tv San Francisco Government Television SFGTV June 11, 2016 9:00pm-11:01pm PDT
kick our ass if you had any idea i had a profession you think i'm and monkey or nigeria you can't look up at me didn't care about his own people if you are had any idea of after tloinl person a spirit warriors and how far i'm willing to go for my community you can why rome fell it didn't rely right hand the culture of people in the international strayed and share of their community with other nations to build their power they were rild on military mitigate not the night of their people the men were stupid overly fed and overly armed i promise you rome will fall every time this summer the in house
tournament that happens in july te buds and racism france or friends they're in the third week of september in the spring in may now the one that passed i'll beat all our asss i promise i want to see those racism cops in a fair fight what did you do a weapon you see this i'm from frisco baby come see me, you have no idea how much smart i am than you if you had any idea what is about to happy to the united states of america you think - >> thank you. >> next speaker thank you, sir thank you, sir. >> next speaker.
>> >> (clapping.) >> >> next speaker. >> sir we do care we're here because we want to hear from everybody there's a longs line of folks you're out of order we're going to have a tack a recess sir you're out of order there's a lot of folks that want to give comments you're out of order i'm going to have to take a recess the commission will have to recess you're out of order we'll be back to resume public comment hopefully thank you
we'll be taking the time for the list of demands and then. >> again, i want to say this i get feedback there are rules that govern this they require i know that commissioner wong talked about and commissioner dejesus i want to hear from everybody so thank you. go ahead two minutes at that time. >> so we're going to - what's that? yeah. this is now our meeting so we'll >> commissioner president loftus i have a motion. >> what's your motion. >> i move we adjourn the san francisco police commission this is our meeting the rules need to be followed i move to adjourn our meeting do i have a second. >> is there a second. >> policy
policy for hiring background investigators. >> a second there's no second there's a second >> (clapping.) >> okay ladies and gentlemen, we have a motion adjourn this meeting i would like to continue >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? unfortunately really unfortunately, this motion this meeting is adjourned and we were not allowed to hear all the public comment thank
>> hello, i am with the san francisco parks department serious we are featuring some wonderful locations in your and very own backyard. this is your chance to find your heart in san francisco with someone special. we are here at the lovely and historic palace of fine arts, located in the bustling marina district. originally built for the 1950's exposition, the palace is situated along san francisco's waterfront.
it is ada accessible and is reached by the 28, 30, and 91 bus lines. with its rotunda, columns, uncut the reflecting waters against the eucalyptus trees, it is one of the most romantic settings for special dates, and memorable proposals. it is also a perfect spot where you can relax with that special someone while listening to the water and fountain in the lagoon. beautiful to view from many locations, and inside is an ideal place to walk around with your loved ones. the palace is the most popular wedding location in the city park system. reservations for weddings and other events are available at strecpark.org.
shakespeares' guard and refers -- has plants referred to in shakespeare's plays and poems. located near the museum and the california academy of sciences, shakespeares garden was designed in 1928 by the california spring blossom association. flowers and plants played an important part in shakespeares literary masterpieces. here is an enchanting and tranquil garden tucked away along a path behind a charming gate. this garden is the spot to woo your date. appreciate the beauty of its unique setting. the cherry tree, the brick walkways, the enchanting stones, the rustic sundial. chaired the bards'w ro --
share the bard's words. the garden is a gem to share with someone special. pack a picnic, find a bench, enjoy the sunshine and let the whimsical words of william shakespeare float you and your loved one away. this is one of the most popular wedding locations and is available for reservations. shakespeares garden is 8ada accessible. this park is located at the bottom of a hill. it is a secret garden with an infinite and captivating appeal. carefully tucked away, one block from the bottom of lombard street, it makes the top of our list for the most intimate picnic settings.
avoid all tourist cars and parking hassles by hopping on the cable car. or the 30, 45, 41, or 91 bus. this garden was designed by a the landscape architect thomas church in 19 to -- 1957. grow old with me, the best is yet to be is inscribed at this gem of a park. a lush oasis anchored by gazebosanchoreddekcs, -- gazebos, anchored by decks. this is the place to tell your family the love you share. reservations are available for this hidden gem. i am jamie hopper.
until next time, don't forget to get out and play. for more information about reserving one of these romantic locations, or any other location, call 831-5500. this number is best for special events, weddings, picnics, and the county fair building. for any athletic fields and neighborhood parks, 831-5510. you can also write us. 501 san francisco, calif. 94117. or just walk in and say hello. and of course you can find more information and reach us at sfrecpark.org.
>>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco budget and friends committee for wednesday, june 8, 2016. my name is mark farrell. i'm sharing this committee and i'm joined by supervisor norman yee and scott weiner and we joined by supervisor jane kim and katie tang. i want to thank sp keady sfgtv any announcements? speaker please sounds cell phones [inaudible] >> supervisor farrell: thanks very much. i'm clerk item number one >> clerk: item 1 and option to
ground these in connection with parcels at 11 1 connecticut st. >> supervisor farrell: i know in the mayor's office. >> staff: my name is kate kirkpatrick project manager at housing and can need to element. before you today is a resolution authorizing the execution and performance of a option to ground lease in connection with two adjacent parcels. located at 25th and connecticut street. these will merge the two parcels do great one 30,000 square-foot lot and lisa went to bridge housing who will construct a 72 unit portable housing building known as block text which is part of the potrero hope as a revitalization plan. the site is currently vacant and will require adobe location in order to start construction. the project is anticipated to have 75% of the units available for the location of households at
the first demolition phase of the broader potrero hope sf project number which allows the master plan phasing to achieve minimal aussie relocation. two key terms to the option to ground lease of the term and the lease and rental payment to the city and are consistent with most of the common practice in affordable housing transactions. the term of the ground lease is for 75 years with extension option for 24 years ensuring 99 years of affordable housing for households making no more than 60% ami at the site. the city will receive an annual payment of $15,000 and up to 10% of the appraised value in residual receipt payment to available cash fund. the block x option to ground ground lease is a critical first up in financing the building of the printer hope sf project. the option to ground lease will provide necessary site control to the sponsor as it applies to the state for financing in the next couple of weeks. leveraging the
state funding sources is critical for most of these local subsidy to spread as far as possible across the entire preacher hope sf site. if awarded the state funds the project be on scheduled to start construction by the end of the year. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions as is dan adams from bridge housing can be felt thank you very much. colleagues, any questions i now? will move on in public on. any wish to comment on item number one? seeing none, public comment is closed >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: think so much. colleagues, motion to move this item for? >> moved and seconded. we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> clerk: item number two when examining number 16 10 to authorize the collection and levy a special taxes within the city special tax district 2009-14 modification and
improvements to privately owned buildings or real property. >> supervisor farrell: thank you. this item is sponsored by supervisor tang solo turn it over to her. >> supervisor tang: this item builds upon previous legislation that i've already submitted. basically our city at set up a special tax district previously to promote green financing and so we had actually put forth legislation to amend the special tax district so we could allow people to utilize this for accessibility improvements. so, this item before us today is really just a trailing legislation to authorize the collection and levy a special taxes within this special sustainable financing special tax district for accessibility, modifications and improvements. >> supervisor farrell: okay get colleagues any questions or comments? will open this up to public, could anyone wish to comment on item number two quick seeing none, public comment is closed >>[gavel]
>> supervisor farrell: >> moved and seconded. without objection >>[gavel] >> clerk: item number three what looks to appropriate three and the thousand dollars per district 7 board projects in the general city results ability and appropriating $300,000 to various the permits in order to support the district 7 participatory budgeting project in fiscal year 2015-2016 >> supervisor farrell: thanks very much at this item is sponsored by supervisor yee. will turn it over to them >> supervisor yee: this item is to appropriately $3000 from the can. as to that apartment. we will be implanted in the participatory budgeting project that were awarded on the seventh resident could participatory budgeting is a democratic and completely community driven process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of our public budget.
