Skip to main content

tv   San Francisco Government Television  SFGTV  March 26, 2016 6:00pm-8:01pm PDT

6:00 pm
>> i think that's crucial that be done out in an official fashion and the economic study and impact study be suggested before a final decision is taken. of course, that is they can still do what they want. but at least you will have had the opportunity to present it one way everything that you have put forth to date. so that is my suggestion >> i would 2nd that. >> so, commissioners can to make sure i've noted this clearly, so a letter will be drafted to the sfmta board to get to them in time for tomorrow's meeting. with the attached documents requesting that they not take action
6:01 pm
tomorrow i'm about to hear both -when you say here us, is that the commission and the business community? >> my suggestion, first of all, added to this i would appreciate getting the signature support of all the businesses in the corridor. that is crucial. 2nd, i think the sfmta is silence to nights. i think it would be best for the process to get their view of things. and asked them to postpone their voting, the vote on this issue and allow the process kind of a democratic process is the president suggested maybe to take place in this for him to come and present their side and tell us why all of what has been submitted to date has not been
6:02 pm
taken into account. >> it's concerning when we face an issue literally with a 24-hour deadline and there's been no presentation by anybody at this meeting before this point. so, i think it certainly is a rational request that we go another cycle, a month, where we can put on the agenda presentation by the sfmta an additional presentation by the citizen group here to discuss the plan as proposed, any amendments are then made to the plan if they been made in response to some feedback that had, and to express the feedback from the public on the current plan. i think that's totally rational legitimate request. notwithstanding, they have scheduled a vote tomorrow. we delayed vote on the top. i think that we will make that
6:03 pm
request. do we need a motion for that? >> we do because that way i cannot speak on behalf of the body. >> i move that we write the letter according to what commissioner dwight has drafted informally. >> requesting delay of the final decision pending a formal presentation of the small business commission could >> so, commissioner dooley has made the motion. is there a 2nd? moved and seconded. commissioner adams aye, dooley aye, the light aye,
6:04 pm
tour-sarkissian aye, the riley aye zouzounis aye.. 6-0. i will draft that up and you will submit to me the signatures electronically. >> we will do our best. notice a trend up with a gunfight with a knife. but we will do our best and will make our plea and we will see where it goes. thank you. thanks for coming up. thank you for the time to do it and prepare for the meeting tonight. >> commissioners let's move on to item number 6. this is discussion and possible action on >> i was not meant to be a trump -is him >> i thought it was western
6:05 pm
slogans as were in the western united states. it sounded very early day san francisco. so, moving on to a survey to small businesses regarding the sp 50 outcomes. this is discussion and possible action. in your binder i just want to run through a few things and i know you may not be prepared to take final action but tonight if you want to, i like your review with you some of the questions we have and if you want to provide any feedback and you may want to think about maybe delegating some final authority to the president and vice president to make a final decision for us to submit. so, i did do a basic introduction that says the city and county of san francisco is an international city, city where there's interest old national and international events. the
6:06 pm
small business commission believes we all benefit from such events. i do think the city can continue to make improvements to minimize the effects and maximize the economic benefits to small businesses. as a small-as the small business-sorry-commission the small business commission would appreciate your feedback and a survey regarding super bowl l. this will help inform small business commission award is to advocate on your behalf when the city engages the next big event. then, the first question is, did the city or super bowl host committee engage with your business before the super bowl and, if yes, sort of a series wasn't fairly short before the super bowl, 3 months, anywhere to an option of more than 12 months out. then, how many times did the super bowl city engage with your business. was your business near the super bowl city again, gauging their
6:07 pm
response. then, i took the questions from the south beach mission bay merchants, starting on from 4-11 and those are my did the super bowl l positively or negatively impact your business. if positive, what were the results. if negative what were the result that approximately what percentage specifically the super bowl l businesses that you see in that week to review overstaffed, understaffed, did you overstock, in preparation? did you turn any business away in preparation? did you experience cancellations of regular business such as
6:08 pm
appointments of delivery that had to be rescheduled because of clients of not wanting to come into the area? than the additional questions i've added are du jour merchants association participate in the super city program? if yes, does the merchants in your area economically benefit from purchase participating in the program. if the program did not bring increased business what you think were the reasons it rambled out too close to the super bowl were required more capacity than a merchants association have capacity for trying to get at where we might have some areas to be with to make some recommendations. the super bowl customer was not a customer that would spend at my business or neighborhood and another for feedback. you missionaries did not participate in this program what were the reasons. again, program rollout to close, required more capacity, and other feedback. you think the city needs to get more detailed analysis of the customer to
6:09 pm
these events, to understand where the spending will actually occur? do you think the city needs to develop in its big plans or host agreements a specific neighborhood small business engagement plan? if so, what would that consist of. do you think efforts the city took to inform people about the potential traffic congestion in and around super bowl city was a good thing to do? did the city overshoot and it's or underestimate the number of people who do not come into the city to work during that week? did the city underestimate the economic effects underestimate the economic effect this would have on the surrounding businesses? we could say underestimate or overestimate. for future events work in the
6:10 pm
city do sort of leave that as an open-ended question for them to make some recommendations. should the city allocate some of the revenues created from these events 2, one, develop neighborhood marketing programs for future events the 6 help offset summer street street fairs, other recommendations. trying to figure out if there's a negative impact was there another way to turn the positive into a positive attitude sometimes? should the economic economic analysis report after the event include a microeconomic analysis to understand the economic impacts of various parts of the city? so those were some of my- >> who are we sending the survey to? betook this would be sent to predominantly to the business organizations and ask them to send it out to their membership >> so if we host this on our portal so people would go there
6:11 pm
were posted-there's not a poor. we hosted by the survey company we host it there and direct traffic there. >> my plan would be that we would create a survey monkey survey. some of the yeses and nose and details of that how they answer will be we can work out the survey monkey, is something that's free. we will provide some analytical data in response. >> we tried to get the word out through our existing tree we've been talking about. to all the merchant associations, all the chambers of commerce. any organization where we think we can get them trash. we would also put out a press release to the media i suppose they can
