank you, so director ernst, just curious what other site yours department looked at . We looked at several sites in the city and a couple of sites in brisbane and south city and every time especially the sites that were in the city, by the time we even started the conversation they were also leased out to other entities. So there wasnt an opportunity to rent in San Francisco and so we started to focus on outside of San Francisco to have the elections warehouse. The brisbane sites didnt meet what we needs and south city site dtn dtn and [tk rpbt ] and the port came forward and offered pier 31 as a location to move from pier 48. Thank you, i just wanted to know what level of Due Diligence went into looking for the alternative space. Deputy City Attorney jon givner again. A technical point, but right now these funds full 2. 5 million have been appropriated to the departments budget, and placed on reserve if release 2. 1 million. The remaining 400,000 will still be in the department of elections budget on budget reserve. So the action you would be taking today wouldnt be to return it to the general fund. That would require an act of the board to deappropriate it from the department and return it and appropriate it to other purposes. So if you release a portion of it, the remaining portion will still be on Budget Committee reserve. Thank you for the clarification. Again, the department would then have to come back to the budget and finance committee if any additional funds were needed. So i think our recommendation is consistent with what the City Attorney has stated. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Lets go ahead and take Public Comment. Ladies and gentlemen, Public Comment is opened if you would like to comment on item 2, please do so. Any member can come up. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you [ gavel ] supervisor tang, how would you like to handle this . I would like to i guess, well this is a hearing. So i would just make the motion to release the amount that was requested by the department, and as deputy City Attorney stated the remainder would remain in the departments budget. But yes, on reserve still. Thank you. Madam chair, can we file the hearing matter. I will make a motion to fire the hearing. File the hearing without objection [ gavel ]. Thank you. You are welcome. Maam clerk, please call item 3. Item 3, hearing to consider the release of reserved fortunates to the deterrent of environment, for for California Public Utilities Commission Environmental Justice Grant Program awarded in 1998. This is a hearing to release a request to release reserve funds. We have got Guillermo Rodriguez from the department of environment to make the short presentation. Welcome. Good morning, supervisors, Guillermo Rodriguez, San Francisco department of environment and were here to ask your approval of the release of reserve funds for the departments Environmental Justice program. Of approximately 110,000. By way of background, the Environmental Justice program was originally supported by 13 million in funds appropriated in 1998 as part of the state of California Public Utilities Commission and the city as again, as part of the closure of the Hunters Point power plant in the bay view. During the past 14 years, the board has approved releases of funds. Over the years to support the Environmental Justice program at the department. We have done an amazing amount of work with communitybased organizations over that 14 years from replacement of refrigerators, lighting, solar, the development of the ecocenter out at heron heads park and just been a Wonderful Program this. Is the final allocation of what remains of that program 14 years ago. Its for 110,000 to support staffing at the department for Environmental Justice program. The current programming that we have at the department is for the funds to support our efforts on the continued expansion of the bluegreenway. And the brown field assessments that were helping with. Our efforts to reduce toxic pesticides and use, and improve integrated Pest Management and Affordable Housing, our work on addressing Illegal Dumping in the bayviewHunters Point neighborhood and support for the bayviewHunters Point task force and we wanted to acknowledge and thank over the years the Budget Legislative Analyst Office for their efforts to work with us in producing reports over 14 years. To this committee, and we wanted to thank them. There is a report and again, we hope that you support the request. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Rodriguez. Well look to the bla to hear this report. Yes, madam chair, supervisor tang, supervisor fewer, to allocate 110,026 for two positions working on the Environmental Justice program and do recommend that you approve request of the release of 110,o26 on reserve. Thank you very much for that report. All right. Were going to go to Public Comment. Anyone wanting to speak on item 3, please come up . Seeing no Public Comment, Public Comment is closed [ gavel ] thank you. Supervisor tang, could we have a motion. All right. So ill make a motion to release the reserves of 110,026 and then file the hearing. Thank you without objection [ gavel ] okay n. Item. Item no. 4, resolution approving the cooperative agreement between San Francisco and caltrans concerning the zion and construction of the lombard street vision zero project between francisco street and van ness avenue. Thank you, we have shane karens to present from public works. Welcome. Good morning, supervisors. Im shannon from public works to enter into cooperative agreement with caltrans for the design and construction of the lombard street vision zero project. This project features pedestrian and transit curb extensions, as well as sewer and Water Infrastructure improvements funded by the puc. The project extends along lombard street, which is state route 101 from van ness avenue to richardson and francisco street. The cooperative agreement specifies the terms and conditions for the citys design and construction of the project, and for caltrans to provide review and approval of the design document and issue an encroachment permit. May 10th, 2016 the board of supervisors adopted a resolution approving a cooperative agreement between the city and caltrans for the project initiation document or pid for the lombard street vision zero project and it was the first phase in approval for this project and this cooperative agreement im seeking your approval today will be the finality cootive agreement between the city and caltrans. There are no funds exchanged as part of the this agreement. As stated may 25, 2016, the director of public works recommends the board approve this cooperative agreement. Lets go to the budget legislative analyst to hear the report. On page 20 of our report we report under the proposed cooperative agreement the city is responsible for Environmental Design and Construction Cost of the project estimated to be 11,095,215 and those funds previously appropriated by the board of supervisors in the public works budget and we recommend that you approve this resolution. Thank you. Supervisor tang, i dont know if you have any questions for staff . No. Okay well go to Public Comment at this time. Thank you, ms. Karens. Public comment is open for item 4. