tv LIVE BOS Budget and Finance Committee SFGTV February 16, 2017 10:00am-4:01pm PST
finance committee i'm comen chair of this committee and to my left is supervisor katie tang and norman yee will be joining us shortly and our clerk is miss linda wong and recognize our friends at sfgtv who are assisting us with this broadcast this morning. madam clerk, do we have any announcements? >> yes, silence all cell phones and electronic devices and completed speaker phones and documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk, items acted upon will appear on the board of supervisor's agenda, unless otherwise stated. >> we will not be having a board of supervisor's meeting next tuesday do you to the holiday. >> madam clerk, item one? >> item one,resolution approving
and authorizing the execution of a purchase and sale agreement with the city of pleasanton ("pleasanton"), for the conveyance by the city and county of san francisco, acting through the san francisco public utilities commission (sfpuc), to the city of pleasanton, consisting of approximately 3.18 acres of real property located at 401 and 403 old bernal avenue, pleasanton, california for $4,200,000; adopting findings under the california environmental quality act; adopting findings that the conveyance is consistent with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and authorizing the director of property and/or the sfpuc's general manager to execute documents, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution >> we have got russell from the sftpuc to present on this item. good morning. >> good morning, supervisor and thank you for the opportunity to appear. so the puc is selling some under utilized property in order to offset costs for our capitol improvement program. we have been working for almost a year with the city's real estate services division to issue public notices and market, and solicit bids for our under utilized properties. we accepted an offer for one property that has two addresses, 401, and 403, old brunell avenue. and then 3 residential sized lots at helen drive. and first we will show you a picture of the pleasant on
property, this is a remnant of a very large parcel that we sold many years ago. zoned public and industrial. we acquired the property when the city as a whole acquired the assets and properties from the spring valley border company in 1930. this property was used for ground water operations until 1949. and in or december 13th, 2006, our commission declared the property surplus to our utility needs. and in attempting to sell the property, we worked again with city real estate which issued a request to proposal foz commercial real estate brokerrage, and city real estate selected caulers because it complied and it had the lower rate of 2.75 percent, the budget analyst report had a little discrepancy. beginning in on february 25, of
2016, we complied with the california surplus property statute and the ordinance by issuing notices to all public agencies and non-profit housing groups that required notice. we received no letters of interest from any housing sponsors or public entities. this conveyance conforms with the city's general plan. on november 16th, the planning department found the sale of the property consistent with the eight priority policies of the planning code. our bureau of environmental management determined that the sale of the property is not a project under sequa. in may of last year, an amazer valued the of 8.9 million, another appraiser reviewed and
confirmed that the original valuation was valid. and during our bidding process, we accepted the highest responsible bid of 4.2 million dollars, that was from the city of pleasant on. soliciting these bids, they marketed the property for 25 weeks. we due to the extensive marketing period and public noticing period, we felt confident that the two week call for offers was sufficient, because we knew who the bitteders bidders would likely bidders would be, they received, three bids, on november 7th, 2016, we notified the city that it was the highest bidder and selected that bid.
>> the city council has already approved this purchase and sale agreement. the revenue again from this sale will be used to support our capitol programs. and not only in gaining revenue, we will save over 5,000 dollars a year in property taxes and maintenance costs. >> do you have any questions that i may ask? >> thank you. >> i don't see any questions just yet. >> okay. >> so at this point i want to turn to the budget and legislative analyst, mr. harvy rose, good to see you back in one piece. thank you, madam chair, members of the committee. and on page 5 of our report, we note that the net proceeds to the sfpuc from the sale of the subject property are 4 million 95,000 and that is shown in table two on page 5. we also note that the sfpuc pays
both property taxes and maintenance costs on the subject property resulting in the savings of the puc. of approximately 5184 dollars per year after the sale of the property. we do recommend that you approved this legislation. >> well, it you very much for the presentation. >> colleagues do you have any questions for the bla? all right, thank you puc we are going to go to public comment at this time. >> thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, as public comment you will have two minutes, you will hear a soft chime indicating 30 second remainder, anyone on item one? please do so. seeing none, public comment closed. >> i will make a motion to send fourth the positive recommendation to the full board. >> thank you and that passes would ut objection, thank you. >> next item, please? >> item two,resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a purchase and sale agreement
with pradeep gandhi and gabriel gonzalez (together, "buyer") or buyer's nominee, for the conveyance by the city and county of san francisco, acting through the san francisco public utilities commission (sfpuc), to buyer of three parcels, consisting of approximately 15,341 square feet of real property located between helen drive and dexter place, millbrae, california for $2,340,000; adopting findings under the california environmental quality act; adopting findings that the conveyance is consistent with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and authorizing the director of property and/or the sfpuc's general manager to execute documents, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of this resoluti resolution. >> all right miss russell you are back? >> thank you very much. so, these properties are three residential sized lots between helen drive and dexter place and they are each approximately, $5,000 per lot and zoned low density res denial and, we acquired it for a water enfra structure project but that project never happened. on december 13th, 2016, our commission declared the property surplus to our utility needs. simply with the property, we worked with the city real estate to issue the brokerage services and city real estate selected culers due to the bid terms and the low commission rate of 2.75
percent. the again, it is with the city real estate assistance, we complied with the surplus property and the statute for california and the property ordinance, we issued notices to all required entities and housing sponsors and received no letters of interest. this on november 6th, 201 # shths our planning department found the sale of these lots consistent with the policies of the planning code. simply, this determined that the sale of the property is not a project under sequa in june of last year, an mai appraiser valued the lots together at 2 million 40,000 on january, fifth, and another appraiser reviewed and confirmed the valuation, with he have two bidders, mr. gandi and gon sal
ez who submitted the highest bid at 2.3 million for all three lots this is is over the appraised amount. offered for weeks and we received they were the highest bidder bidders... this is a very clean sale, and after the payment of the commission and mr. ganda and mr. gon sal ez have already signed the purse and sale agreement. the funds from this sale will be used to offset our capitol projects. do you have any questions? no. >> i will turn to the bla.