6:12 pm
announce it if they're so inclined that we are conducting the survey. so basically as big a call to action as we can pull together with no budget and see what traffic we can drive to the survey. it won't hurt to try, of course. i think we interesting to see woodcarvers spots we get. i do think we should carefully consider these questions and make sure we get keep it as simple as possible because i know when i did a survey and say this should take no longer than 20 min. i don't have 20 mins. you really want something that somebody can get through quickly and where the answers can be very straightforward at the end we will place for who really want to expound on her thoughts to do so. because those are the good place to collect that information. >> that's good. i mean if you think the direction of the information we are trying to get at-you're in agreement with
6:13 pm
his? is there anything additional, information you would like to glean in terms of making a final recommendation? then, submit that to me. i can work to clean this up and work with the president and vice president if you're comfortable with that. of course send out the final survey >> we can create a survey and that we can take it ourselves and do some people to test take it and see with their feedback is. if everyone was her eyes that have so long that we know were not get a big response. people-the below things like i got to the famous super city and nasty weather was good or bad and i never even heard of it. then you're like one question is did you hear about this and if you did, was it good or bad. so, i have surveys where i've been asked to answer a question that i did not know the thing existed in the answer would've been effectively does
6:14 pm
not apply. but more important, i want to know whether you heard about it or not. not whether you don't want to answer the question anyway, we can wring out some of those things likely i taken a survey amongst ourselves and giving it a proofread before we go until everybody it exists. >> you might want to consider checkboxes instead of answering the question- >> the more checkboxes the less typing the better. we can get the heads of the merchant association to find someone from each merchant association to take the test and see what they think of it. take the survey and see what they think about and make any recommendations. i think the first survey to ring out the bugs and then a 2nd one if necessary we will get it out there. not in the search of
6:15 pm
perfection but of covering any obvious impediments to people taking the survey. this is a great start. thank you. >> so what if the decision we have to make? >> one decision, and this doesn't necessarily require a motion or voting action is one request i have from the is take a look at this. think about it and let's say within the next week if there's-i know there's a refinement in terms of the yes, no, but any questions that you think maybe are missing we have curiosity than that's not really included then submit it to me. then, i will work with -if we could do that in the next week and then i went i would like to do is just have the commission's permission to then sort of finalize the survey with the president and vice president. then, send it
6:16 pm
all-i can't have you made recommendations of approval him up just for your information. >> i like to affirm the importance of this survey and this effort and also firm your efforts going forward to refine it. i'm happy to work with commissioner [inaudible] to make any final make specific comments even if to say this most awesome thing i've ever seen jenny go with it. but read it thoroughly. make even minor changes. >> actually i stand corrected i do need to have you take action as to even given permission. just of the survey can officially go out underneath your name. if it goes out before the next commission meeting. so, i do need i stand corrected i do
6:17 pm
need official action >> you need a motion? approving this >> we do need to do public comment as well >> before we do anything i would like to request public comment on this item rsp 50 survey proposed? >> i think this is a great idea. from someone who does surveys from an organization that isn't run a group of 5, it's our merchants to give them a deadline. but when they need it to be back. because otherwise those sit on it as long as they can. >> can we put you on the list as reviewers >> yes. because very good. please make sure we know your e-mail. >> we want to know best practices. that's even seasoned survey taken. make sure that our director has your e-mail address and contact information. so we can solicit your input. all rights, so is
6:18 pm
there any mouse would like to make public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, do we have a motion? or any other discussion? >> i move. >> i will 2nd be dick moved and seconded. >> we have a motion for the director to finalize the survey and publish it. i'm sorry. commissioner dooley motion. >> yes >> okay. so, commissioner adams aye, dooley aye, dwight aye, tour-sarkissian aye, riley, [aye, and speak soon us
6:19 pm
aye. that motion passes 6-0. >> finally something we agree on. i will move on to item number 7 witches directors reports. we are creeping close to 8 pm so i'll be brief with our reports but i do want to let you know that this week we will begin interviews for the commissions position this letter we have 3 interviews lined up. so that is this friday. also, the small business advisory team position the mayor had put into the budget for helping assist restaurants in their opening permitting process, were also interviewing for that position this week as well. >> what does it mean? >> it all depends on having
6:20 pm
certain things are if you're in or out of the city in terms of employment. you know in terms of their already employed by the city were not employed by the city. so, then it also depends on hr and their process. so, i would not anticipate anything sooner than a month and i would be happy if we had the position filled. >> the good news is that we are interviewing. >> yes. so, next week at the budget and finance committee meeting, along with supervisor wiener's item will be supervisors tang's ada legislation. your that last year. were finally moving it forward and having its heard so
6:21 pm
we can get on and get it enacted if that budget and finance we would think but it will be impacting both dvi, i merely dbi because only some additional staffing to implement the program. also, because of hiring in preparation for hiring for the legacy business, we have the small business of elements center which needs to add staff. angel cardoza and i have been trying to figure out what that best we can do to deal with office space. we are outgrown and so we have very severe limitations of being able to expand in the tax and treasurer's office. so, we met with the dept. of real estate. there's actually a space that we are-it's not a done deal, but i want you to know we are exploring. that 1650 mission.
6:22 pm
it's the ground floor was the café. they put out rfp numerous times have not been able to get the interest for a café there. so, it is zoned for business and professional services as well. so, we are exploring that space. not only i think it will work for the small business commission but i like the idea of having our office some retail component and also being very close to the building and dbi. and the planning departments. so, we hope this is an opportunity were going to be able to engage and be able to take advantage of. i want to just keep you and to a prized
6:23 pm
>> will be a buildup or preparation of the space? >> there is an were in discussion with the dept. of real estate about exactly how that would be taken care of and managed, but they seem to be very interested in being a cooperative partner in this. angel and i are working out the budget and details right now on our ends and also with them. then, i think lastly, i just want to circle around a couple years ago. we talked about doing a logo for the office and so we are revisiting this. thank you to commissioner dwight who's agreed to work with staff on moving this along and then we will bring forward to the commission final recommendations for your approval. i think those are some of the key things i want to just bring to your attention tonight.