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed [ gavel ]. Ill make a motion to send forth this resolution with positive recommendation to the full board. Thank you. Motion accepted. Thank you. [ gavel ] and passed unanimously. Item 5, please. Item no. 5, ordinance amending the administrative code to move the local hiring policy from chapter 6 to a new chapter 82 set mandatory participation levels for project work hours permanently at 30 per share for all projects covered by the policy, clarify language regarding application of the policy to projects outside of San Francisco, to change the due date for annual reports regarding the policy to april 1st and make other chair cations to the policy. Thank you. We have got supervisor fewer, who is sponsor for the item. Welcome. Thank you very much. Supervisor cohen, i have been a strong support of local hire at my tenure at the school board and to ensure our local residents get jobs from our projects. Its the best tool we have for reducing unemployment and bring Economic Equity to some of the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. Reports show that the policy has proven to be an highly effective job in guaranteing good paying jobs for residents. Were looking to clarify how the regulations are presented in code and also a reaffirmation to our commitment to local hire. The percent of hours each project must use local employees will be kept at 30 to reflect how strong the current Construction Market has been. This percentage has been maintained the past two years because the number jobs make it difficult to shoot for higher levels. There legislation does not contemplate ever going lower than 30 and would include language to make it clear that the board in the future can adjust upwards. Moving to chapter 82 will help to avoid confusion. Local hire regulations are current currently contained in administrative code, public works contracting policies and procedures, local hiring now applies to more than public works contracts and the city extended the policy to apply to Construction Projects on cityowned property and on cityown Properties Sold for housing development. It was still applied to Affordable Housing section and the section states that project must comply with chapter 82. I would like to thank former Supervisor John Avalos for authoring the local hire legislation and of course local hire would not have happened without the tireless advocacy of in organizations including several bayviewbased groups and to thank brightline defense for bringing this amendment forward. Im requesting that this committee adopt a small set of amendments that i have distributed, that include cleanup of typo, as well as language in the findings section that reflect were still committed to the aspirational goals of the original legislation, and retain the ability to adjust hiring percentages up, should Market Conditions call for it. One line 15 page 28, add chapter 28 local hiring policy for construction. This is a title of the chapter. So it should by in all caps of the starting line 6, page 30. Revisions to the redline document revising the last findings in section 822 e. 3 line 18, page 34 in the second to last line section 28 2. 5b4, change subsection 85. 5c4 to subsection 82. 5b4. 4, line 7, page 48 in the beginning of the third line down, section 82. 9e, remove the comma after 2011. I will now call up director of the office of labor standards and enforcement, pat mulligan who will speak to this and also make himself available for questions. Thank you very much, supervisor fewer. Welcome, mr. Mulligan. Thank you, supervisor cohen and supervisor fewer and supervisor tang. First, thank you for your remark as round local hire, supervisor fewer. So local hire has been a real benefit to the city and county of San Francisco, both to community, labor, and business. It is successful as a workforce training program, and as a policy, but its been successful as a legislative process. When local hire was first introduced by the board of supervisors six years ago, this was unchartered to the. Territory and no other municipality had adopted local hiring mandates so aggressive with such specific language and with severe liquidated damages and appropriately so the board of supervisors included review periods to make accommodations going forward, because of some of the uncertainty around implementation. Board of supervisors utilized that legislative process, and there have been four changes to the policy over the last six years. Twice to make adjustments around the percentage, movaling forward. But there is expansions in local hire to include private development on cityowned property and on property that is transferred by the city and county of San Francisco. Consistent with that language, before you today is really administrative housekeeping. Were moving the language, so its in a more secured place legislatively, into chapter 82, out of chapter 6 and really kind of outgrowth simply applying to City Infrastructure projects. Similarly, there is some cleanup for the consolidation of changes made by resolution, that may be difficult to find for some people who are less familiar with the legislative process. And lastly, to establish 30 as the mandatory hiring requirement. This is a recommendation that is supported by market analysis, by staff, by city build and the office of economic and workforce development. And also, by the advisory committee, which includes representatives both from community, labor, affected city departments, and business. It has been the charge of the city to ensure the continued success of this policy, and it is our opinion that this amendment is necessary to achieve this, and we urge your support. Thank you. Thank you, were grateful for supervisor avalos for bringing this landmark legislation. Thank you, anything else . Any questions . I dont think so. I think its pretty straight for the record and were going to go to Public Comment at this time. Ladies and gentlemen, if you are here to comment on item 5, please come up. You will have two minutes, the soft chime indicates 30 seconds remaining on your time. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, i would like to say welcome and im David Johnson the business agent for local 300, cement masons and we support local hire. I personally have worked with classes, with city build, providing training and curriculum and structure for local residents, including saturday classes, which i personally instruct myself as a business agent to help with the local hire. Its very important to us, because its an opportunity to help all of our local contractors, who are definitely affected by this amendment, and this law of local hire. So i urge the committee to definitely support this amendment, and we look forward to the continuation of this program. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Good morning, supervisor. My name carlos durant, field representative for carpenters local 22 and i just wanted to say were in full support of this amendment. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Hello, my name is chad and speaking on behalf of local 261 and were speaking in support of this policy at current rate of 30 that is being proposed. Any time that we have the opportunity to provide jobs for the workingclass, and keeping people in San Francisco, we jump at that opportunity. And its also a dwindling class that were trying to bolster and its specifically marginalized communities that were trying to keep here. So we want to thank supervisor fewer for sponsoring this piece of legislation and were in support. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning, madam chair, supervisor yee and supervisor fewer, i want to thank you for putting this legislation forward and i had the honor to serve on the mayors Advisory Board and tell you that the committee had a thorough communication discussion on the facts presented and to thank the hard work of the staff the oed and providing us the data to have a proper discussion. We discussed some of the failures and some of the successes that have come with local hire and i think out of gate was confusing for people. As said before it was landmark discussion. It wasnt something that anybody had any experience with. But we have had some excellent successes in the Industry Partnerships growing over the years since it was introduced. Some of the things listed in our meeting, laborers have certified multicraft core curriculum instructor and direct entry and carpenters, iron workers and cement mason as david spoke to earlier and the crafts that have testentry, ibew local 6 and our Industry Partners and jtc have adopted amendments to the plan, where someone successfully completing city build can go straight to interview without having to test in. So we see there is a lot of work to do and well continue to grow with the program, but it has been successful. We think that the 30 is a prudent choice right now. As we expand opportunities for local residents through things, like citywide pla, well actually have more opportunities and in closing to say as far as the success of local hire and our ability to do outreach, 43 of the apprentices registered for local 6 are San Francisco residents now. So i think we have increased [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ] thank you. Thank you john. Next speaker, please. Im field representative for carpenters local 22, the carpenters have been supportive more than [tkwraerpbz ] ago and among the earliest supporters of local hire legislation and continually assisted in implementation. We have tracked its progress and supported all previous legislative changes adopted by the board. This amendment before you today is critical to the continued success of this policy and we urge your support. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Good morning. Eddie, ed he had of brightline. Here first of all to laud the success of Supervisor John Avalos for achieving this land mark policy. We have seen an incredible increase in local hiring due to the passage of mandatory local hire which was originally diping to 20 under good faith to roughly 3741 with 7. 5 million work hours recorded. Its a remarkable success made in large part by buyin from the construction trades and catalog coalition committed to this and for that, we would like to honor his achievement. Second, we would like to thank supervisor fewer for taking this issue and her experience as a champion of local hire at the School District makes her an excellent champion and to washingtchdog this to make sure its met and exceeded and to lead to other industries as winstonsalem. The mandatory local hire policy in construction has been a model for other policies across the country and were additionally interested in how that can be applied to industries such as the tek industry . When we look at how Economic Development can benefit lowincome communities, communities of color, our communities, we would like to see the continued investment of this bdr. Thank you. Board of supervisors. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning members of the board, im here today so support this legislation. I can remember 11 years ago when this whole thing called local hire started right in the bayviewHunters Point at the formerly known pg e power plant, which we just opened up a new project that opens up the shoreline connecting the herons head and indian basin parks together. Also continuing to use local hire as a mechanism for any and all the operations that pg e has done in that project. I want to thank supervisor cohen for her long years of support of these process and so thank supervisor fewer as noted the new champion of local hire and look forward to have you participate more and i just wanted to thank the city and county of San Francisco for being no. 1 local hire city in america and pat, naomi and the rest of the Board Members who fought through this, i want to also acknowledge all of you all. Thank you. Have a great day. Thank you for your kind words, mr. Bryant. Next speaker, please. Good morning, supervisors. My name is jackie flynn the ed of the a. Philip Randolph Institute and to thank former Supervisor John Avalos for championing an effort to draft and essential our original local hire policy, working with Mission Hiring Hall and brightline defense, ycd and also great Strong Community groups like abu and our union trades over the last six years, not only to pass the ordinance, but we also stand in the frontline of preparing the young men and women, primarily from bay view to become tradesmen and women to really build our city. This policy create hundredses of jobs, as you have heard, and establishes a program to create longterm change in the city. This policy was ambitious, one of the first of its kind and in spirit of Holding Public projects accountable for good faith effort and im here in support of supervisor fewers policy to hold the percentage at 30 . Of course, we would like to see more, but its important to analyze the Data Collected over time and to determine the best path and most feasible way to move forward . Supervisor fewer, you have been a leader in broadening the scope of the local hiring ordinance and look to you to continue success of our local hire policy. Ill just close with a very quick story about three gentlemen i actually showed you a photo almost a yearago, supervisor cohen, they were pulled over and all with criminal records coming from the laborers hall, being indentured and they were working at Hunters Shipyard and we appreciate your work and we continue to see efforts just like that. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that sobering reminder. Any other members of the public that would like to speak on item 5 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed [ gavel ] so i will make a motion. I have a question. Supervisor yee has a question. Go ahead, supervisor yee. Thank you very much. I want to thank supervisor fewer for bringing this item to us. First of all, i would like to say the last pla agreement at the school board was made with the provision of local hiring, and it was a discussion i started prior to leaving the school board. It must be in there the pla before that didnt have it and before i left i started the discussion and couldnt finish it. It was really very heartfelt to see at the time supervisor fewer took up the challenge with some of her colleagues and actually make it happen. Now with the proposed legislation from supervisor farrell, the local hiring pieces will be also included in that pla approach. Its very timely that you are doing this, supervisor fewer, because in that in supervisor farrells proposal, it alludes to the provision of it doesnt actually state a percentage. I wanted the 30 and so by having that connection and making it 30 , you know, it guarantees it. So thank you very much. I will be supporting this. Thank you. I appreciate that. Supervisor fewer, any last remarks . Yes. Thank you, supervisor yee, and i just wanted my colleagues to know that i have recommended to supervisor farrell to add in this administrative order no. 82 to his legislation about the project labor agreement, citywide project labor agreement. Thank you. This matter is back in the hands of this body. Supervisor tang, do you have any do you have a motion . I will make a motion. Amend the legislation as supervisor fewer stated earlier and to send to the full board with positive recommendation. Well do that without objection. Thank you. Thank you. Could you please call items 6 and 7 together yes, item of ordinance appropriating approximately 2. 2 million of general reserve to the office of the public defender to create a legal unit to defend immigrants from deportation and item 7, ordinance amending ordinance no. 14616, to reflect the addition of 13 new positions in fiscal year 201617 and additional two new positions in fiscal year 20172018. Thank you very much, this item was continued from two weeks ago. Supervisor fewer is the sponsor for this item and i want to give the mic to her. Thank you very much. Supervisor cohen. Colleagues, i know you have heard loud and clear that peoples lives are at stake and that our immigrant communities are living in fear. I know that you understand the urgency of this issue, but today i want to again speak of why immigrant Legal Defense through the office of the public defender is the right choice for the city and county of San Francisco. We have seen executive orders and directives that explicitly target immigrant communities and we have seen i. C. E. Raids in cities and were living in a new era, an era allowing the president of the United States those without documentation are especially under threat and those there detention are awaiting their fate. But San Franciscos intervening and telling trump no to his threat of withholding funding from sanctuary cities and our communities are getting organized to protect immigrant families. We can, and should do more by funding the office of the public defender. Over 90 communitybased organizes and labor and unions and professional associations and clicks have endorsed this legislation as has the majority of the board of education and the College Community board and this is testament to broad support because they know these are people who are actually living within our community and people who are childcare workers and the students, the parents of students that we represent, and serve. These people are actually in our community and they are under threat. The San Francisco chronicle urges to vote in support of this funding and we would be following the footsteps not only new york city, but also recently Alameda County and with that said, i have heard my colleagues kerks concerns about proposal and suggest the following amendments one change the number of positions in the amend to the annual salary ordinance from 13 to 8 in the Public Defenders Office for the current fiscal year and that would allow one attorney four attorney twos legal asants and one clerk. I have worked with mr. Adachi our public defender to come up with the number that allows the officer to build the new legal unit with the capacity to take on 200300 new cases annually and provided cost analysis of the positions from the controllers office. 2, the cost of hiring these eight position in thes the current fiscal year is approximately 183,000, assuming a may 1st startdate and there is enough money in salary savings in the Public Defenders Office to cover the cost of these positions. 3, im withdrawing the sales resultal legislation from the next fiscal year as i have heard from my colleagues a desire to include the funding as part of the mayors boards budget deliberations for the next fiscal year and 4 finally i propose that we accept the recommendation from the b budget and lal report in order for us to evaluate the program and the need ongoing. Colleagues i know that you support the idea of this legislation, and that we have shared values to protect our immigrant communities. I know you are not antiimmigrant and its important this funding will speak volumes and to address the concerns that i have heard and im asking for your support on these suggested amendments today. I applaud the efforts of the city of San Francisco for funding communitybased organizations. But i remind my colleagues this funding is for those who are currently incarcerated, who are currently being detained in detention facilities. Thank you, colleagues, for your consideration. San francisco public defender jeff adachi and his staff are here to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much for your passionate opening remarks. I would like to do two things. First i want to call up the Mayors Office to make a brief presentation and to also recognize the public defender, jeff adachi, if you would like to make any additional remarks, so inviolate him to do. Good morning, pleased to be with you this morning to share some of the engagement that the Mayors Office has had with the Philanthropic Community about this issue supporting immigration and immigration services. Beginninging in early november, obviously after the election, the Mayors Office has been in contact with several philanthropic groups to seek out and understand their interest, as well as to share what the city is planning and what the city will be doing with regards to immigration support and when i say Philanthropic Community to be clear, with the Mayors Office having several meetings with in december, january and february with the Philanthropic Community of 60 plus representatives of the philanthropic private community to talk specifically about one, all of the agenda items that the city is doing, including our new investment, buts also our strategis to support, as well as pathways to citizenship in that effort we at the Mayors Office have been working with the communities to respond to their requests about ways in which they might be able to invest and leverage and to look at several vehicles to do that. We have continued to work with some of the local collaborative fill fill philanthropic communities to create funds to leverage the dollars that the city is now doing. Im happy to nuisance the mayor Just Announced in partnership with the San Francisco Interfaith Council, that the city is joining in partnership for a new immigration defense fund. That fund will allow individuals, corporations, philanthropic organizations to give monies to the challenges that we have been discussing and to leverage dollars to support nonprofits and for workshops and for defense of immigrants, and as well pathways to citizenship. Im pleased to have in the audiences, just so you