any comments? you? >> yes, madam chair and members of the committee, on page 11 of our report, we show that the net proceeds to the sfpuc from the sale of the subject property are 2 million, 281,000 v,500, that is shown on table two on page eleven and again on this property, they pay both property tax and maintenance costs resulting in the savings of the puc of approximately, 2320, per year as a result of the property sale, again we recommend that we approve this resolution. >> thank you very much with the recommendation. colleagues, seeing that there is no other comments from you, let's go to public comment. public comment on item two is open. >> okay, pum public chent is closed. >> there a motion? >> make a motion to pass this out of committee with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> without objection. it passes thank you. >> thank you very much, you are welcome. item three, please?
item three,hearing on the controller's six-month budget status report for fy2016-2017; and requesting the controller's office, and the mayor's budget office to report. >> okay, colleagues i called for this hearing to provide the controller an opportunity to present our city's 6 month budget status report. a lot has happened in the last few months, and i am anxious to hear what is going on. i believe that it is important for this body and for our entire full board to have a full picture and understanding as to where we are as a city. financially. and in particular, paying attention to our fiscal health. the report provides a picture of our current expenditure and revenue status as well as projections, for the public's edification, this information is he critical to this committee's decision making process to help us make fiscally responsible choices. with that i would like to bring up controller mr. ben rosenfield the floor is yours, thank you.
>> thank you, madam chair, and members of the committee, ben, city controller, as you indicated in your opening remarks, the 6 month status report is one of the quarterly status reports that we provide to the mayor and the board and the public regarding how the city is doing in the current fiscal year we are talking about 16, 17, budget and it has implications for next year that i will touch on briefly. >> okay. >> at a high level in the general fund, we are projecting as of the 6 month mark just under a 300 million dollar ending balance in the current year. that is about a 72 million improvement from the assumptions contained in the five year financial forecast that our office, the mayor's budget office and your legislative budget and analysts prepared in late november and published in early december. and about 54 million better than
the assumptions that were contained in the mayor's rebalancing plan which identified the additional revenues and so it is about 54 million better than suspected than in the current year. >> the city's typical budget practice has been to take ending balances in the current year and then use that good news to help close the budget deficits in the i couldn'ters ahead. and if that is the choice that the mayor and the board make, that 54 million will reduce the projected shortfall over the next two years from about 402 million dollars, which was our last forecast, to about 348 million. there is a lot of interesting news in the report this year. generally speaking and i will touch on some of this, this improvement is really being driven by strength in our property related taxes. property tax and transfer tax. and by net savings in our health and human service departments.