6:24 pm
>> perfect. >> unless there's other question shall we move on to item number 8?. yes, please visit on the first public comment >> is there any public comment on directors report? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item number 8 is presidents report. >> i don't think of anything to present this time. i don't get done anything since we last met. i got reappointed. that something. >> i apologize for the late hour. we may go back to item number 7 even though it goes out i did want to congratulate commissioner dwight and commissioner riley and commissioner ortiz-cartegnea who's not here, congratulate on your appointment >> my report, what she said. i'm done. >> item #vp's report. >> tomorrow morning i'll be
6:25 pm
attending the working solutions breakfast with pres. dwight and director-and a quick shout out were open apart castrol farmer's market this wednesday evening at 4 clock p.m. the midweek evening farmer's market. >> awesome. >> same location good between giver and market street. >> is this annual? annual runs daily save [inaudible] >> grades. >> item number 10 commissioners reports. >> i have a quick report. i been working a lot summon in north beach about who's trying to open a small business. a bakery, not a restaurant or bakery. i found the amount of
6:26 pm
confusion that is still out there is astounding between what is required and what isn't. i want to make a comment which is on our portal, i think we might want to consider adding something to it that says as part of your checklist for opening a new business would be to contact the main neighborhood residents and business organization first so that they can weigh in and give you some free information. before you move forward with a permitting because i certainly have seen lately in the north beach area folks who want to open a business that may or may not be permitted and i've been able now to work with a few of those people and say that this space instead and i think this is something as part of our group made to encourage that. >> it sort of in the spirit of public outreach. admonishing
6:27 pm
the government organizations do outreach and i have found my own neighborhood given i live in the neighborhood with very strong neighborhood associations especially, when i'm thinking about something ugly to the neighborhood association and say i just want to run this up the flagpole. the people that live there far longer than i have and know why certain things are the way they are. so, it always is good to make sure your neighbor is not going to object or at least know what the objection is before you proceed. i think that's a great addition to our checklist. come to us first, but one of the first things you should do when you're starting a new businesses inquire with the people, the residence and the fellow business owners in the neighborhood that you want to open your business. that is a fantastic piece of advice. >> there's a lot of institutional wisdom. >> yes. >> perhaps in addition to the checklist we could add that as part of the under location, to
6:28 pm
the location circle when you click on a page. >> if we could even item possible, have a contact list. it would be great. the castro -and give the website or whatever. some starting point. did that fantastic idea. >> i'll double check but i think at one point we had that under the resource list. >> that was under the resource list. >> i think we need to bring that forward again as part of that to make everyone's lives easier. we want your >> as far as our last mayors meeting, steve mayer took on the task of getting the names and contacts of all of the business related organizations in the city and gave them a
6:29 pm
list he had and working from that but all the chambers of commerce is all the merchant associations, and i think adding to that the neighborhood associations is a great idea. so, that is in the works and it would be easy to add to that the neighborhood associations and once steve has all that information having him give a presentation here why it was done and what was done and where it's going to live is a great idea. then you can also periodically chow to each of those. we can ping them and have you had a change of leadership any changes we should know about and any new associations that you know about bush the adding to the list? >> i found some these new businesses when they talk to our merchant organizations they were so grateful to not have to face people saying, no, if spending might get a lot of the organizations know what's coming up for rent should
6:30 pm
>> you can get a lot of good information for sure. >> i also had something i wanted to bring up to everyone. with a mandate of, maybe we can start thinking about having that sector industry based information session soon on can be meeting with some constituents in regards to a health code pertaining to tobacco sales the recently passed folks are starting to ask when it's gone to be implemented those kinds of questions. so, i want to remind everybody that it is something we want to do >> if you'd like to organize the first one have added. >> maybe i can start talking to folks about a timeline. >> you can figure out how was what the first one is >> just as having the sfmta, and make a presentation know
6:31 pm
that we can have the department of public health, and make a presentation on the rules, regulations, and how they implement how the outreach is going. so that is a place my think again, we have the opportunity of having our meetings televised, so business it businesses can come or watch it, they can only stream it to be able to get that information. so happy to work with you on dph on scheduling a presentation. >> thank you. >> i have so tended the courtly meetings with the mayors but the last one was different. it was a planning session. we have facilitator come in and identify all of those issues and prioritize it and i think they're looking for people to participate in those areas. i think one of the big things is mta, no outreach and
6:32 pm
late to the party. they were angry >> i think there's another side of the mta thing that relates to this. i know i brought up to regina at one point, but taxi drivers are also considered small business owners. there's sting operations were not left and right people getting caught with $5000 tickets. i think it would be good informational session with mta. >> sounds good. any other director reports? commissioner reports? seeing none, commissioner reports are closed >> item number 11 is general public comment. >> do we have any general public comment for the end of the meeting here? >> i took a survey a few years ago and it's pretty accurate but not exactly on the number
6:33 pm
of restaurants but the marina -between union and lombard and chestnut at 5845 restaurant and bar seats. >> seats. they. >>we have 700 businesses and about 300 businesses that are have their 2nd and 3rd store. those business people do not realize our psychologist, psychiatrist, it's a wonderful street for social services. people just do not know about this. we have 1309 parking spaces. this says it all. >> okay. because what are you
6:34 pm
talking about what streets? betook lumbar, chestnut and union and the side streets. we are doing a re-study on this now. >> awesome. this is the place to give your study results. be very interesting to me. >> either list of several russian associations that are not affiliated with it chamber of commerce. not affiliated with henry. >> let us know will put that in. >> like to see a list. speed were looking to find out from every corner. >> also new to you. >> the 3rd thing, really fast, were in transition. record of 2501 c-4, and we are footing marina merchants in one group and the neighbors and another group mainly for accounting issues. were very neighbors and the merchants usually agree 90%
6:35 pm
of the time. there is a reason for that. >> very good. thank you very much. all right. and heather public comment. seeing none, public comment is clod. >> so, sfgov tv, if we can have -excuse me, item number 12 is new business. visit any new business? anyone wants to propose. as we've all resort of .net. new business heating to start our industry-specific or sector to sit specific forums and possibly with 2 groups that commissioner zouzounis has pointed out. those affected by tobacco laws and those affected by transportation issues. namely the small individual
6:36 pm
proprietors and the missing and taxis. did i get that right? okay. was there something else? >> gasoline >> and adding to the portal the list-the suggestion that people reach out to their local neighborhood association and business association when they're considering opening a business and to add to our portal that information as we get it. they look up for both neighborhood and business related associations. >> i think we have it. so, sfgov tv, if we could have our slide again, please >> as is our new customer we begin and end each is small business commission meeting with the reminder that the office of small business is the
6:37 pm
only place to start your new business and san francisco and the best place to get answers by doing business in san francisco. the office of small business should be your first stop when you have a question about what to do next. it is also the place, the official forum, to voice your concerns regarding policies and projects and issues that affect the economic vitality of small business in the city and county of san francisco. so, if you need assistance, with small business matters, and were one to comment on something that is affecting small business, start here. thank you. >> bt. thank you. we move on to item number 13 adjournment. >> i motion to adjourn. >> 2nd beat it all in favor >>[chorus of ayes] >>[gavel] >>[adjournment]
6:38 pm
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
6:41 pm
6:42 pm
6:43 pm
6:44 pm
6:45 pm
6:46 pm
6:47 pm
6:48 pm
6:49 pm
6:50 pm
6:51 pm
6:52 pm
6:53 pm
6:54 pm
6:55 pm
6:56 pm
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
>> good afternoon everybody and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors' meeting of march 22nd, 2016. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> thank you, madam president. supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos? avalos present. president breed? >> here. >> breed present. >> campos present. supervisor cohen. >> present. >> cohen present. >> supervisor farrell not
7:01 pm
present. supervisor kim? kim present. supervisor mar. >> here. >> mar present, supervisor peskin present. >> tang present. supervisor wiener? wiener present. supervisor yee? yee present, madam president you have a quorum. >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen, please join us for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. madam clerk, are there any communications? >> yes, madam president. from supervisor farrell, dated march 8th, requesting that he be excused from today's meet colleagues, is there a motion to excuse supervisor faler? motion by supervisor avalos, seconded by supervisor cohen, colleagues can we take this without objection?