anyone who lives in district 7 that is 16 or older could to make proposals and vote on which ones to award. this is the third year prioritizing and implementing the pb in district 7 and actually the most successful. in total 11,000 votes were cast for all proposals. just to name a few, westport [inaudible] which is part of the schoolyard that supervisor farrell is leading. to open schoolyards will not have funding to make significant implements, including resurfacing the yard and replacing basketball meds, painting game courts, adding seating and shading, adding turf and creating a mural. then, another example through capital improvement project of ymca will have the ability to increase nutrition-based social services for seniors. another
example would be seven neighborhood associations applied to add additional events and entertainment to public spaces. that's a variety and in addition, we have a part of this funding going to safety project and some of the parties include things like title lighting on brotherhood weight. renovation of the scrabble triangle that one hands vision for pedestrians and motors at the intersection did so, colleagues, i hope you have your support on this item. see felt okay thank you supervisor jimmy. without holding up to public comment. anyone wish to comment on item number three? ms. wilson >> testifier: my name is bill wilson am i presenting sent his ipod advocates. we received 25,000 auto grant promoted by supervisor norman richards or influence 23rd part supervise
yee and everyone who's participated in this program in previous years deserves a great deal of thanks. i think it speaks very highly of supervisor yee that he's decided to continue this program allows people to the direct say in how the government spends its small part of their money. this is actually the second year we received $25,000 grant from improvements to our product and it is a caused one concern i have regarding follow-up on the completion of these projects. i urge you to approve this transfer but would respectfully ask for some kind of follow-up to assure that the money allocated to the various departments actually goes to that project. it has been over a year since we got approval to install a goal or picnic tables in a part. even though we had a contract lineup was willing to complete the project in six weeks of getting approval of the design by rpd for only $17,000, the department decided they would make no exception the fact that the contractor
was not a city vendor. so it is been 12 months with no project and more frustrating, no prospect of how long it will take before it is completed. so far, all we know is that rpd has hired a project manager but won't tell us who he or she is or how many projects are ahead of us on the to-do list. they're very concerned that as long as the money sits unused the more likely it we used for other projects were either weight by administrative cost. that is not an idle concern given rpd history at sunnyside park. thank you. >> supervisor farrell: thank you very much. anybody else was to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: nay mr. wilson make sure you contact your office we can find out who to contact.. >> supervisor farrell: motion by supervisor yee. >> moved and seconded. we can take that without objection
>>[gavel] >> clerk: item number four, resolution authorizing the city and county officials to execute and file on behalf of the city and actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining state and federal financial assistance under various grant programs. >> supervisor farrell: supervisor avalos >> supervisor avalos: thank you. for many years now san francisco has been the leading the region in the urban areas strategic initiative. that's a result of disaster and set up as well after 9/11. now, it's been many years in the making and in practice and in recent years there have been many concerns about the use of quasi-funds for poor urban shield type events that lead to the multiposition of our police department. this is not something that i have seen evidence that has happened to a great extent in san francisco
but there are parts of the bay area where that has been a reality. in particular, an alameda county. in alameda county, as well, the urban shield program, which has been a program that's come out of-they have put on weapons expositions. they were actually removed from oakland i think moved to another part of alameda county could they were moved from people that didn't want to have them in oakland and the very controversial because in oakland we've seen a group much more deliberate and strong crackdown two free-speech efforts during occupied and similar destined demonstrations as a result of officer involved shootings in oakland and so we seem like a heavy use of military action and people in the region are looking to make sure that the
funds are going to be used not for militarize asian mo but for other things that can lead to help coordination, management, ways to prevent disaster, ways to increase disaster preparedness. in the past, i have also looked into how we could use the funds less for policing, but more for the coordination and collaboration of neighborhood residents to be able to be repaired on the ground in their neighborhoods for disasters. that something that actually has not happened, i think there are difficulties in how the federal government sets its guidelines for how funds can be spent. but, i think what i'm interested in seeing to do and people here from public comment, is a way we can put some language in this resolution that would
prioritize the use of dollars for risk management planning coordination, around disaster preparedness versus the further militarize of our police department in the bay area. so, i don't know-i just talked with deputy city attorney john gibner and he will be looking into how to perhaps provide a language to that extent that we can consider. i don't think you'll be available today, but will make it to the full board i do want to have that conversation. this is the best-the first place we can have it get so thank you colleagues. i just one highlight this as a concern and something that i want to see if we can have some latitude to set some priorities for how we would spend our dollars in the region. >> supervisor farrell: thank you supervisor avalos. any other questions or comments i know?
>> testifier: the legislation before you today regarding the resolution authorizing the city and county of san francisco to apply for this year's home and security grant. supervisor avalos to your question, the funds have been used for preparedness initiatives. stephen sf 72 program. it has helped fund the nurse program as well as what has been used in some cases on preparedness initiatives >> supervisor campos: that's right. i think of the best uses of the funds in our dirt program is severely underfunded to actually have a real strong neighborhood network to practice disaster preparedness and collaboration and coordination. we often have to pay for the training that they do to the fire department in the general fund versus the true heart chili our grants. so there is not a lot of money that's on
the ground in our neighborhoods doing that type of coordination and that type of capacity building of residents to be prepared around disaster preparedness and you been around in any place we had a big disaster, last one we had was in san francisco during the 1989 earthquake, it was amazing to see how many residents were taking in their own hands to protect one another having some dollars that could help make that happen more efficiently, more effectively in a more long-term would be tremendous. we don't have that. that would be great way to prioritize the funds. >> supervisor farrell: >> testifier: thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. developed acute colleagues, any questions or comments? okay. we'll move onto public commons on this item. i think i do a number of speaker cards. >>[calling names] please come forward.
everyone will have to minutes to speak and if you line up on the far side, there. >> testifier: thank you supervisor. stephen-the american friends service committee here in san francisco. we have a youth program with oakland high school students who come over here and organize around different issues. when we asked them how many had experienced swat raids in their homes four of them came forward. two of them have actually recorded their experiences, which is online. i'm raising this because these funding has far beyond san francisco. it leads to militarize of police and other district decides san francisco. we urge the board and the subcommittee to incorporate language that is forthcoming that will call for the funding 12 priorities respond to natural disasters and emergencies. also,
recovery. many of the-funding does not go to the recovery activities that should be undertaken by various jurisdictions. i think i'll stop there. thank you. speak up next speaker, please. >> testifier: hi. my name is-air resource and organizing center and the number of the stop [inaudible] we are considering a resolution that allow the city and county of san francisco to take action necessary for the fiscal year 2016 grants. we strongly urge the board to incorporate language that stipulates emergency response. if you guys don't already know, we are part of the stop urban shield coalition under several dozen organizations throughout the bay area and is a statewide mobilization happening this year against urban shield and it involves san francisco directly. san francisco agencies participate in urban shield training every single year including the san francisco bart district san francisco county sheriff's department, san francisco fire department, san francisco police department, san francisco
, and a bomb squad and the san francisco puc watershed. there's been a lot of growing distrust of urban shield and a policing more generally in northern california and in the bay area in urban shield only further creates that sort of distress in san francisco can we urge you that you look at this funny to be used primarily for activities and language in the resolution that's because these activities are working towards natural disasters. since 2012, of the 12 urban shield simulation exercise that were held right here in san francisco, all 12 involved a mock terrorist attack or hostage situation did not one exercise involved anything having to do with public health and safety training for fire, flood, earthquake and other natural disasters. we see a serious popular and we urge you to put money where it should go. thank you. >> supervisor campos: we did have an outbreak was done here
in the civic center and i look like there was that type of emergency preparedness activity but it was just a hollywood film. >> testifier: my name is molly and him with the number of the south urban shield coalition at the bay area san francisco bay area receives millions of dollars each year from the bay area urban security initiative. the primary source of funding urban shield. while the initiative charges to prevent to protect this onto and recover from terrorism, the-acknowledges many the capacity which support terrorism preparedness simultaneously supports preparedness for other hazardous including natural disasters and other major incidents. stipulates the funds may be used for other preparedness activities. so as long as those activities could shore up antiterrorism capacities alameda county applies and has its funding allocated to the san francisco fiscal s sponsorship could alameda fiscal year 2015
proposal included $4 million to enhance homeland security exercises coming evacuations, and training programs should urban shield, yellow command, and similar urban shield both of related activities. by contrast alameda county did not request any funding for planning and risk management medical and public health. emergency planning and community preparedness or recovery. these constitute 50% of the bay area on and security goals and those most closely allied with the community health and well-being. the urge strongly the board to incorporate language in the resolution that any proposal requiring swat, pleasing collaboration weapon use purchase exercise or training be brought before brought
before the full board of supervisors prior to approval. thank you >> supervisor farrell: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good afternoon supervisors. my name is mohammed with cocoa resistance and stop urban shield coalition. just so you have a sense be to compare all these things about what urban shield is, just to have a sense of what it is, it's a annual swat training and weapons expo that happens every year post by alameda county just to give you an idea of the kind of swat training and expo it is, at the expo, last year, it was a t-shirt that was purportedly the most popular item for police officers. it was a t-shirt that said, black rifles of matter. so this really shows the extent to which this urban shield is a vehicle and a engine for the militarize asian of police broken actual tools and technology as well as
mentality. one of the things that we've been highlighted as my colleagues spoke earlier, is the alternatives that could be funded with this kind of money. because, urban shield-funding is billed as disaster preparedness and emergency response. what is been used for now when a ghost will urban shield is the military a police what can be used for is actual disaster and emergency preparedness for the things mentioned such as fire, aquatic disasters, floods, earthquakes etc. these are the things were being told its use for when actually the money is being used to pay for trainings that involve painting people as terrorists, and first what trainings as we've seen swat raids are rising in oakland against people of color, particularly black and latino communities, so we urge you to use this money in scrolling
widget here that urges that this money goes for disaster and emergency response and not the militarize asian a policing that we seen the effects of one we have crises around police involved incidents. thank you. >> supervisor farrell: thank you. many of the members of the public wish to comment right now? seeing none, public comment is closed >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: >> supervisor campos: thank you for having me here today could i've asked deputy city attorney john gibner is there a way that we can amend this resolution and prioritize disaster and emergency response versus militarize asian and do urban shield type programs. when it comes before to the bowl full board will work out some ways we can amend account language we can add. >> supervisor farrell: okay. thank you supervisor avalos. i look forward to that discussion. and language good with that, colleagues from data motion to send this item to the full board?