know, the executive director of the San Francisco Interfaith Council. So that if there are any questions later on, to talk about the fund, be glad to bring him up. With that, i also would like to thank supervisor cohen for her support and her engagement, being the chair of the committee, with wanted to make sure that we engaged her to talk about what that leverage opportunity might be . And why these individual and corporate institutions were asking us to create this kind of opportunity and her support and guidance has helped us in being able to select exactly what they asked for. An agency that is welltrusted. An agency that has a long history of being able to work in this particular area. An and agency that we as a city have partnered with on several efforts like this. Just recently about a yearandahalf ago, two years, we partnered with the San Francisco Interfaith Council to create the Navigation Centers fund. And that kind of example and that kind of leverage shows their ability to one, gather the dollars on behalf of the private institutions, but two, to work with the city to leverage the work that were already doing. Ill stop there and available for any questions that you may have, either about the efforts that we have worked with the nonprofit phinfill an Philanthropic Community, but ind regards to the new fund. Im curious to know when well see this money and be able to actually so that the money will actually materialize into a person or some kind of direct action . Supervisor cohen, the way the fund works we have created a fund we meaning the Mayors Office and the supervisors and asking everybody to give to that cause and donors individually or corporations will resume out [raoefrp ] reach out to the funds. The Interfaith Council is a Nonprofit Organization with the capacity to receive donations for these particular purposes and the growth of that fund in terms of how many people give funds to support that . In regards to interest, one reason we created from specific private donors and corporations saying they wanted an entity independent outside of the city, but working in collaboration and leverage with the city to be able to do that. That is what the mayor is doing right now, is facilitating that process, to have folks give to the fund. I can appreciate the kind words that you gave me, but to share that accolade with supervisor fewer, who began to talk about it in a very conceptualized manner. One thing we discussed about what this fund of money would look like is who would be donating . I know you personally are reaching out to the Philanthropic Community, but what about the other counties . The mix of detainees here in northern california, coming from all over different counties. Do we see a willingness for contribution from Alameda County . Contra costa county and the other counties in the ninecounty bay area . I will be honest in the conversations that we have directly with those who have shown interest, they are talking about funding efforts within San Francisco. That does not limit them from funding efforts across the ninebay area counties as just suggested. One of the opportunities or the strength of having such a fund is the flexibility of that independent fund to be able to fund across the nine counties. I can appreciate that, but the purpose in my opinion of the fund is to galvanize support from other surrounding counties of those detained in San Francisco county are not solely San Francisco county, but still people in need of due process and still in need of representation. So i guess my question again i will pose it have we or do we have intentions of reaching out to the other surrounding countis who have members of their countis who are in detention, that are in custody here in our county . Will they also be contributing to the defense of these people . Supervisor cohen, the intent of the fund is to reach for private dollars. So the folks that were talking to, corporations, or individual donors, they stretch beyond the nine counties. So we have extended that request to all of them. The clarification im trying to make in terms of the fund itself has the capacity to be able to distribute anywhere within that area that you are speaking of. In regards to who puts money in the fund . Its not the Public Institutions were reaching out to and its not Alameda County. Its not contra costa county, but the private corporations and some are local, some statewide and some national in size, but were asking all of them to give to this particular fund. So that it can serve those priorities that we have been talking about throughout this discussion. Okay. So these are San Francisco donors that are going to be contributing and correct me if im wrong, the dollar goes to everyone . The decision where the dollar goes is the decision of the San Francisco Interfaith Council and they are working in partnership with the city to identify what agenciess and services are in need of those dollars . In this union, is there a representative from the Public Defenders Office, also making helping to shape where and how the dollars will be allocated . Not in the discussion that you are talking about. Were in partnership with the San Francisco Interfaith Council. The Interfaith Council and their board are the ones who actually run the fund. Thank you very much, supervisor yee. Thank you. Good questions. Thank you. So just to clarify, and i think i know your intent coming from the foundation world. Whether its a private foundation or Community Foundation or private citizen, they could be living anywhere and donate to this fund, even the title San Francisco foundation for instance, Community Foundation, which is based in San Francisco. They choose to contribute to this fund that indeed, San Francisco Foundation Actually serves more than San Francisco and serves several counties around here. So i get that piece. There is an understanding that this is a regional issue, and that people that are going to contribute to this understand that its trying to address a regional issue is that correct . Supervisor yee, that is correct. First of all in your first point, the fund will be contributed to by anyone, someone who is international, someone across the country or can be someone local that can put money in the fund. The capacity of the fund as i was explaining a little earlier is that the distribution can be made anywhere. The focus of the request that we had that helped to us create the idea of the fund and thank you, supervisor cohen for mentioning, supervisor fewer. Yes her efforts to reach out to talk about the creation of a fund and effort to thank her and congratulate her as well. The questions we got from specifically those individuals, or potential donors what specifically will the fund le able to reach items, programs within San Francisco and the answer to that is yes. In terms of your second point, the distribution can occur anywhere within the bay area or ninecounty bay area or the region that we feel that the that the San Francisco Interfaith Council feels is an urgent need. The followup question would be that and i know its very difficult to project or predict how big this fund can be, unless you have some indications from particular donors that is a well we have at least 2 