7:02 pm
without objection, supervisor farrell is excused. [ gavel ] >> all right. madam clerk, please call the first item? >> item no. 1 is the consideration of the mayor's veto pursuant to charter section 2.106. of an ordinance amending the planning code to increase the transportation sustainability fee for non-residential projects. this ordinance was approved by the board on march 1st, and vetoed on march 11, 2016. the question before the board is shall the mayor's veto be overridden and the ordinance finally passed? the yes-vote overrides mayor's vote and no-vote sustains the mayor's vote. this action requires two-thirds vote, eight affirmative votes despite the absence of a member. >> supervisor avalos. >> i will start with a quote from franklyn roosevelt,
7:03 pm
test of our progress is rather we add more to the abudance of those who have enough, but to provide enough for had those who are little? before us today is the choice to support those who have much, big developers, or those who have little, the working people of san francisco. as we come to the conclusion of the effort on the transportation sustainability fee, i want to thank all of the many people who worked to create this measure, that is before us today. the planning department, and the planning commission, the sfmta, the train providers union and equity coalition and i would like to thank by ladies and gentlemen ive aid jeremy pollack for his tireless work on this version of the transportation sustainability fee. this veto underscores the economic bias of mayor ed lee, a bias that favors the wealthy at the expense of work people. mayor lee has you to thed his reputation to bring people together, however this veto calls into question the
7:04 pm
mayor's consensus approach. i would dual at the end of the concessions approach, get a bunch of people in the room and stack it with the rich and powerful and force the less powerful to make concessions. in the end the working people get less and end up paying more out their own personal pocketbooks for basic city services. the concessions approach, brought us a lower inclusionary-level in the housing trust fund, a lower-level that we're now trying to fix and gave us tepid gross receipts tax that left millions on the table for tech companies to pick up and you now the tsf. when muni has an enorthrop grumman backlog of deferred maintenance, $10 billion deferred backlog as identified by the process, it makes no sense that the city concedes and leaves money on the table for big developers to pick up. the tsf that passed in
7:05 pm
december was not a consensus measure. , it was a measure that in december 7 members of this body voted as inadequate and it make stronger. the 7 voted to bank the revenue from the inadequate tsf and send a stronger measure to committee for approval in accordance with our board rules. the media especially the chronicle has completely blocked out the content of this stronger measure and reported the veto as some sort of political game rather than an effort to give developers a break or to increase revenue for the shortfall in our transportation system. one of our members called the inadequate tsf fair. i asked again fair to whom? notice to the riders of muni who face inadequate funding and knot to the workers of muni, who have to contend with less and certainly not to the taxpayers that foot
7:06 pm
the bill that sub disses of rich and powerful developers are getting. there has been a long public process of the measure before us today and most noteworthy is the planning commission meeting where commissioners unanimously supported all of the amendments i recommended before them, and approved and even stronger measure than the one that is before us today. i also brought all of these amendments up at multiple board of supervisors' land use and transportation committee and here at the board of supervisors. despite the mayor's claim of consensus, with the extension of one letter from the chamber of commerce, i have not heard from a single person who is opposed to this measure before us today. so why the blockout and why the veto? this measure charges $2 per square foot for commercial developments over 100,000 square feet. $2 more. up to $21 a square foot.
7:07 pm
for commercial property that is in the pipeline, but not yet received entitlement from the planning commission and also grandfathers in a new fee set at half the difference between the old tidf and tsf. this before us today raises $2 million annually and $30 million in one-time funds with our enormous transportation needs and huge demands on transit, san francisco cannot afford to turn this money down. adding to the wealth of the wealthy is no why to promote development, nor fulfill our transportation needs. i urge you colleagues to support this measure and be fair to the people of san francisco, the taxpayers, the muni riders and workers and not just to the rich and powerful developers. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much, madam president >> i'll be voting to sustain the veto based on merchant years' of work that went into
7:08 pm
crafting an excellent transportation sustainability fee and did it in a broad-based collaborative way that will significantly benefit our transportation system over time. i want to commend supervisor avalos for that. i thought it was just a really barn-burner speech that if you didn't know anything about what has land happened to-date, you might say wow how could i make a different position? the problem with the comments that we just heard frankly completely ignores everything that went before. the transportation sustainability fee is not a new thing that just materialized out of thin air. for years and years five years for me, and i know there was work even before i got involved, we had been working to take our transportation impact development fee that has been on the books for 35 years, and to bring it into 21st century to have developers
7:09 pm
pay significantly more and that is exactly what we did. when you look at what the tif d the item that was passed by this board last yeah, takes the annual contribution of developers to our transportation system from $26 million, a year. to $45 million a year. it almost doubled what developers will pay per year into our transportation system, nearly a $20 million increase. that tsf, that $20 million increasing, the near doubling the transportation sustainability fee was achieved because what we did for the first time ever in 35 years we extended transportation impact fees to be residential development. residential development for 35 years did not pay a penny under our transportation impact development fees and we fixed that by including residential development for the first time. in addition under what we
7:10 pm
passed late last year, we significantly increased what commercial development had to pay compared to what they had previously paid and not only did we increase it, we increased it in what was initially introduced and supervisor cohen and i in committee increased it onn commercial development yet again. so for years we worked on this. we came out with an excellent product that will produce almost $20 million a year more than what they were paying otherwise. so to suggest that anyone, the mayor or members of this board of supervisors are trying to cut developers a break, frankly is ridiculous. developers are going to pay almost $20 million a year more than they would have otherwise for a total of approximately $45 million a year in transportation impact development fees, paid for by developers. to say that if you are not in favor of increasing it from
7:11 pm
$45 million to $47 a year, you are somehow not supporting working people and you are siding with the 1% is absolutely specious and political game and that is what this is really about. we took a gigantic step forward putting legislation together in the way that you should put it together and we passed it and it's done. at some point the legislative process ends and you move forward with implementation. anyone can always take the position it's not enough and that developers should pay more, but what we did was a gigantic step forward. what is being proposed today, frankly, is very, very small. it's not going to accomplish anything, but i do understand it makes for good political theater. i will be supporting the veto today. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. supervisor mar. >> thank you. i wanted to respond to a few
7:12 pm
of the points that supervisor wiener made ands will thank supervisor avalos and vision zero and pro-transportation coalition for standing up to override the mayor's veto. it's $2.4 million a year that would go into a better transit system and $30 million in one-time revenue. i don't think that is a little amount. though we need much more. but i think this is about equity and it's about requiring the largest developers to pay their fair share as supervisor avalos mentioned. so i urge my colleagues to join supervisor avalos and myself and others to override mayor lee's unfortunate vetov this task force measure. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor campos. >> thank you, madam president and with all due respect to my colleagues, who will be voting to sustain this veto, the argument that is being made by these developers is sort of what happened with airbnb. it took airbnb so many years to pay its back taxes, and
7:13 pm
it was so used to not playing by the rules for so long that when it finally followed the rules, it was actually boosting about that. in this case, these developers are not used to paying nothing for so long that when they are paying an amount, even if it's a small amount relative to what they should be paying they somehow think they are giving their -- they doing us a favor. let's be clear here, it is a giveaway to big developers and it so happens in this case , people say, at one point legislative process those end. why is it that the legislative process has to end when it actually benefits developers? how about stopping the legislative process when it gets to the point of actually helping real people, regular people? that is what we are saying.