>> supervisor kim: all make a motion with the understanding there's more discussion >> supervisor farrell: without objection we can take it. >>[gavel] >> clerk: item number five the office of contract administration to enter into a contract not to exceed $12 per initial to commence following board of will. i number six resolution authorizing the office of contract administration to enter into a contract agreement for an amount not to exceed $12 per initial three-year term to commence following board approval. on that item number seven resolution authorizing the opposite contract administration to into a contract agreement between the city and softnet solutions for an amount not to exceed 12 a dollars per initial three-year term to commence following board approval. item number eight resolution authorizing the opposite contract administration to enter into a
contract agreement between the city and united layer burn amount not to exceed $12 per initial three-year term to commence following board approval. item number nine, resolution authorizing the officer contacted the station to enter into second amendment to the contract agreement between the city and county computer land of silicon valley. not to exceed 44 min dollars through september 30. item number 10 resolution authorizing the opposite of contract admission she went into the second amendment city contract agreement between the city and endpoint technology sales to increase the contract with its two $50 million further. period of october 1 -september 30 27. item number 11 the first amendment to the
contract agreement between the city and innovation system technologies to increase the contract limit two $59 for the pure period october 1 through september 30, 2017. item number 12, resolution authorizing the opposite contract administration to enter into the second amendment to the contract agreement between the city and county of extech jv to increase the contract to increase $6 million for the october 1, 2014 through september 30, 2017. >> supervisor farrell: thank you. mdm. clerk appreciate. with that data volunteer, contact administration office? >> staff: good afternoon supervisors. jackie found with the opposite contract administration. i'm here today to request approval of eight resolutions relating to the technology marketplace contracts good i'm requesting 4 min. to increase the contract amounts of four tier 1 generalist contract that are approaching their contract cap did i am also requesting that the board approved for new specials contracts that were identified through an additional
competitive process. i like to briefly provide you some context for these request. the initial rfp was issued on september 27 2013 for multiple as needed contracts in various contract tears. proposals were demonstrating their qualifications. vendors selected to this competitive process were approved by board resolution number 362-114. all contract started on october 1, 2014 with an initial term of three years. the contracts established a prequalified coworker of vendors which requisitions of the it products and services could be bid. as a as of march 31 2016, the city has spent over $93 million with a 29 contract vendors. the initial rfp provides additional vendors could be added later
based on subsequent competitive process. our goals were to increase vendor diversity in opportunities for participation for lv vendors. we wanted to broaden vendor outreach and competition, increase service levels and provide greater access to specialized it expertise. finally, to achieve best value for the city's investment in technology. the first four items before you offer contract amendment to increase the contract cap for on point technologies, good the present contract is $25 million and the proposed contract cap is $50 million. so, if you'll note all these numbers are based on the fact that in march
we were halfway through the contract term, and through bidding within the store we had spent that much amount. so, the proposed amount is based on the average spent. for computer land of silicon valley, we are proposing that the contract cap be increased to $44 million, and for extech joint venture, we are proposing that a contract cap be raised to $56 million and four inner vision systems, we are proposing the contract cap be raised to $15 million. these are capped. i like to remind the supervisors in that they will be subject to bidding within the store as well as appropriation as you approve the budgets going forward.
>> supervisor farrell: thank you very much. colleagues from any questions before budget analyst speak with mr. rose, continue with your reports, please. the staff mr. chairman and members of the committee regarding items five, six, seven and eight on page 4 of our report, we note under the proposed for contracts city department can purchase technology products and services through the technology marketplace and an as needed basis of two and not to exceed the amount of $12 for each contract and is a department just stated, all monies to purchase technology products and services are subject to appropriation approval by the board of supervisors. we recommend you approve the proposed resident resolutions. regarding items nine, 10, 11 and 12 on page 7 of our reports before existing technology market context of a combined total not to exceed the amount
of $107 million for the three-year term. that's from october 1, 2014 through december 30, 2014-2017 and that shown in table 1 on page 7 of our report. going the first 18 months of the contracts from october 14 through march 2016 city departments encumbered approximate 77% were about $82.8 million of the total combined contracts not to exceed the amount of $107 million. they project the seven spending over the main 18 months of the project of the contract, resulting in total contract expenditures approximately $165 or in increased total increase of $50 million that shown in table 2 on page 7 of our report. again, we would note all expenditures under these contractors is subject to appropriation approval of the board of supervisors. we recommend that you approve the proposed resolutions. speak out thank you very much mr. rose. colleagues to many questions?
we will move onto public, could anybody wish to comment on items five through 12? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: colleagues, questions or comments motion by supervisor tang. >> moved and seconded. we can take that without objective >>[gavel] >> clerk: item number 13, charter amendment to amend the charter of the city to transfer responsibility for the maintenance of street trees to the city and establish a special front primary two papers or to maintenance the minutes of trees on san francisco unified school district property. >> supervisor farrell: thank you. this item was sponsored by supervisor weiner so we will turn it over to them >> supervisor wiener: thank you. thank you for scheduling this important item today. colleagues, four years certainly since i've been on the board, i know for years before that, we have had many discussions in the body about
the absolutely terrible approach that san francisco takes to the maintenance of our 105,000 street trees. we think it our of our districts have constituents are just shocked and appalled that the city takes the irrational approach that you are a property were and are responsible for the tree adjacent to your property, whether or not you planted the tree, whether not you want the tree, whether or not you any idea how to take care of that tree, whether or not you have any money, whether not you have the physical ability to take care of the tree, whether the tree is 5 feet tall or 50 feet tall. whether it's one tree or whether it's 30 trees. that you did not plant and do not own. you are responsible to the tree. you are responsible to the sidewalk that the tree breaks. you are responsible for any liability that results from anyone entering themselves.
it's absolutely a horrible policy. for a long time, the city had gradually turned over responsibility to street trees to property owners, about 70% of the street trees were the responsibility of property owners could 30% were maintained by the city. about six years ago the city begin the process of relinquishing were turning over responsibility for the remaining 30%. that process has been ongoing and caused considerable concern in the community and we been working for a number of years out with friends of the urban forest to come up with a solution with the city would take responsibly for all of the street trees. and, where we would establish dedicated lockbox funding to make sure the city has the resources it needs to actually take care of those trees. what we have learned over probably almost 40 years is that trees do not fare well in the budget.