significantly, transfer tax returns in the current year are driving a stabilization reserve deputy in the current year and so our reserves are growing and we project to end the current year with the reserves that total about 8 percent of the general revenue, and so that is an improvement but still below the target which is ten percent. >> so i should say that i have copies of the report here to my right, which has a lot more detail and i will touch on here today and it is available on the website as well for the folks that are interested in it but at a high level this chart is showing you most of the major general fund revenue and how they are performing verses the adopted budget and you can see unlike the last several years and really almost five years now, where we have seen pretty consistent improvement verses budget across all of our taxes here we have got some taxes performing better than budget and others performing worse, and like i indicated earlier, it is
really the taxes that are driven by the property values and property activity here in the city are performing better than budget, generally speaking, those that are capturing consumption activity in the city, those are flattening and in some cases actually declining verses the prior year, and so we have the real strength in property tax and in particular, property transfer tax, and you can see on this chart in the current year verses the adopted budget, but we have weakness in sales tax, and that is driven by the failure of the sales tax that was assumed in the budget. but we also see weakness in a couple of other revenues, hotel tax, interestingly, rather than just plateauing in the current year is actually declining verses the prior year for the first six months and that is a trend that we are going to be watching parking taxes also lower than budget, and lower than the prior year and we have weakness in a couple of other major taxes as well. the net news here is good about
91 million better than budgeted. >> thank you. >> to talk briefly about transfer tax we talked about before, they are easily the most volatile revenue in the general fund, it is the hardest for us to project, given that volatility. this is showing you a history back for about the last ten years. and you can see just how quickly it rises and falls. we lost 100 million in transfer tax in just an 18-month period between 06, 07 in the trough of 08, 09, and realized 48 million in transfer tax, that entire year. and then we have seen a remarkable up swing and this is really driven by large volume transactions here in the city. >> excuse me ben? >> we have got supervisor yee that has a question for you on the slide. >> of course. >> i just have a question and in regards to the projection for the transfer tax.
this is for the first six months. >> correct. >> and i guess as you look into the future, are we taking into consideration the luxury transfer tax also? >> yes. >> go ahead. >> as you know and for members of the public the voters did approve an increase in the transfer tax for properties of more than $25 million. in value that went into effect on january first of this year. we have assumed an estimate that we consistent with what we have talked about before is 18 million in transfer tax, resulting from that in these projections. it certainly is something that we are going to be watching over the last six months of the year. >> the first six months of this year were tra order for transfer tax, in particular the month of
december. in december alone, we generated about 72 million dollars in transfer tax in san francisco. so that is more in a single month than we generated in the entire fiscal year of 08, 09, it was a high movement some of that was likely transactions recording to beat the increase in the tax rate that was going into effect in january. but it is also just generally been an incredibly strong six months. we have assumed budget levels of transfer tax here for the remaining six months about you we will be watching this month to month. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> you can continue. >> sure. >> we had piqued at previous pique was at just under 320 million for transfer tax in 14, 15, and we saw the declines in 15, 16, when you can see on this chart. and the budget we had projected and the budget assumed a
continual gradual decline in transfer tax revenues and instead we have had a reversal of that and as we talked about the first six months of the year were strong and we are ro jecting to be at a pique for san francisco revenues. like i said earlier, growth over the five year average ends up captured in the stabilization reserve, this was a mechanism adopted by the board of supervisors to smooth the volunteer tillty in this tax, and so the strong transfer tax is now fuelling a 70 million depu deposit to the reserve in the current year. in particular it is driving improvement and a lot of the base lines and set assigns that are for interest, but you can see on this slide just how those base lines and funds are improving verses budget. the mta sees an improvement for
their share of these revenues. the library base lines are net growing, 2 million and we also see the improvement here in the children's fund and the open space fund, both of which are driven as you know by property tax over all which is growing. >> turning to department projections. and these are detailed in the report with obviously further explanation hthe net here is improvement. it is really being driven by improvement in the department of public health. which is projected which has revenues out performing expectations in the budget. so their net position in this 6 month mark is now at 30 million of improvement verses the six month. >> as a reminder, that is on a two billion dollar, operating budget and while it is a significant number as a percentage of their whole, it is about at a percent and a half of
improvement. >> but you can see that we also have savings in other departments and the human service agencies and others, that are detailed in the report. i should say that some of these savings and we have noted them with stars here. are expenditures that were associated with the sales tax that failed. and so earlier we talked about weakness in sales tax, and some of these expenditures are now on reserve because of the failure of the sales tax to offset part of that loss. consistent with the current year budget, the mayor's rebalance lg plan and the release of reserve that this committee acted on earlier this year. we don't see any department over spending that will have to draw on the general reserve in the current year, but there are a number of cases where the departments are over spending the over time budget and they have savings in other parts of the budget that they will need the board's permission to reappropriate to cover. >> which departments are those?