million already. Did you have that . Supervisor yee, i do not have an estimation. Okay. But i do want to make a point that i apologize if i have not made clear the fund could be used for funding defense. And specifically for the kinds of things that the Public Defenders Office has asked for. The fund is not limited to a smaller area and says it cannot be funded for these particular things around immigration and if i was not clear about that, the flexibility of this fund allows for those particular types of uses. So which is good clarification and a lot of what you can do with it is dependent on how much you can raise. A related question, because you mentioned it, there was another activity that was setup to collect funds, which is the Navigation Centers. Yes, sir. How much was collected for that . Supervisor yee. Since its been going on for a while. The original amount was approximately 3 million. And since its initial creation, we have had several other millions provided for this creation of the additional Navigation Centers. But the initial amount when we partnered with San Francisco Interfaith Council was 3 million. Which gives us anyway, the scope of well how much can there be . The last question really is related to what you just said, which is, again, myself having very little experience in the foundation world, understand what is going on . People will make initial sort of gifts, and at some point, usually maybe two, three years out, the gives moves over to some other activity. So i think we all have to understand whatever we get from these donations, that they are onetime only generally. They are not something to support ongoing activities. So i want to be sure that i throw it out there, not wanting to have people think, okay the 3 million, wow it must be every year its 3 million. That is not the case. Supervisor yee, you are exactly correct and i appreciate you making the point and to clarify another thing you brought up. Part of the creation in the fund and the fund this way was because of the potential investors in the fund have asked a series of questions. Some funders will give to government directly and some will not give to government directly at all and some funders asked specifically for an independent agency. That partnership with San Francisco Interfaith Council gives us that opportunity to do that. To your specific pointly also say we also have to remember something about donors intent and they are giving the dollar to the wide spectrums of issues that i just talked about. But the donor may say to go to this and that limited area to your last point about this being onetime. Often these kinds of efforts are onetime gifts that are given. Whether they be by individuals or corporations, large private institutions themselves. Some may give multiyear, but often to a fund, what they do is give a lump sum amount and they wait to see how the situation is, and they may give once again, but not generally giving every year. So i think the points you brought up are really important and i appreciate the opportunity to clarify how such a fund works. That last point was just to make sure we understand that if were thinking that this fund could fund any ongoing thing for a good length of time, that we have to be really careful with that motion. Sure. I can actually have my comments after the Public Comments since i know he is on a time schedule. Thank you for your consideration. I would like to bring up mr. Jeff adachi, welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Would i would just like to specifically address the questions that you raised after the last hearing. If we can go to the first slide. Overhead, please. One question that the board had was of the cases of detained immigrants in the San Francisco court, how that would be distributed amongst other agencies, who are doing detained work . In our original proposal, i understand where were at now and we originally requested 10 attorneys and 7 support staff and i understand from speaking to miss whitehours house the Mayors Office is proposing two and supervisor fewers proposal would strike somewhat of a balance, but we would want at least one more support staff to balance the ratio of attorneys to support staff. Being that as it is, that would reduce the number of cases that we were able to handle to about 200250. The nonprofits with the funding provided by the Mayors Office would be at about 80 cases, and again, there are three nonprofits funded by the city, who provide detention services. The Public Defenders Office and Alameda County has four funded positions. And so that would be about 120 cases according to their estimates. The santa clara public defender has not yet committed yet, but were hoping that they will. And that would still leave a large number of cases where individuals would not receive representation. But i wanted to make it very clear, that as public defender, i will commit to advocating in all of the other counties. And there are over two dozen counties, most of them very small, but the larger ones, sacramento, contra costa and san mateo and santa clara and to advocate for them to also provide legal representation to detained immigrants. The other question that was asked, why should San Francisco provide representation to detainees who live outside of San Francisco . San francisco was s one of 60 what they call base cities nationwide where Immigration Courts are located and that is really the biggest reason, because legal representation is usually provided at the courthouse location. Its that way in our criminal courts and all over our county and because we happen to be in San Francisco, people have no choice except to attend or to be subject to the jurisdiction of the San Francisco court. Also as you know, 256,000 people commute to San Francisco every day, because its such an expensive city, many people who work here, have family here, cant afford to live here. So they live outside, and even according to the most recent census, 27 of people who left San Francisco between 20102014 settled in bay area cities. 25 moved to the peninsula. So nearly 50 of the people who left in that time period are here in the bay area, including many immigrants. How will we decide who to represent . If we have limited resources . Well, this is the criteria that we would look at one we look at a persons connection to San Francisco. Whether they live, work, and have immediate family here . Prior representation by our office would also be a factor. Humanitarian factors such as look ing at whether the family is broken up and do they have children without parents and what are the Health Issues . Are they seniors . Is this egregious Law Enforcement conduct involved, wishing sweeps in this country, were seeing raids, labor violations, survivors of violence and Domestic Violence and to be able to prioritize those cases. We already prioritize cases where there is mandatory defense or Strong Defense of asylum or other immigration relief and also receive referrals from other service providers. In terms of the caseload as mr. Roses office observed to hand a case load of 4060 cases per lawyer, average of 30 attorney hours per case and 17 paralegal hours and 7 Legal Process hours and we need the support staff to allow