so, simply having the city take back trees would probably result in dramatic underfunding, of street tree maintenance and we would simply see our urban forest continued to deteriorate as the number of trees decline as trees die. we know that our urban forest please are critical role in our city on the environment, quality of life in our neighborhoods and on so many other things, so many other aspects of living in a great urban environments. we need more trees in san francisco, not less. we need healthier trees, not more sick trees when he to have a rational approach to take care of the trees. after years of work with friends of the urban forest and numerous other stakeholders as well as our planning department, on the urban before us mastered the plan and department of public works, we introduce the item before us today could this item will fix the problem. once and for all.
it's not a half solution it it will fix the problem and do so by doing two things. first, the legislation requires the city to take back all 105,000 street trees for maintenance, for fixing of the sidewalk, and also to assume liability. the only exception being if a property owner explicitly requests and enters an agreement to care for the tree because there are some property owners that you want to continue to take care of the trees. then, in order to make sure that we have the funding the legislation creates a dedicated fund to--that will be sufficient for the city to take care of not just the 105,000 street trees that we have today, but to take care of up to 150,000 trees which would then give us an opportunity to expand our streetscape scape population by 50% over a period of years and to have the resources to take care of those trees and the sidewalks and assume liability. the funds will be funded in two ways.
first, it sets a baseline in place, which is the average of what of the inadequate amount san francisco has spent over the last 10 years. we have-the city spending on street trees has ranged over last 10 years from about $6 million to about $10 million so that this sets aside the average. about $8 million a year. then, creates a modest and progressive parcel tax where overwhelmingly property owners will pay about $35 a year, the condo owner will pay 29.50. a single typical single-family home or small permanent building will pay about $35. larger buildings will pay more and large commercial buildings will pay significantly more good so it is a progressive parcel tax. the parcel tax is conditioned on the city of assuming
responsibility for the trees, the sidewalks and liability. if the city once again start stumping street tree responsibility on property owners in the future the parcel tax will be canceled. so, this legislation by having this two-part approach, using what were already spending in general funds for the parcel tax doesn't just become replacement money, and then augmenting the amount with this modest parcel tax we can actually fix this problem. so, colleagues, i ask for your support. i do have a amendment today where we would cap the parcel tax at $5000 and that's for large, larger properties, and i typically some of the large commercial buildings are paying 1000-$3000 range. we thought it was appropriate to
put an upper cap and then we will continue it in committee today. we do have to go through the rules committee as well so after to budget hearings will go tools for more amendment. so we'll probably end up having three or four hearings on this due to some quirks in our board of supervisors committee rules. so, i see supervisor avalos wants to make remarks. when he's done we do of several departmental presentations will call them up after supervisor avalos speak out thank you. supervisor avalos >> supervisor avalos: i just want to thank supervisor weiner for coming forward with this idea. relinquishment, which i can i believe in 2009-2010, those years where we had a $500 million budget deficit two years in a row, was a terrible idea. terrible terrible idea. it disproportionately affected single-family homeowners who had
less income than other people in san francisco. if you look at the southern part of san francisco, that's the area that really felt it hard on especially on the pocketbooks. if you look in parts of district 11 we've had a real struggle with growing her been forest it's one of our climate action plans to grow our urban forest. about 40%. and we are actually be planted with the support of friends of the urban forest we planted hundreds and hundreds of trees in district 11 and especially in the-we also lost a lot of trees because of property owners no longer want to be in the tree carrying business and a lot of that happens in the darkness of night. trees are removed and so we have a lot of streets that look pretty denuded. any kind of foliage that is unfortunate
to see. so, looking forward to seeing,-having a take back responsibility to the city of maintenance of trees so we can actually have the ability to grow our urban forest. i look at this chart of amendment as a step in the right direction. i also have a charter amendment as well. very similarly, that is associated with a tax on non-renewable sources of energy. electricity and natural gas. that measure was introduced last year and yesterday i submitted a amendment as a whole which makes that a general tax. that carbon tax will bring in $18 million a year that could go down as well as people are moving from nonrenewable to renewable energy sources. so,
it's very different from the parcel tax. but for me, it's really important to look at we look at a carbon tax moving forward so the carbon tax will also create that incentive for people to move to our clean power as a program, to move to renewable sources of energy. you combine a carbon tax that has that incentive with trees that actually help to remove carbon out of the atmosphere to work great in a holistic program of doing our part in moving carbon out of our atmosphere. in san francisco. so, i am open to this measure.. i also want to make sure that we are very responsive or responsible on how we move revenue measures to the ballot. there's a number of measures that are coming forward this is sales tax. there's a parcel tax on the board of trustees of city college. i believe i'm hearing words of a bond for the school district. there's a mansion tax. there's other things that are happening that i think we should consider altogether so we as a board can decide what's
the best way to move forward on how we are going to apply taxes to shore up our city responsibilities. so, look for to the conversation and i just want to make sure having a discussion not just in one particular tax, but all them together to find out what's the best assortment of measures that will go on about. >> supervisor farrell: thank you supervisor avalos. supervisor tang >> supervisor tang: i appreciate supervisor avalos comments and i also know this parcel tax has been but for many many years now. either way, i agree with the comments made that was horrible for the city to plant all these trees, palms were not going to relinquish them and we did just that. so, whatever form this eventually takes i am very interested in seeing something happen so that our property owners can no longer have to accept the responsibility of all the trees that they were, again once promised would not
be the responsibility. supervisor weiner had mentioned a amendment regarding a cap for the parcel tax of $5000 for large buildings. what you mean exactly by large buildings >> supervisor wiener: thank you. the reason-i should as we talked about why this is a progressive parcel tax. the parcel tax is calculated using linear frontage on the street. so the more frontage you have within certain categories, the higher your tax. again, the vast majority of single-family homes small apartment buildings that the standard i think 25 foot frontage_debate typically 35 dollars. for commercial printing large building with its residential or commercial, event a really big frontage, they're going to pay more. so, that's how-and that's why today commercial buildings, for example were like eight
[inaudible] were some big big properties, and the pain significantly more. you could say the sky is the limit but we thought it was appropriate to put a pretty-i don't know be liberal or conservative but whatever the right word is, a cap that captures the world warming majority. even the big commercial buildings from i think don't even-it's very rare properties file in there but there are a few that do and i think there should be a cap. >> supervisor tang: thank you. okay. lastly, i just want to really think friends of the urban forest through all the work throughout our city is an amazing part is what i think the city has been lacking terms of whether it's growing our city's urban canopy where maintenance. advocacy, getting people engaged and educated about how it is we care for our trees. i just want to thank you
for that. the visor yee >> supervisor yee: thank you. i want to thank-actually i want to thank both supervisors weiner and avalos for coming forward with these ideas on how we would be able to find the caring of trees by the city. one of the things that i agree with supervisor tang about is that we really needed to keep our word and have the city secure these trees that we had promise and we know things were happening while i was coming, almost coming into to be a member of the board four years ago. i thought was a bad idea at the time. especially, when i was able to talk to so many people on the streets and in particular, those that are on fixed income, for them to be stopped with such a high bill was really ridiculous. so i'm
glad were going to be looking at these revenue measures to see how we can fund the potential for the city to finally take the trees back. so i'm looking for to that discussion. >> supervisor farrell: okay. thank you supervisor yee. supervisor yee 51 asked the department to come up >> supervisor wiener: i just want to first technology supervisor avalos have been conversing about this issue for a number of years now and i think we really--i think we have exactly the same goal. it's always good to have different ideas out there and i'm very open to the carbon tax. this is a general measurement i think the good thing. i know the funds can be used for a number of different terrific user. this is one of them. one thing i do just want to make sure is i think
whatever we move to the ballot, i think it needs to 100% rock solid fix the problem. what i don't want to do is go to the ballot and have the voters think within a fixed the problem but it doesn't fix it. so, if we don't have enough funding dedicated funny, associated with the reversal or relinquishment the problem will not be fixed in people the trees will come back to the city the city will not take care of them because i've seen this movie too many times in this building just terrible on trees. that is because trees just don't compete well with public health and public safety and homeless services and affordable housing etc. so, we just want make sure we fix it that is really job one here. i will say that this concept of a dedicated parcel tax conditioned on the city taking back the trees, even though we introduce it this year we have been extremely public about the fact that we are formulating this proposal for a think probably five years now. we took our time making sure we do
the urban forest master plan which recommended taking back the trees and having a dedicated funding to pay for it. we then, spent frankly through dan flanigan president of the urban forest doing outreach. mdm just did yeoman's work going out to all the neighborhood groups, the property owners groups making sure were really reaching out to the commercial buildings owners, to the large apartments owners, to the small property owners, the people who are going to be paying the tax. having community workshops on this. then convening a community stakeholder group that was very large and diverse we had i believe three large stakeholder meetings to captivity not and this proposal then came out of that group. so, we did this the right way.