7:14 pm
you know, they may argue all they want, but at the end of the day, they are giving a big giveaway to development community. >> thank you, supervisor campos. supervisor kim. >> just want to speak in support of supervisor avalos' amendments to the transportation sustainability fee. this has been a long-term discussion and, in fact all of these amendments were before the planning commission and, in fact they supported more tiered fee structure for how we do transportation fees for particularly our commercial buildings and our residential, depending on size. we know that those who build larger projects not only have a larger impact on our transit system, they can also usually afford to pay more. this is modest change, but more fair change not just for the every day residents of san francisco, but developers as well. each project is not equal
7:15 pm
and it makes sense that we tier our fee as the projects get larger he you pay a little bit more. as you create more jobs and put more workers in the downtown area, you pay a little bit more to help support our transit system. over the last couple of weeks we have been having conversations about what is the most appropriate revenue source for funding public transit? and this board agreed that one of the ways to do that was not a flat fee on tow away charges that can change anywhere from $600-$800 that really impoverished low-income and working-class households and residents in the city. we worked with sfmta to reduce the fees and acknowledging there would be a hole in the budget when we took that revenue source away. now the more appropriate revenue source for funding our public transit system is a progressive tiered fee. this is one of those options and alternates. we can ask for developers who can give more to our public transit system and certainly
7:16 pm
a lot more than our working-class residents that get slapped with a $600-800 tow away charge for one singular mistake and yet this board is now going to stay they can't support a slight increase in the transportation sustainability fee. i think that this is an important policy question for this board to continue to tackle? there there are ways that are not as regressive to continue to invest in our transit system and members have said they would introduce a set aside or supplemental appropriation if of which i think we all agree is right thing to do. i think this is one of those appropriate revenue sources to help continue to support our rich and well-developed public transit system. so i will be voting to support supervisor avalos' amendments today. >> thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor avalos. >> thank you.
7:17 pm
just to continue my political theater, i actually agree with supervisor wiener. there has been a great deal of work on creating a new tsf and i would say that supervisor wiener has done a lot of work only that. and i do appreciate his movement to build a new framework for the tsf. we needed that new framework because we left a lot of money on the table compared -- compared to what we have in place now. by not approving the tsf and that was something that was really important to me. we developed a framework for the tsf, but how we settled on a fee that is anemic compared to what it could be with this measure is something beyond me? i don't know how we got to settle on the fee that we have today? we had discussion in committee to raise the fee. there were votes in committee to do that and the votes kept it in committee to be the
7:18 pm
lower fee until we actually made this new improved version before us today. we had six members of the board of supervisors who supported -- that is the majority -- who supported this higher fee, which will raise $2 million a year and $30 million in one-time funds. that to me says there are many ways that we could have crafted the fee beyond the framework that we put together over the years. so this framework, this fee that we have before us today, means that we approve it, and override this veto, we're saying to the taxpayers you will not have to subsidize the transportation impacts of big development. that is the final vote we have today. by sustaining the veto, you are saying to the taxpayers, it's you who have to pay for the impacts of big development and not the developers themselves. that is the clear choice that is before us today. >> thank you, supervisor avalos.
7:19 pm
supervisor wiener. >> thank you. you know, i just -- and supervisor avalos, we actually work well together on a lot of transportation issues and i know we will, we just have a real disagreement on this one. to suggest that the tsf is telling developers that they don't have to pay is just not consistent with the facts. developers are going to pay $45 million a year under the tsf, $19 million a more year than they would have paid. we almost doubled what developers have to pay. we extended it the first time to residential and increased it repeatedly on commercial. so if someone wants to argue that we need to -- that there is some sort of meaningful difference between $45 million a year and $47 million a year, let's be real clear. that is what the argument is here, should they pay $45 a year or should they pay $47
7:20 pm
million a year? that is what this big argument is about and to suggest that is the difference between developer s paying their fair share and not paying their fair share, that -- there is no basis for doing that and that is why i referred to this as a " political theater." because it's not about the actual money. i have fought very hard for funding for transit. authored proposition b, that is generating almost $30 million a year for transportation in the city. now every member of this board of supervisors supported proposition b. it made it barely out of this body to the voters. so i get it; that we need more funding for our transportation system. but to have a fight between $45 million and $47 million it is not about the money. that is about scoring political points vis-a-vis the mayor or whoever else. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. supervisor avalos. >> thank you. i have just wanted to have the last word. [laughter ]
7:21 pm
thank you supervisor. and with that, colleagues, madam clerk, can you please call the roll? >> on item 1, supervisor breed? >> no. >> breed no. supervisor campos? >> aye. >> campos aye. >> supervisor cohen? >> no. >> cohen no. >> supervisor kim? >> aye. >> kim, aye. >> supervisor mar? >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> a. >> supervisor tang? >> no. >> supervisor wiener? >> no. >> supervisor yee. >> yee aye. >> supervisors avalos. >> avalos aye. >> six ayes and four twos supervisors breed, cohen, tang and wiener in the dissent. >> the veto is sustained and the ordinance fails. [ gavel ] >> madam clerk, please call the next item. >> item 2 is an ordinance to suspend administrative code section 21.1.