our attorneys to focus on the legal work. There a letter well receive and i will quote a paragraph from that, its from probably the nations top immigration attorney, marc vander hout, who practices in [stporpb ] and wrote the San Francisco opened openeds is in the benefit position to stand in and provide representation to the detained ip grants before the San Francisco Immigration Court. The offices has a experience providing Legal Services to high volume of individuals in a detained setting and i believe the public defenders proposed model is wellpositioned to create a successful and highquality team of immigration defense attorneys. The other question that was raised is whether or not the other nonprofits, who are doing this work, and thank god that they have been doing this work for so many years. Whether they support the public defender providing representation of detained immigrants . And there is a letter that has been delivered to your Office Yesterday where they say, were grateful for the funding that you approved for the 21sfildc organizations to provide muchneeded services to our community, focusing on nondetained immigrant services. We now also urge you to consider the familis and individuals who are not fully funded, the detains individuals. And you see here, signed by 91, 91 organizations, who support this proposal. So i understand the constraints that you are operating under and certainly, i respect that. You have a tough job. And what im saying today is with the reduction in the proposal and again, i hope we could add one support staff, we will show you that this program is worth well more than what it would cost to operate, and i understand the funds for this fiscal year would come out of our own savings. And of course, you know, we agree with that. And so, again, this is a very personal issue to me; as i said my parents and grandparents were intered in world war ii with other japaneseamericans and even though it was 75 years ago, its still very real. They did not have attorneys, and i always told myself in a was in a position to make a difference, that i would. And so were here today, asking you to support this i thank all of you for your consideration. I thank supervisor sandra fewer for championing this. Thank you very much. [ applause ] now i know all you have know the rules i know you have been in this chamber before and you know you are supposed to use your spirit fingers let me see the spirit fingers. All right, thank you very much. Okay. Supervisor fewer. Yes, thank you very much. I just wanted to address the issue of this creation, and im so glad this is something about a super fund regionally i have spoken to you, supervisor cohen and s to the Mayors Office and im so glad that the Mayors Office is taking leadership on this. Because i actually think its a wonderful idea. Its an idea that will compliment of exactly what i am proposing here today. Were talking about 200300 cases and currently know immigration cases and clearly San Francisco cant fund all those in detention and these are who were talking about. So while i know a variety of activities are really important to support immigrant populations such as know your rights workshops and those things of that nature, i would just caution about the public funding and this is a thing that i think its great that people want to pitch in with their private funds, but lets not separate people, and lets not have the conversation and allowing individuals to say these people have a right to be defended and these people do not. Which i think is some of the trump narrative and i think its an excellent idea and again, i have mentioned it to the Mayors Office and supervisor cohen and im glad there is getting some traction on this. I will say it does compliment exactly what im here today to promote. One, is because our public defender in this current proposal, which is i think a deep compromise, will only serve 200300 and we know there are 1500 people in detention. Our bla report states those people in detention, seven times more likely to be successful if they have representation and quite frankly, we might have four more years of trump and we dont know how many more people are going to be detained in these Detention Centers . Quite frankly, also, the president has also said that he is going to look into opening private Detention Centers meaning there is more people. Also from the analysis that we have seen, were not just serving english speakers, but chinese and spanish speakers and will need Language Access and translation and this is where the super fund actually can be really instrumental in complimenting what we are actually proposing here today. I also want to say that were talking about people in detention. There are people the if nonprofits are serving people out of detention and not everybody going to Immigration Court is in detention, but there are 1500 individuals today, who are in detention. That is a lockdown prison facility. And twothirds of them have no prior criminal record. When we speak to an administrative when we speak to an immigration judge, she says what they come before her, her first statement of defense must be in flood english and i applaud the effort of the mayor, Interfaith Council to get the funds because that funding stretch further to support and serve more people. So thank you so much for your work. Im so glad that were all working together on this. I think the Public Defenders Office can only do so much with this funding. This funding is a compromise. And as we mentioned, only 200300 cases a year when we know there are over a thousand cases that come to San Francisco court regarding deportation and thank you, public defender for your comments. Thank you very much. Let me see, colleagues are there any questions or feedback that you would like to give . All right. Were going to hear from the budget legislative analyst. Thank you. Yes, Budget Legislative Analyst Office, between the two weeks for this legislation we revised our recommendations from priority legislation and recommended reduction in the supplemental appropriation from the current amount of 2. 2 million to revised amount of 2. 1 million and that is basically to account for the fact that if these 13 positions in 1617 to be approved couldnt be hired before may 1st at the earliest and also recommend under this supplemental appropriation a provision for 13 positions in 1617 and the positions in 1718 and also recommend of the 15 positions requested for 1718 that seven of those positions be placed as limited tenure for no more than years. Quick question, you highlight limited tenure for three years. How did you come to select the number three . Three is actually the maximum amount that the allowed for limited tenure position. Thank you very much. I dont know if there is flig else. Anything else. If the mayors Budget Office wants to take a few remarks. Melissa white house mayors budget director and in particular i want to thank mr. Agarta, giving us a lot of helpful information. From our perspective, i think that there is a larger context here. Right now we have 350 million budget deficit. I have been spending a lot of time over the past couple of weekses working with the City Attorneys office with the declaration of