it's probably the most thorough three-legislative outreach process i've ever seen and i feel really good about how solid this proposal is. so, with that, mr. chairman, i did just distribute the minutes i described the $5000 cap as well some smaller technical amendment that the city attorney has recommended. so, now, i would like to call up our presenters today. starting with john sway from the planning department followed by , sure from public works and then amanda freed from the treasurer tax collector's office and then dan flanigan from friends of the urban street for good i want to thank each of these departments for participating and helping in the controller's office as well. >> testifier: good afternoon. speaking public was good this was the one on you a little bit
good we just have a brief presentation that of give a little bit of context to how we got to this point and then a brief overview about with this program will look like it if we could have the overhead? the first thing i like to do is remind everyone that trees are green infrastructure there one of the only assets that actually appreciate in value over time. most assets the minute you drive your car off the part about it starts to go down in value but trees that they grow and become more mature provide more ecosystem services, provide more social benefits to the city. so, they are really good investment because we get a higher return on our dollar. but the urban forest really needs our help. we have extensive canopy decline over the last few years. were not able to keep up w mortality rates of our trees. we also see property owners who are unable to care for trees in overtly can and up devastating the urban forest. because we don't have long-term maintenance putting in place we were very limited place in
planting per annum. we only plans about 375 replacement trees annually because recently don't have the resources to care for them as they are growing. and we have an existing and growing backlog sidewalk repairs due to tree roots that have been damaged the sidewalk because were unable to repair them in a timely manner that backlog rose and the damage it grows every year. the supervisor weiner noted, resources for tree maintenance have steadily declined over the years and as a result, the average number of years for a cleaning cycle has increased. so, the industry standard for pruning of street tree is about every 3-5 years and we are currently on a 10-12 you're crooning cycle. as a result of the resources declined for tree maintenance, the department has undertaken over the last several years the tree relinquishment or tree maintenance transfer program. as are all well aware, this is not a popular program that would emphasize that public works undertook this very
reluctantly. was a result of our lack of resources to care for the trees for which we were responsible. that lack of maintenance can result in cuts to public safety and property from those property damage of sidewalks and also failures from trees. unfortunately, because the lack of resources that upon and felt this was a necessary but certainly not ideal program. just to highlight some of the challenges of the program, property owners with them given responsibility for trees. they were unable or unwilling to care for. they faced new cost. never planned for good one of the concerns that nearest and dearest to my heart is the actual loss of our urban forest because property owners don't necessarily have the skills or the financial resources to properly care for their trees. so, these two images are a direct result of the tree maintenance transfer program.
the property owner who believes he was going to receive responsibility to the pruning that you see on the right side of your screen and it killed the tree. the other thing is we lose the efficiency of scale because we have on property owner is putting montréal one day of the week the neighbor may be paying someone to prune a tree three days later. so it's a very inefficient process. all handed over to my colleague john could >> testifier: good afternoon supervise that my name is john sway the planning departments that. i'm also the manager of the city's urban forest master plan could which was really developed to address and find solution to many of the issues that college is described. this was a two-year community planning process we undertook to develop a long-term vision and strategy for the city street trees. the final plan was unanimously adopted by the board last january. so coming
research is part of our plan work we looked at a number of other cities what we discovered was that cities who took care of their own trees at higher standards of care and healthier urban forest and cities that a property owner maintain trees did not. so when we saw the direction the city was moving in the plants of the vision of setting exploring, what it would be like if the city explored creating a municipal program for street trees whereby the public works department would take over responsibility for the maintenance of our 100,000 street trees in san francisco. in addition, another goal of the plan was to increase the forest canopy in san francisco by 50000 new st. trees over the next 20 years. this is a map that shows the green dots, the darker green dots are street trees. the green dots are street trees come up but this is after the relinquishment program. the green dots will be with the city is maintained while the majority will be maintained by property owners this is the vision of the plan we would have citywide street
tree program. manila: talk about a little more about the aspects of this program. >> testifier: so the program really is, transit and it's looking at all the various elements are required to the healthy urban forest over the long-term life cycle of a tree. so it includes maintenance for all street trees on a three-five-year cycle. as i noted earlier, were currently on a 10-12 year cycle. this would bring us in line with the industry standard. in addition, it funds the repair of tree related sidewalk damage. which is it important to make our sidewalks more accessible for all our residents and visitors. it's very exciting to me it also plans for the care of an additional 50,000 new treated allows us to grow the urban forest responsibly and ensure we have a long-term maintenance funding to care for those trees as they mature over time. it would include a program of annual inspections each tree would be inspected on an annual basis by our staff who are certified arborists which then allows the city to take lightly paltry related claims. if we are successfully inspecting those trees on an annual basis, we should be able to avert many
of the problems we currently have with women failures and sidewalk damage. it also allows funding for care for trees within the school district site. this is important is when you research about how children learn much better when they have just visible access to trees and vegetation. the concentration improves. their ability to absorb information improves. so we want to include that in the program as well. >> testifier: the next question we asked ourselves what we have a great idea about how program could work in san francisco, but how would this be funded and what would the
financing mechanism available to make this happen? so we commission economic study to look at identifying all costs of the municipal street she program though take back all the city's trees and also repair tree related sidewalk damage. we estimated the cost, annual cost of this program would be about $19 million in the study recommended a parcel tax is on the street frontage to fund that. in the meantime, after that study was produced, supervisor scott weiner convened a working group street tree on is working group comprised of property owners, different community groups and organizations to weigh in on this proposal. two of the things we heard loud and clear from this working group with the cost burden should not rest solely on property owners as was recommended in the finance study. data city financial contribution is necessary for the group and the larger public they believed to support a revenue measure. so, we went back and revise the proposal to create an urban forest of $19 million bill be comprised of an 8 min. other city contribution and 11 the dollar parcel tax. so, in terms of a parcel tax the way it works no matter how
big the parcel is, they're taxed the same rate regardless of size. so, a large new building or the new transbay tower would be charged the same five dollar parcel tax that this small residential single family home would be charged. the proposed parcel tax in terms of trees, the goal is to district cost more fairly. so the proposal is for progressive parcel taxes based on the street frontage properties. so large properties that are more street frontage with more trees, more capacity for trees would pay more in smaller properties with less trees would pay less. so according to our calculations, under this proposal, about 80% of parcels in san francisco would pay less than $50 a year on this parcel tax. as supervisor mentioned, a typical 25 foot residential lot in san francisco would pay about $35.50. here is the full
table that shows the big on of all the different property types. the parcel taxes structured with a flat rate for condos in very small parcels of $29.50 for small and medium parcels is a linear footage rate of dollar $.42 per linear foot. larger parcels received a rate of two dollars per linear foot. so, as you can see here even the ultra large parcels which we were just discussing account for less than 1% of the torah parcels under the tax. karla is concerned about how this compares to actual cost. >> testifier: as we noted property owners have been burdened with us possibly for caring for street trees and we want to just put a little context to it this parcel tax would cover and the cost property owners face today. a single pruning job of a street tree customer in the range of 300-$1000. if the property owner also has to repair the sidewalk in front of their property, that can range from-this based on our average amount of damage and the average cost to repair the sidewalk-in the range of
2700-$3500 for a single repair. so this would be one single repair could equate to the lifetime of this parcel tax. in addition, the liability is something we can't really assess the cost for this removes the burden of liability off the property owners returns it to the city, but also protects the city because would be able to do the necessary repairs and inspection and pruning of trees to reduce that liability overall. by contrast the benefits property owners as we've already enumerated. they would have much lower cost associated with maintaining those trees. they no longer have the actual responsibility to either maintain the treat or hire someone to do it. they lose that liability that i currently have for trip and fall or damage from a tree limb
. they would not be facing fines for improperly pruning a tree. we issued citations to property owners if they damage street trees. they those property owners are not intentionally damaging the trees they either hire someone who doesn't know what they're doing with it try to do it themselves and end up inadvertently damaging the tree. so this would virtually eliminate all. would certainly make the unintentional fine. then they also don't have to pay for those tree related sidewalk repairs which we just noted would be a very large bird. the benefits before it. you would provide for maintenance of existing street trees all existing synergies, not just those for which you currently have maintenance responsibility but also as i said, allows for the responsible growth of the urban forest. we would increase our street to population about 50,000 almost 50% over the lifetime of the parcel tax it would have the funding to care for those trees as they grow. that is built into the model. in addition, it allows for cleaner and healthier tree canopy, both street trees and
school district trees as we noted with that, bigger and healthier tree canopy, with greater ecosystem services could we have public health benefits as well as social benefits and a more livable city. so, the program timeline. we are in the process currently of completing the citywide street tree senses. we will know exactly which trees are out there in the sidewalks and we can plan for their maintenance based on the species, the amount of pruning the species requires in the most efficient way to go about it. we hope this fall there will be about a measure that would sustainably fund urban forest and over the winter and spring would be developing that maintenance plan. so were gathering information not just on the trees and the tree species that also where sidewalk damage is located which we can then overlaid with where we have senior centers and bus stops and schools so that we can make the most strategic approach to repairing sidewalks and assessing and pruning trees. then, in july of 2017 all st. tree maintenance would revert to the city under this program. so, that concludes our presentation at
we are available for any questions. >> supervisor wiener: thank you very much and thank you for your many many years of work on this issue generally on the urban forest master plan and working closely with us on this parcel tax and charter amendment. i do want to note we been working very very closely collaboratively with a number of city departments, planning dpw, treasury and tax collector, controller and the mayor's budget office was involved in our meetings as well so we really try to do this in a big tent kind of way as possible addition of all the community groups property owner groups so, think of next, i want to call up amanda freed from the tax collector's office.