7:22 pm
the competitive solicitation process for electronic health record system for the department of public health san francisco health network to approve the selection of the regents of university of california as the preferred contractor. >> roll-call vote on item 2. >> supervisor breed? >> aye. >> breed aye. >> supervisor campos? >> aye. >> campos aye. >> supervisor cohen. >> no, cohen no. >> supervisor kim? >> no. >> kim, no. >> supervisor mar? >> aye. >> mar aye? >> supervisor peskin? >> peskin aye. >> supervisor tang? >> tang aye. >> supervisor wiener? >> wiener aye. >> supervisor yee? >> yee aye. >> supervisor avalos? >> aye. >> avalos aye. >> there are eight ayes and two nots with supervisors cohen and kim in the dissent. >> the ordinance finally passes. [ gavel ] . >> next item, please. >> item 3-5 were referred without recommendation from the budget and finance committee. item 3, is an ordinance to appropriate $2.5 million
7:23 pm
from the general fund reserve to the recreation and park department for facilities improvements in the geneva car barn in 2015-16. >> supervisor avalos? >> thank you, president breed. colleagues, i first want to thank the budget committee for forwarding -- for hearing this item and moving it forward. this supplemental, was something that i had introduced in early december before the mayor's budget instructions had come out. this is a project, geneva office building powerhouse has been a project decades in the making. it sit on the corner of san josé and geneva avenue. and it's an industry area that is passed through by thousands and thousands of people going to muni and bart every morning and evening. this is an industrial area right in the middle of district 11, between mission
7:24 pm
terrace neighborhood, cuyahoga neighborhood and it would be a vital place to put together a place to go through, that is just not a place to pass through on your way to bart or muni. we are already making a neighborhood here in this neighborhood by building affordable housing across the street from geneva office building. the powerhouse that is before us today, that this supplemental would fund would fund phase 1 of the building that would create an arts space, performance space, and practice space, that would be used by arts organizations in the southern part of san francisco. heretofore in the city's history we have never had such a facility in the southern part of san francisco and it's vitally needed especially when we see in district 11, there are hundreds of artists who make their art in the city, but practice it elsewhere.
7:25 pm
we also have a really great organization called the youth art exchange, that does some incredible work and does a lot of community development work through art, and this would provide a great venue for them to showcase their work in the district. right now they do it soma, rather than district 11 where they are based. there are a lot of things i could say about this neighborhood and how its been passed over by decades' of neglect from the city, and during our economic boom, we have seen much of san francisco transform itself before you are as and not just new buildings maze made for the private sector, but development fees and neighborhood impact fees around those developments as well. but we see no development in district is he and general fund dollars that go from our city budget to support the
7:26 pm
developments around big developments in other part of the san francisco, south of market, along our waterfront and along market street, but we don't have that kind of development in the district 11. it makes so much sense that we help to build the equity that we don't have in our development and general fund dollars that go to neighborhoods based on that development. that is what this supplemental really does. while we see this great economic boom, and we're not saying that revenue come and trickle down to our neighborhoods. most of all, we don't have the plumbing for that to trickle don. this supplemental is a form of plumbing to be able to get some of our wealth that is generated to a neighborhood that greatly needs it; that will help to jump-start the development in an area that has seen such neglect and really bring it up to the 21st century. so i have beth reuben stein from my office, who will show you the images
7:27 pm
of geneva office building and powerhouse. if we can get that lined up? this is the neighborhood. could you point to where the -- i guess you have to do it there, no? that is the building in question, 280 and muni yards and we're building a neighborhood in the middle. one of the key public facilities will be the geneva office development and across the street from there will be the upper yard, 100% affordable housing 85 units will be built and it's just one way to complement the effort. our next view and we probably don't have to go so to the
7:28 pm
screen. this is how the building looked in the '70s when it was in use and how it currently looks right now. it is a really great facade and great beauty and great potential, but still, more or less an eyesore in the neighborhood. the next slide is the current powerhouse, which is actually the site of phase 1 that the supplemental will help close the gap in funding to make happen. and this is the final version of the entire building when it's fully developed, still looking for the entire amount of money for that. the next slide will be what is actual phase 1 of the powerhouse site will be the performance space and practice space that this supplemental will help fund. there is currently money from the last park bond $3 million, that is there. we have actually contribute edsome funds from our budget over the years for design documents and this $2.5 million that is before us today will finally close the gap so we can move forward
7:29 pm
on this project. colleagues, there is no better time to support district 11. we have had multiple opportunities to show that and each time the board of supervisors has risen to the occasion to support this neighborhood. our district, district 11 is completely united behind this, from every walk of life from every economic sector, from all of our neighborhood associations and social justice organizations are all behind this measure, and really hoping that you can help move this forward and support it. thank you, colleagues. >> thank you. supervisor tang. >> thank you. first i will start by saying that i think this is an incredible project that i really look forward to seeing happen. i think that there has been a lot of uniformity around it with constituents and supervisor avalos has certainly been a really good champion for this partnership for many, many years. as i said in budget committee, i think that for me, i'm just not comfortable with supporting a supplemental for this at this moment. i think this really belongs
7:30 pm
in the budget process and deliberations and year and year after i have seen even before i became a supervisor there has been a commitment to fund this project. we have all supported it in our various forms and various budget processes. i think that is something, again, a conversation that belongs in the budget process. so i do not have anything against this project. i think that it's going to serve the community very well it's complete and i think there have been funds set aside as well in previous parks bonds that have passed by voters. i think $2 million, for example, for construction. so i know there is a funding gap. i think if it came before the board of supervisors and budget committee, it's something that againly continue to support. but just not in this form. >> president breed. >> thank you. i would like to associate myself with the comments of supervisor tang. i, too, think this is a
7:31 pm
great project and i do think it belongs in the budget process. we have a process for this particular matter for a reason. i remember over the past three years, before we were able to fund keizer track to get that done it was turned down year over year by the capital budget committee and finally funded after being rejected aat least three times by recreation and park and keizer drive is basically the responsibility of rec and parks, but a major thoroughfare for people who drive through the park and has been in a state of disrepair and recreation and park didn't fund repairing that particular keizer drive. it was funded by dpw. i just think that although there is a lot of great intentions i have an amazing project in my district, the muni substation, which is a
7:32 pm
bright on the filmore. i would like $2.5 million to rehabilitate the station and make what has been promised to the community for so many years, but i realize there are so many projects in in the city and so much to do and challenges to getting everything that we want done in a timely manner. it's not to say that i wouldn't support this project through the process in the process. i have supported funding for this project in the past, but with our budget process coming up i do think it's more appropriate to include a project of this nature in the budget process and not as a supplemental at this time. so unfortunately, i can't support the supplemental. thank you. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you. when we had this discussion at the budget committee, we actually continued this item
7:33 pm
for a week, in the hope that supervisor avalos would be able to have a discussion with the mayor's office to see a clear pathway in funding this project. yes, this project is in district 11 and borders about two blocks from my district. so in many ways this project really impacts both our districts, both 11 and 7 directly. i have been supportive of this project, really exciting project that has been sitting there for a while. i'm going to be supporting this supplemental, and hope -- my hope is that even if we get the supplemental today, that this discussion at the budget -- during the budget process will happen any way. we'll be still be far short of the funding required to complete the whole project.