lawsuit against the Trump Administration. So when we talk about this, were talking about adding funding to our budget before we have seen the full picture and before i know more information. So we dont take this lightly and really been paying attention to this and something that we said and the mayor said from the beginning, he is willing to and is paying very close attention to what is happening on the ground and will spend more money where and when needed and come to believe since september, there is a need for this funding and will compliment using the public defenders currentyears savings, and the spending would be on top of that. When i think about that, from our perspective, and when i have looked at the numbers it looks like we could cover all detain and nondetained San Francisco residents and pim people in our community as the defender said earlier. That is where were at right now and i think it makes a lot of sense and i think as we have been saying from the beginning, were open to new information and working with the public defender through the budget proximate if it becomes clear that more resources are needed to talk about that for this issue or others. There are many issues facing our community right now and i dont know exactly what the Trump Administration is going to do on this and on health care and many other things and the mayors perspective is that we need to be disciplined and prepared for us in future. Thank you very much. Lets go to Public Comment. Ladies and gentlemen, if you have come to speak on items 6 and 7, please courtroom. Come up. We would love to hear from you. Its our courtesy to allow our seniors and disabled members to speak at the front of the line. Next speaker, please come up. First off, i find it hard to hear the conversation around the funding for this issue. It sounds like a charity. The United States Government Politics and their economic policies that have created most of the immigrants coming to this country and most of these immigrants, probably 99 are working people, men and women like myself, who are trying to make a better lives for themselves and their families. I think its the policy of San Francisco since its inception that we try to take care of people like this and i was wondering what the nativeamericans should have done to the mayflower when they landed . The rich have the right to, and do buy their citizenship rights. I think its cost half a million right now and trump will probably raise that a bit throwing money into the Republican Party or his corporations. So i really quibbling over money like this, when its the United States Government Policies that created this problem. And the idea that were going to i just heard a report at the Labor Council meeting on monday, from the central valley, and these i. C. E. Agents are just terrorizing the communities. Whether you are a citizen or not, if you dont look like archie bunker, were going to check you out and that is what is happening throughout the country. Over 33 of the population of this city are immigrants. Citizens. And obama deported 2,500,000. Trump wants to raise that a little bit though. So lets open up your pockets and your heart a little bit, San Francisco. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please good afternoon, im Robert Reuben civil rights attorney in San Francisco and author of the sanctuary ordinance in 1989. Just to respond to one thing that was just said. I think the problem with the native americans that they had bad immigration laws and that was probably the consequence of everything that has happened since. But i would urge the board in this regard that delays defeat. If you delay or you dont fund this program to the maximum extent possible, well lose people who will not come back. These are folks who are going to go forward in their deportation hearings without representation. You heard supervisor fewer talk about the percentage of people likely to lose their deportion hearings if they are lacking counsel, and that is very real. These are not things that can be made up. These folks will be deported and in some instances to countries where they will face persecution, if not death. And therefore, i would strongly urge you to pass this piece of legislation in line with what the public defender adachi talked about. I think one other thing that i would like to mention, there isnt a play between what you do here and the sanctuary ordinance, which is that if you dont fund lawyers for these immigrants, we wont know about violations of the sanctuary ordinance and there wont be anybody here to talk about it. So your failure to fund this Program Fully will undermine your efforts for compliance with the sanctuary ordinance and urge you to fund this at fullest level possible and to save these immigrants to persecution or worse they are without representation. Thank you, next speaker. Good afternoon, im the Development Director on 16thing and valencia and anticipating and preparing for the worst and that time has come. We cannot have sanctuary city without universal representation and just like my colleagues said before me, that is completely true. The mayor has spoken on the good immigrant bad immigrant and daca and nondaca and we have i wanted seen an increase of i. C. E. Presence all over the country as supervisor fewer has explained. We cannot just yesterday, dea inspector and i. C. E. Were conducting raid and they are becoming increasingly strategic in conducting raids in the city and there is more investigation. There will be an increase of immigrant detainees. As nonprofits we need the public defenders leadership and guidance and resources to ensure the protection of our immigrant community and i urge this committee and the board of supervisors to approve at maximum capacity. Thank you. Thank you,. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon we urge to support the budget increasing funding for Legal Support for immigrants. As a city we can say were sanctuary and provide Additional Resources to really show our city. So please support the request and help out all immigrants. Its the right thing to do. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please. Hi. My name is tim kingston, the investigator with the San Francisco Public Defenders Office and im here on my own time and strongly support full funding of the measure. They are the people in the streets and courts defending the people. We know how to do it and this funding may increase the workload of the investigators, but were willing to do that to make sure that San Francisco remain a sanctuary city. Its crucial this legislation support the people in this city. Were all residents. We all need protection. Thank you. Ing thank you, next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisor. My name is andy stone, the director of advocacy pangea services one of the organizations currently funded by the city of San Francisco that provide Legal Services to immigrants and were one of the three nonprofits that provides detained representation. Detention, in fact, impacts entire families and communities. We have arrived a moment of great moral urgency and its imperative take a lead and according to a new york study, 50 have lived in u. S. For over ten years. The fact