>> testifier: good afternoon supervisor. amanda freed from the treasurer's office. i'll keep my remarks very short since mine is not the most exciting part of this proposal and just here to say should the parcel tax be approved by all of you and the voters, our offices ready to implement and administer the tax could i do just want to note for all of you that this administration is a bit of a departure for the role of our office. we are very used to billing and collecting for property taxes, but in this proposal would also be processing exemptions for seniors and managing the customer service inquiries and requests for refunds that come in. to that point, were working with the assessor's office sfusd, controller and dpw make sure we design a process that will both customer friendly and cost efficient. also maintaining good control carried i didn't want to add efficient passer november, we would come back to you to seek a budget supplemental to cover staffing and technical startup costs that we do not assume in our 16-17 budget. that so that we be ready for july 1. think. >> supervisor wiener: thank you very much. then tomorrow final speaker for we have
public comment, one of invite up dan flanigan from friends of the urban forest and i want to thank dan. i think he's been around 35 years now and i believe-came into existence based on city also retrieved from tree maintenance, which start i guess in the late 70s and so doug has done great work overall but also in getting the word out on this idea. so, dan. >> testifier: thank you supervisors. thank you supervisor scott weiner pursuing was how my presentation. before i start with my remarks, i want to think the supervisors for giving me this for addressing this problem. it's been incredibly long saber san francisco and it's exciting for all the said friends of urban forest to see so many supervisors really caring about this. i want to especially
thank both scott weiner and supervisor avalos gradually starting this whole conversation about five years ago. i remember very clearly in a meeting room on the other side of this building you brought people together and assume we started coming together around trying to find a solution to this problem. i want to also underline what supervisor avalos was thinking we had friends of urban forest of planted more trees in his district than any other district in the city and it still is district that desperately needs trees, and we believe if we do pass something some kind of legislation along the lines that we are proposing, we can address the inequities, covers aye anyway my remarks. this is what scott just stole from in 1981 the board of supervisors removed funding for the care and planting of street trees. the total 105,000 street trees in san francisco without committees together to transform the words together by planting 50,000 of those 105,000 street three. simply
put, the san francisco public policy around street trees is broken. public works and friends of urban forest on a daily basis have to do with a system that makes absolutely no sense. each of you have heard countless complaints from homeowners on this subject. it is been the dream of our organization and our 18,000 members to fix this bug once and for all. we believe the time is now. several weeks ago i was invited to a meeting of community groups by the mayor to speak about the quality of life issues in san francisco with hopes that in his upcoming budget, would reflect the investment and address those very important issue spirit folks openly spoke and supervisor avalos was at the meeting-folks openly spoke about crime, lack of police support homelessness and health issue. picking to my turn to talk i said that i thought this meeting was a microcosm of the discussion that's taken place in this building for countless
years. when it comes to street trees, the investment and their care simply-trees simply do not compete in the budget process. the current system gets tree funding against these very important issue did ours and oakland solution to a address this very issue. as you see from john sways and karla shores presentation, a great deal of time and analysis thinking, has gone into coming up with an equitable solution to fix a broken system that we currently have. i've spoken with many of you over the years about the disastrous policy of relinquishment get public works has been forced to give back 21,000 trees to adjacent property owners. this is not the first time they've done this. homeowners are being forced to take responsibility for trees that they do not rant , do not want, and now are liable for the expense of the care and maintenance of those trees. this simply does not
make sense. the one thing i've learned over the past eight years working at friends of urban forest homeowners want a cleaner and healthier city, but this is a really big but, they do not want the liability. i find it extraordinary we been successful planting about 1200 trees a year in the face of our broken system. years ago, mayor gavin newsom announced the planning of 20,000 trees in the city ironically, along the same time the money for the care of those trees and many other trees/. many of those trees planted died. the san francisco urban forest is in dire need of a dedicated funding source and a long-term plan. fluctuations in the budget led to the clients and are already small
canopy dangerous trees, thousands of broken sidewalks, an unfair burden being transferred to property owners. we now have both an equitable funding mechanism and a plan to expand our urban forest while ensuring that all the wonderful benefits that trees have can be spread to all parts of our city, not just some of those parts. please, do not lose sight of the fact was half the money on a yearly basis that's being raised by this parcel tax will go to be fixing a huge backlog of over 6000 broken sidewalks. one could almost call this a sidewalk parcel tax but then my members were not agree with that. additionally, there's a desperate need to transform our san francisco schoolyards. which of many look more like a prison than a school. currently, there's absolutely no money to get first we are trees. this proposal finally gives them a budget to care for trees. as this plan was developed friends of the urban forest visited over 50 or neighborhood associations over the past four years in all 11 districts to seek input and support. resoundingly, we heard our solution addresses a need that
many residents have been struggling for years. were also part of the working group of city hall with stakeholders. we conducted polling, focus groups, met with city departments, spoke to you elected officials and consulted with other nonprofits. so what have we learned from this process? this is an issue not just about trees but it's about environmental justice and social justice. it's about pedestrian safety. it's about accessibility for seniors and disabled community and it's about good governments. with the input for both professionals and this community, this plan will address the needs of both our urban forest and all our san francisco residence. we believe this pressure is good for trees. it's good for citizens but we hope that you will support this issue. thank you. >> supervisor wiener: thank you very much mr. fun. one things colleagues, i forgot to mention at the beginning is we do have a cosponsor on this
economic on but supervisor mar has signed on as a cosponsor of this measure. so, mr. chairman, i don't know if these are previous comments or print comments speak out colleagues any questions or comments bring up. i know we have a lot of supervisor tang >> supervisor tang: really quickly i neglected to think public works could honestly given time to do so much without the funding that's really necessary to carry out all this the department has been nothing short of amazing whenever we ask for any help on any issues with the private property owner or business that struggling to maintain a tree so i want to call the public work staff. >> supervisor farrell: okay supervisor jim and i think that does. >> supervisor wiener: okay so mr. chairman will open up for public comment >> supervisor farrell: let's open up to public on. >> supervisor wiener: public comments will be 2 min. i will
call cards we have. >>[calling names] >> testifier: may i start? okay. first of all thank you the time. i be brief. i'm here to talk about why funding should be provided for the street trees. it's obvious your public utility and she treated as such. so spreading the cost of utility should be spread across everyone as opposed to a jabber owners have the most adjacent to the property. this allows for systemic management of the trees which means is more efficient from a cost perspective the split and overwhelming cost on owners essentially randomly and unluckily very near the street trees that provide an overall public benefit. i hope you will vote yes for this measure. thanks.