7:34 pm
so colleagues, i really hope that i'm hearing the right thing, which is that people will continue to support this project in one form or another. i'm hoping today that many of you can actually vote-yes on this item. >> thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor campos. >> thank you, madam president. my understanding from what has been said about this project is that this project is ready to go. and while i understand and respect the fact that people as a general rule don't want to do supplementals, i think that in terms of moving this project forward it might actually be more expensive to wait to actually begin the work. and i certainly was very impressed with the feedback from this community and to me, if we're going to end up approving this funding a few months down the road, i think that we should not let form
7:35 pm
dictate over substance. i think we should just move this forward. i know from being on this board that supervisor avalos has been very responsible in how he brings any supplemental before this board. it's not something that he does, and so i'm going to defer to his judgment, and he believes this is something that is needed for his district. >> >> thank you, supervisor campos. supervisor peskin. >> thank you. some 15 years ago when the mta owned this property, it was actually going to be demolished. the city rallied and then my then college supervisor sandoval rallied and district 11 rallied and we were able to make, i think, a courageous decision under the leadership of then rec and
7:36 pm
parks general manager elizabeth gold stein to transfer that facility to rec and parks. it's been a decade-and-a-half. supervisor sandoval endeavored for eight years. supervisor avalos has endeavored now for an additional eight years. i think the time has come. this is not about district 11. this is part of the city's patrimony. this is a great historic resource. we can breathe new life into this resource. it will create jobs. it will create housing >> it will create a much-needed facility and save one of the greatest early-century buildings of this city. i urge all of you to consider this and to vote for it. it is time to get it done. >> thank you,supervisor peskin. with, that seeing no other names on the roster, madam clerk please call the roll. >> on item 3 supervisor breed? >> no. >> breed no. supervisor campos? >> aye. >> campos aye. >> supervisor cohen? >> aye. >> cohen aye. >> supervisor kim? >> aye. >> kim aye. >> supervisor mar?
7:37 pm
>> aye. >> mar aye. >> supervisor peskin? >> aye. >> peskin aye. >> supervisor tang? >> no. >> tang no. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> wiener aye. >> supervisor yee >> aye. >> yee aye. >> supervisor avalos. >> aye. >> avalos aye. >> eight ayes and two nos where supervisors breed and tang in the dissent. >> the ordinance passs on the first reading. [ gavel ] also it's now past 2:30 and we'll be going into our 2:30 commendations and we have a few on our schedule today i will start with supervisor campos and supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos, would you like to begin? >> for john rodney? >> aren't you honoring someone together? >> yes.
7:38 pm
great. >> why don't you start? great, i will start. if i may call on the incredible -- i guess are we going to do -- we'll do that one first. the first one is a proclamation that is actually recognizing and remembering the legacy and the memory of a great man, the archbishop of el salvador oscar and to recognize the consulate general of el salvador, who is here and those who have followed latin-american and know ocean bishop romero was a courageous priest who spoke up continuously on behalf of those that were less fortunate, on behalf of the poor, the oppressed in that
7:39 pm
country of el salvador. he always preached a vision of unite. the killing of bishop romero not only shocked that country, but of latin america and the whole world. on the eve of his death,
7:40 pm
archbishop romero's teaching guide not only the western hemisphere, but the whole world and we know his presence is a very vibrant one in the bay area, where his memory lives in the hearts of so many people. a commendation for the legacy of monmonsignor romero on this very special day we would like to also join this, with these couple of words from the government of el
7:41 pm
salvador condemns the terrorist bombings in brussels, belgium and expresses solidarity to the government of belgium and to sends our condolences to the families of the deceased and expect the speedy recovery of those injured. we hope that tranquility is shortly restored in that country. i'm honored to be here today and the graveful to supervisor david campos, john avalos and the rest of the board members for recognizing monsignor romero and his legacy. we celebritied the remembrance of his message and to recognize the honorable consulate and members of the salvadorarian community that are here today and to ask the executive director of share foundation to give a couple of words regarding this exceptional
7:42 pm
human being. >> thank you very much for recognizing romero, as many salvadorarians say, it belongs to the larger community of people that want peace. but in wanting peace, he also wants justice, and he decided to have a preferential option for the suffering ones, for the poor. so we want to invite you today, for next year will be his 100th birthday and we're organizing an international party, both in el salvador and we wish in many citis to honor and remember romero. you are invited and we'll follow-up with you to make sure there is a strong delegation to el salvador to be part of this party. thank you. >> thank you. i would like to pass this
7:43 pm
beautification of monsignor romero and we're going to give this to the public as well. thank you very much. >> thank you. [ applause ]
7:44 pm
colleagues i have one more commendation that i'm doing with supervisor avalos. and if i may ask this incredible individual to please one comup to the podium? john rodney. [ applause ] >> you know, how do i put this? if you live in gotham city, you have batman and you call on batman whenever the city is in danger, and if you are an immigrant in the bay area, and you are under attack, you have to put out the signal for john rodney to come to the rescue. i want to ask everyone who is
7:45 pm
in the audience to honor john rodney to please stand. take that bruce wayne. thank you. [laughter ]john rodney is loved by so many people. my office and myself have been talking about honoring john for so many years, probably the first year we came into office and yet, life gets in the way, because at every turn, there is? issue, some attack against immigrants. so john is the communications mastermind for the bay area immigrants right movement and information guru in every case that the san francisco bay area has had in years. he has been on the
7:46 pm
frontlines of this effort to gain comprehensive immigration at the national level and led the first major piece of legislationion we passed for. te was the communications guru behind cy id card and local efforts to pass the dream act and daka and fight against car impoundment and fight for trust act, fight for due process for all, the effort to guarantee legal representation for every child placed in the fast-track, the so-called rocket dockett in immigration court and the list goes on and on and what else can i say except for being you are
7:47 pm
in great hands. he is truly an unsung hero. he is smart and has an amazing memory and speaks spanish with an accent that sounds native. anyway, i will turn it over to supervisor avalos but john, thank you for everything, and like i said, you really are our super hero in the bay area. [ applause ] >> gosh, a long time ago i actually had some training in media and have some kind of fascination with it and media advocacy. and i learned so much from you, after all of that. and it's really great to see that you are among us in the bay area to help us do all of the really challenging work
7:48 pm
of creating a world that supports immigrants, and i just want to say, i love you, man. and all of these people who actually share their love and respect for you. i just wanted to say it on the mic and just thank you for your work, and what is your dog's name again? >> tony. >> thank you for bringing tony with you as. we would not be as strong a coalition fighting for immigration right without our work and all of us have benefited from your wisdom. thank you. >> [ applause ] >> john, if you and tony would like to say a few words. >> yes. this is a lot -- thank you. i brought tony with me, because i do have a confession. tony actually writes the press releases. [laughter ] >> i just edit them --