>> supervisor wiener: next speaker, please. >> testifier: my name is karen can see no i live in the western addition. in the early 80s am a i led the effort in our neighborhood to enter a treeplanting contest and we one. planting 100 trees in our community. i also served as the 84-85 mayor urban forest task force. skipping out to 2014, i began badgering the city departments because the very poor state of the median trees on visit arrow. the outcome was found that both the city and the private contractor had been negligent because every 90 day reports for three years-they were supposed to go for three years-stipulated we are not done. the trees do not receive adequate water for 40 years. for four years. i want to thank you for giving us the
opportunity to encourage you to have san francisco joined the other cities that recognize the importance of the green canopy. every citizen benefits healthwise from a healthy green canopy and save sidewalks. every citizen should contribute to that funding. on property owners can barely responsibility along with property owners in financing our urban forest. it's been so sad watching the signs go up with people now having to be responsible for the tree in front of them. we all benefit from the trees. we should all fund those trees on and i also want to include the sidewalks. i would very much like to add something that there be a citizen task force for oversight built in to the
measure because the city often does not do what it should be done. thank you. >> testifier: hi. thank you my name is teresa pratt and i'm a resident. when i moved there a few years ago i kept seeing these reports on it would cause about trees falling down. crushing cars and falling into houses in blocking the streets for several hours and i could not figure out why this was so, and every few months i would read about this that i found out it's because these trees which are very very public actually the responsibility of private citizens. it made sense to me because not every private citizen has resources as many of you have noted financial or
otherwise to take care of those trees. so, to me again many of you know this but this is an issue of economic justice just as much of an issue of environmental justice. the current plan requires citizens who never signed up for that tree care to the money with the knowledge to do it. that is causing lots of problems. so, we need healthy trees and we need save sidewalks and we all need to get the collective need and collective benefit so there should be collective responsibility to fund the. again, the atomic benefit the substantive it was mentioned but it's also a huge issue of economic justice that we all care for this. thank you. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good afternoon supervisors. my name is susanna russo and i would like to thank my supervisor district 8, scott weiner and also supervisor avalos for sponsoring this much-needed proposal. i am a 13
year volunteer for friends of the urban forest. i moved here 13 years ago the first thing i wanted to do was to plant a tree and i was told that this was the go to organizations could well, i.e. am here to say it was and still is. several-not several years ago actually, last year, i had the misfortune to witness a catastrophic death of a 35 foot eucalyptus tree on generate street just across from me. there was huge property destruction. the homeowners residence, a car, sidewalk, fortunately nobody was killed, but it was mind-boggling to see this massive tree that simply flopped over into the street. this is an all too frequent occurrence in san francisco. i
have proved more than a dozen small sidewalk trees in my glen park neighborhood at the request of my neighbors. i have been teaching and training others to prune and care for street trees. it is time for the city to create a dedicated sustainable funding proposal for our declining urban forest and i strongly believe that this special progressive parcel tax is a way to go. thank you very much. >> testifier: good afternoon. i just would like to speak to my personal experience. starting with the experience of the schoolchild in another city, close to 60 years ago, my schoolyard have a small plot of lawn with beautiful weeping
cherry shade trees. we used it every day and i remember it to this day. on the other hand, i've had a number of unfortunate personal experiences talking to neighbors who remove trees on this one short block. [inaudible] because the abutting owners thought they were too much trouble, to escape they do not know how to take care of them. i property damage when a neighbor planted in inappropriate tree that damage my-both myself and personal friend suffered injuries from falls on uneven sidewalks. personally, i am not -could have led to a liability problem. then, the social, psychological impact of having a shaded beautifully tree-lined street,, and there's a stark
contrast from a neighborhood mostly on the northern side of the city that has tree-lined streets. and other neighborhoods that do not. so, this is-a tree just elevates the community in every aspect of its residents lives. thank you. >> testifier: that's a nice thought. good afternoon supervisors and him were cannons for staff and sf usb pen. i'm thrilled about the success of measure which is a parcel tax for wetland restoration in the bay. especially because i think it shows people are willing to support a healthy environment trust public agencies, and are willing to tax themselves to pay for the many benefits of a better environment. we know as previously have said, as many many public benefits that flow
from urban trees addictively mature ones that are well taken care of. this measure, as the community has been working on it for five years and more, provides for shared responsibility of both baseline and tax measure so i think it is fair. as previous speakers also noted, sustained funding is the only way to reverse loss of trees and grow the urban forest. we've planted over 50,000 trees and it's over 30 year history, but to make this investment-abroad neighbors together to do that planting so it's not just forest rebutted community forest it. i think to make this investment last and continue to benefit all san franciscans, especially our youngest ones, we need to have a sustained source of funding this measure represent a great consensus in the city around one. so i think you for your support and for 40 and is measured to the ballot. thank you. >> testifier: good afternoon.
my name is peter fortune. i'm a resident of the marina since 1984. on the past president and sit on the board of san francisco beautiful. i also sit on the board of the community association but most importantly, for 20 years i've been wearing a green bracelet that identifies me as a tree hugger. i would like to support and thank supervisors weiner and avalos and karla schwarz and dan flanagan for the comments. i would say ditto to them. i was sure mention one thing about how homeowners were not take care of the trees could i have to trees that frame my driveway. a year ago we spent $1800 having them taken care of and fixed and into years before that it was $1100. i can imagine people in the city spending that kind of money to do it. we're fortunate we been able to do it so we now have a way to fix a problem and i urge you to support it. thank you.
>> testifier: to supervisor on zara kelly a resident for 20 years in san francisco good i am a homeowner, taxpayer, mom, and i'm a big supporter of this ballot and i want to thank you especially scott weiner and avalos for putting this forward. i heard to echo today all of us supported. you understand the idea about trees but i'm really here to urge you to put an end to the disastrous trade transfer policy we have in our city which makes absolutely no sense. please remove the liability of the trees back to the city i urge you to improve safety for residents and pick sidewalks for all including for our seniors, disabled, or use, and i urge you not only to support this ballot measure but do your very best to make sure it is done well what it is promising and it's rocksolid in the work gets done as soon as possible. if you want to grow the urban
forest the city has to take responsibility for it. there's no other way around. i know there's other measures that are competing with this, but i don't think it can keep compete with one of our best natural entities. are trees. the work they're doing forth. beautification, the air they give us the carbon sequestering. the habitat they preferred the place for kids to climb and see nature in the middle of the city. the amount of gallons, millions of gallons of water that it cleans. i really want to continue this conversation it keep that in mind that we are it falls on our environmental values and how really the city within the list of to do for the city are trees as an asset we should protect our assets, not continued to disregard and damage it. thank you for listening.
>> testifier: good afternoon supervisors. my name is marilyn carman's. landscape architect and eight san francisco native. in the late 80s i was on the citizen advisory open space committee but i've not spoken before this body since then. for 30 years i worked with an urban designer in montgomery county marilyn could i also worked in paris am now here in san francisco. in maryland, i was montgomery, maryland i was in charge of several urban streetscapes such as in bethesda and marilyn. i also wrote at the same time about urban open spaces and the streets of paris, new york san francisco and shanghai immensely architecture magazine. nowhere, i repeat, nowhere, else have i seen the planting and maintenance of street trees and the building of public space, public sidewalks, but
two were relinquished to individual property owners. as you know from your planning and public works staff, planting and maintenance of the urban forest takes as much knowledge, a series and science as does the development of the rest of the public right-of-way. i urge you to take that this responsibility could you have a staff and a great partner in the friends of the urban forest. thank you for all the support of this excellent measure. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. any additional public comment? mr. chairman they would close public, >> supervisor farrell: public comment is now closed >>[gavel] >> supervisor wiener: collies, thank you for hearing this item today. as you can hear we went to a great process. it's been a long conversation. in a long overdue fix that i think we can be proud of. as i noted at the beginning, i'm asking the
committee to make a few amendment and distribute it those amendment and will actually, mirrors like to make a motion. i want to move the man rocks speak up in a motion by supervisor weiner. >> moved and seconded. any questions or objections? without objection so moved. >>[gavel] >> supervisor wiener: now mr. chairman they can move to continue this item to our next budget committee meeting, which is june 16 >> supervisor farrell: so i like to entertain a motion. >> moved and seconded. to continue to the 16th and will do because the first day of full budget deliberations will do that item person knock it out of the way. so we will.. we will take that without objection as well? >> supervisor wiener: yes. if i could make is a member of the public, although of course anyone is welcome to come to the meeting to make public comments, we are the good public comment today. the rules committee will ultimately be the committee that will send this determine whether to send
this to the full board, so folks of course are welcome and have a right to come but we had good comments today so it's not essential. thank you. >> supervisor wiener: >> supervisor farrell: without objection he can take it >>[gavel] >>[clears throat] item number 14, please >> clerk: item number 14 a resolution approving the interim budget treasure island about authority this clear 26 in heaven 17 and 2017-20 team >> supervisor farrell: thank you. this is the treasure island budget mr. rosen interim budget. >> staff: mr. chairman mercer the committee then rosenfield controller. my make sense to call all three of the interim items together. provide general background on what they are. >> supervisor farrell: let's do that. ashley dalby 14 through 16-217. okay mdm. clerk 14 to 17 together we pick >> clerk: item number 14 has
already been called. item number 15 resolution approving interim budget of the office of community investment and infrastructure operating as the successor agency to the san francisco redevelopment agency for fiscal year 2015-27. item number 16, propose interim budget appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and estimated expenses for department of the city as of may 31, 2016 for fiscal year ending june 30, 2017 and june 30, 2018. item number 17 proposed interim annual salary was enumerating positions in the annual budget and appropriation works for fiscal year ending june 30 27 and june 30, 2018 >> supervisor farrell: mr. rosenfield >> staff: thank you. as you know you begin your deliberation on the mayor's proposed budget when you have a false ao annual corporation ordinance in the annual salary corridor in front of you. our charter establishes
a budget process with the board of supervisors really adopts a budget at the end of july. of course the mayor is required to approve that budget no later than the fifth day of august. as you know our fiscal year starts on july 1. so, with the what looks in front of you is bridge that period with the fiscal year that we are now ending on june 30 is exhausted and yet the new permanent budget for the city for the new fiscal year is not yet approved. that approximately 30 friday period in july our charter calls on the mayor and the board to adopt an interim appropriation the covers that period that's what these items are. provides a continuation of the current year budget allows the government to continue to operate and pay bills will you finish your deliberations in july. so that's really the purposes of these items. they're largely administered oh and action. mr. rose is a report on. i can respond to his
report but that's the general context >> supervisor farrell: thank you. any questions? mr. rose go to your reports fred leaf give 16, 16 technically >> staff: yes. specifically, regarding item number 16 on page 10 of our report, we report that section 31 is a new provision of the administrative provisions of the annual appropriation ordinance authorizing the controller and the board of supervisors has previously pledged 100% of the property taxes generated by and infrastructure financing district. to the ifd to transfer funds in a corporation authority between and within accounts related to the ifd to meet accounting and state requirements, infrastructure, financing plans, and bond confidence and increase increases or decreases in appropriations to match the actual property tax increment revenues received for the ifd.
we have a recommendation regarding that on page 11, and that it specifically regarding item 16. we well, this pertains to both 16 and 17. we recommend you amend section 31 of the administrative provisions of the annual appropriation ordinance to clarify that any increase to the appropriation to the ifd or the infrastructure financing district, would be considered with the infrastructure financing plan. it would be consistent with the infrastructure financing plan previously approved by the board of supervisors, and we recommend you approve the fiscal year 16-17 and 17-18 interim annual provision ordinance file 16-0626 as amended and to approve this cool year 16-17 and 17-18 interim annual salary ordinance in that file 16 0627. >>
>> staff: out is that we concur with mr. rosen on this item. >> supervisor farrell: thank you. sorry about that it mr. rosen any questions or any concerns on this proposed amendment >> testifier: makes sense must be felt one with that will open up to public comment with items 14-17 get any questions or comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. so >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: to clarify that applies to both items? >> staff: yes, does >> supervisor farrell: one proposed minutes in item 14 to 17. can i entertain a motion to except as proposed amendment 16-17? >> moved and seconded. >> testifier: i stand corrected it just item 16 that would refer to. i apologize. >> supervisor farrell: think.
so, a motion to except the minutes for item 16? >> moved and seconded. without objection >>[gavel] befell been a motion 24 items 14-17 including as amended number 16 to the full board at her next record scheduled meeting >> moved and seconded. can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: mdm. clerk to a variety of the business be forced. >> clerk: no more business. >> supervisor farrell: thank you, everyone. we are adjourn. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> the maus coney center
project is transformation of the convention center and it is not only addition and increased space but also a transformation of the urban neighbor around it in a positive way. >> 25th largest convention center in the country but the conventions are getting bigger so with this extension it is 13 largest >> we have been under construction a year and a half and set to complete the construction in 2018. it generated over $9 billion in san francisco >> 35 percent of viz #2rs coming to san francisco are coming to maus
coney. >> 2500 jobs will be created. >> if we didn't do the expansion we would luce $200 million in taxes a year. the conventions they are talking about going other cities with ample [inaudible] and exhibit space and not come to san francisco. >> there is a lot of [inaudible] we are at a point now where our [inaudible] two halve oz the mos connie and think what we desire is one space. >> we are adding space about 200,000 space. we are connecting the two existing north and south exhibition halls that excavate under howard street to increase the largest exhibition space to 1 contig ws space over
500,000 square feet. >> the spot i'm standing in will be inside the lobby. the building will be pushed out to howard street and connected north and south above and under ground. >> when you go on the north our south side you enter into a hall that is divided into major ways >> this is public private partnership. the hotel industry [inaudible] splitting it up of the building. >> since we have a north and south howard street it [inaudible] to make [inaudible] >> improving the bridges to make them more accessible so go over howard street >> [inaudible] developed to look at several different proposals for a light [inaudible] to work with that bridge and the selection of the
[inaudible] he is on what i think is a beautiful piece that is very animated. you will be able to see it as [inaudible] cross the bridge and can see it as a resident of san francisco looking up. there is a second bridge and this bridge replacing an existing bridge over howard street that links yerba buena gardens to a childrens playground. make a much larger public space as well as aplaza space that brings you up to that in a visible way. >> we worked on the playground to make it safe and invited and added more open space >> the area will be connected with the neighborhood. [inaudible] much better space for everyone. >> why is such a fundamental part [inaudible] could be thought of
as columns and beams [inaudible] the areas that you walk to check in prior to [inaudible] all those activities [inaudible] opposed to [inaudible] we thought of ways to bring light into these occupied spaces including skylights and [inaudible] highest level of [inaudible] recycled steel. the concrete is [inaudible] >> we will be harvesting all the rain water and storm water and reusing it. >> in [inaudible] they extend down into the aquifer level of the water
level which means water is being pumped out to remove the pressure and there are over 15 million gallons of water per year that maus coney center pumps out so the water is wasted. our idea is disconnect the ground water system from the [inaudible] and reuse the water and save and preserve and use it for [inaudible] and use it for other irrigation uses. we have excess water to fill up [inaudible] >> there will be limited traffic impact during construction >> there is a 8 month period where we have to take a lane of traffic out from howard street so we can expand the tunnel. >> we anticipate the construction to be minimal. >> [inaudible]
>> make the center statef the art and much more competitive. [inaudible] >> having the space. [inaudible] underneath howard. having [inaudible] >> this is a [inaudible] worked with the residential, the merchants in the neighborhood, the non profits to make sure this is a vibrant area. >> even if you don't come to the convention and enjoy the public space, it is something that helps revitalize the neighborhood and bring energy to the neighborhood and more people to the neighborhood and shops and retail and shocase san francisco around the world. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local biz and
challenges the san franciscans to do their shop and dine in the 49 within the by supporting the services we help san francisco remain unique and successful and vibrant so where will you shop and dine in the 49 san francisco owes itch of the charm to the many neighborhoods people coma greet and meet it has an personality these neighborhoods are economic engine seeing the changes is a big deal to me especially being a san francisco native and it is important to support the local businesses but also a lot to over here it is nice not to have to go downtown i think that is very important 0 for us to circulate our dollars the community before we bring
them outside of the community for the time we have one dollars in the community is the better off we are it is about economic empowerment by apron ingress the businesses that are here. >> shopping local cuts down the cyber foot you'll find cookies and being transported the world where everything is manufactured and put on the assembly line having something local is meaning more the more we support our local businesses the more i can walk down to where i need to be. >> bridges contingency bye like