7:49 pm
sometimes i don't. i was not expecting this. i'm very humbled. it's wonderful to work with both you, david and you john, all of you and our offices as this board has challenged the cruel and unjust deportation machinery this country has. i think what communications work is really about is standing with people who are standing up against injustice. and challenging this hateful idea of the "other" that has really been plaguing the discourse and embracing folks who come out and support their stores. supporting people like many in this room who have faced deportation and stood up and supporting people like the families of mario and alex, who are still fighting for justice, and i think it's about supporting people who are fighting displacement, and exploitation in an
7:50 pm
economy that every day is more unequal. and this is a pretty scary time that we're all living in, but i think that what communications work should really do is really lift up our best ideals rather than retreat from them and i think this board has done this, last october with the votes for due process and rejection of the jails and many other great examples and we're all looking forward to working with you for more exciting stuff like that. so thank you. [ applause ]
7:51 pm
thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you for your work, john and congratulations. now i would like to recognize supervisor eric mar for other commendsation. >> thank you, since we're referring to super heroes i will just say it there is a wonderful woman for economic justice in the room for us today. would donna levitt, the
7:52 pm
director, and i see labor and community activists from grassroots organizations to labor council here in the house with us as well. we're going to be commending donna levitt on her retirement from olse. she has led the office of labor enforcement for years and her work has helped thousands and thousands of families who have been victims of wage-theft and other abuses. when donnaaz hired to lead the olse in 2002, she brought over 20 years of construction and labor experience. she was a pioneering tradeswoman who began her apprentice as a carpenter in 1980 where she progressed to superintendent, estimator and union representative. donna was the first woman to head a major construction local at the united brotherhood of carpenters and joiners of america and her distinguished career -- her
7:53 pm
amazing career, i think has included service on the california building standards commission, the san francisco landmarks preservation advisory board and executive board of the san francisco labor council and thank you to tim and connie for being here with us too. donna's experience in prevailing wage enabled her to develop effective enforcement strategies. during her tenure, san francisco has led the nation in passing landmark labor laws, which the olse was assigned to enforce. because of young workers united and progressive workers alliance we have the first in the nation raising the minimum wage paid sick-leave and a number of other laws, wage-theft laws as well and donna's leader, the osle enforces fair chance ordinance, family-friendly workplace and the most recent addition, which i'm very proud of, the retail workers
7:54 pm
bill of rights, which i helped to author, along with jobs for justice and assemblyman david chiu, the challenges of rule-making show donna's experience and her understanding of the regulatory frameworks of local, state and federal laws. because of olse's successful model, donnas a commitment to work welcome the grassroots communication organizers has helped the most disenfranchised workers to fighttor their works and build empowerment efforts and combat wage-theft. san francisco has been so fortunate to have donna's dedication to workers' rights. donnella, you have left a remarkable legacy behind and hopefully one that will remain with us for years to come. we have big shoes to fill that you are leaving. donna, as we move forward, i and my colleagues hope that
7:55 pm
the mayor and the city will fill this position with a strong champion like you, for workers' rights. as you have been and that we find the same steady and skilled leadership that you have provided, especially someone with the understanding of the legislative framework. >> supervisor campos is on the roster. >> thank you very much. madam president. i will be very brief. what a day today. monsignor romero and john rodney and now donna levitt and it's hard to imagine our city government without donna and her presence at olse. when you look at the prosperity that we have had as a city, there are things
7:56 pm
still not right and we have the office of labor standards enforcement and that office has become the great equalizer, when it comes to so many low-paid workers; for whatever reason, you know, are the victims of the system. whether it's wage-theft or employers not following the rules, i have seen donna and her office do justice for so many of these workers time and time again. i can only imagine the thousands and thousands of people whose lives are better because of the work that you have done, done donna and that is quite a legacy you take with you. i want to say as the supervisor for district 9 and as a resident of san francisco, i'm eternally grateful to you, for being there, for workers, for making sure that we do right
7:57 pm
by every worker. and for the integrity and commitment that you bring to the job. it will always be remembered, and it's a legacy that you should be very proud of; and i hope that you get to take some time and enjoy with family, but i just want to say a job well-done. thank you very much. >> thank you, supervisor campos >> supervisor avalos. you have a lot of fans, donna. >> donna, just wanted to say thank you for running this office for so many years. it seem like every year we added a new mandate for your office to take up and you never said no. you were always understanding just how you were going to do that, but i just wanted to say thank you. you ran a really great ship and you have tremendous stapp staff working under you that
7:58 pm
have done a very fine job. your office does a lot of work with immigrants, the ones who seem to bear the brunt of wage-theft and employers not following the rules. my district is 50-foreign-born and i just want to say thank you for taking on that responsibility for training really great staff do that work and we want to make sure that the person who comes after you understands the regulatoriv framework and knows how to work with different systems that you have to work with the plumbing and regulatory system. i wanted to add that a lot of groups -- a lot of cities in the country doing work increasing worker's rights and minimum wage and health care type of ordinances, but a lot of them don't think about having a labors
7:59 pm
standards enforcement office to do that work and your office has been a great example for the entire country how do this work. i know a lot of people have come and visited and talked to you and your staff of how you get this work done? so thank you for leading the way across the country as well. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam president. it has been a pleasure over the last decade-and-a-half to watch the olse go from weekend being a one-ordinance shop to 15-ordinance shop. when i first became a supervisor, this was the ask from the house of labor. i don't think any of us realized it would become a national model, and to donna, i want to say, that you have been tough, and fair, and most importantly, impervious to political interference. supervisor avaloss is that you ran a good ship. i want to say that you navigated the political waters very, very well. you didn't let any of us or
8:00 pm
the chief executive tell you what do or when to do it. you applied it fairly and it's a tough job. because when you are enforcing against folks, it's never easy and it's never fun, but you always did it calmly and i look forward to having someone who fill yours shoes that is going to navigate those waters without being politically enphered interfered and to envision what olse was. thank you for your service. >> thank you, supervisor peskin [ applause ] . >> supervisor kim. >> i wanted to acknowledge donna on your leadership at osle and it requires using a scalpel and not a knife and


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on