>> we note them here. had emergency management, the 911, department for the city, public health, police, fire, sheriff, and maybe the puc. were all projecting at this moment will over spend their over time budgets in the current year. with savings offsetting that in other parts of their budget. but they will need your permission to reappropriate those savings within their department to cover these offerages. >> are you able to estimate when they will come before the committee to ask for permission? >> it is typically we have done it in the spring in prior years. but it is entirely a choice for the committee actually. we push that forward if you like to see them sooner or have it later in the i couldn'ter if you like to see them later. we suggest the spring because at that time, the departments have a good handle on where they actually expect to end the year as well as what savings is available to offset it. >> do the departments come altogether collectively or are
they, you know, just would what they are see all of them on one day, as opposed the puc one week and so on and oforth, and we will work with the departments to bring them forward in that way. >> thank you. >> of course. >> as always, with our projections it is important that we stress that these are projections as the year goes along, they get tighter and tighter. but there are uncertainty that still exist that could effect these forecasts. pace of economic activity is the largest. we are at this interesting moment where we are seeing some taxes continue to grow at strong pace and those that are really driven by the property value and others are plateauing and appear to be declinindeclining, hotel, utility user tax so these will continue to be and fluctuate as we know more about what is going
on in san francisco economy and what the out look is. >> while federal revenue risk likely sits in the budget years, there is some risk related to federal losses in the current year and we will continue to monitor that. at this point, we are assuming no losses in the current year as a result of actions in dc, which seems like the most likely out come. but we will continue to report back to you and the federal select committee of the bore as we know about the federal budget out look. >> and simply where there is a significant proposal that the governor has put forward in the january budget related to shifting part of the cost of the ihhs program from the state to local government. and if it were adopted as he is proposed it will cost our general fund about $40 million. that again, is likely an impact that hits the budget years, but it is one that we will be watching in the current year as well. >> and then lastly, of course, new spending commitments by the
mayor or the board of supervisors have the potential to effect this out look. >> we touch on the host of other funds outside of the general fund in the report and just generally speaking and i will not go through them in detail here, you can see the improvement for the vast majority of the funds verses the assumptions in the budget whether the department of building inspection and we talked about the children's fund and the convention and library and open space and the airport and they are doing better than assumed in the budget and the port and at least the hechy and clean water departments within our public utility commission with have modest improvement. >> so again, just in closing, and in brief, this is about 54 million in improvement in the current year verses what we had previously projected. if that is applied to the shortfalls that we have talked about previously that will reduce them from 400 million to
350 million. we will be the next steps in our forecasting process in early march, our office the board of supervisors budget and legislative analyst and the mayor's budget office will reforecast the budget years given this new information. so we will have revised shortfall estimates at that time. and we will come back to you with a budget status report on the current year. in may. giving you information through three quarters of the fiscal year. >> i would be happy to answer any questions the committee has. >> i think that supervisor tang has a few questions. >> no. supervisor yee? >> is it safe to say that for the next six months on projection on property taxes that you might have had earlier, would actually go up? driven by the fact that the
transfer tax went up so significantly that there is so much of it being transferred that meaning that, you assess it at the current prices than the property taxes will go up also. i hate to say where they will go and i hate to talk about where they might, and i think that there may be upside risk here for property tax and property transfer taxes in particular the hotel tax moving from the assumed growth to actually seeing the declaims of 2 percent
from the first six months of the year we have a number of events coming up that may dampn that further, and i think that we will probably see, and that will be my guess today and we will see the improvement in some and weakness in others. it will, and if we see the level of activity in the next six months that we saw in the first six months of the fiscal year. important to note though, that given the relationship with the stabilization reserve, because we are now transfer tax in the current year has risen above the stabilization reserve deposit fle flesh hold as if the transfer tax improves, 75 percent of the growth will flow to that reserve, with only, 25 percent flowing to the general fund. >> oh, okay. and that helps. >> yeah. >> thank you very much. >> seeing no other comments from
my colleagues, i want to invite up miss white house from the mayor's office of budget to make a few comments. >> welcome. >> thank you, share cohen and members of the budget and finance committee, i would loaf to go to the overhead if that is okay. i just wanted to i am sorry. the --. >> before you begin, i want to make an announcement to everyone in the chamber today. good morning, and welcome. just want to bring to your attention that we have an overflow room set up with a television as well. in the south light court which is down stairs, the deputy sheriffs with point you in the direction just down the main staircase and to the left. so if you don't have a seat we need you to go down into the overflow room. >> okay. >> great. so thank you so white house,
mayor's budget director and the controller has already touched on this but i just wanted to make sure that i set a couple of comments for the consideration, as a controller mentioned, as of the five year financial release our city projected deficit for the up coming two years was around, 400 million, if we took the balance of the 54 million from the six month report, and we used that to the balance up coming two year budget that will bring down the projected deficit to 350 million, just for some perspective on that for me. this time last year, the six month report was around the same number was around, 58 million and at that time, the deficit went from 350, to 300 as a reminder, compared to a year ago, we are still about 50 million worse off and i think what is very different about that time, is that there is a lot more uncertainty from the federal government, and i think that is an important thing to keep in mind and then the six month report released to the up coming items and so i wanted to comment on the mayor's
rebalancing plan, and so he released a rebalancing plan on december 8 of 2016, and really i believe that the appropriation ordinance that will be coming up later, that does relate to the 6 month report, when i talked to supervisor avalos about this, he wanted to be sure that the they would be aible to weigh in and as the budget and finance committee does have this discussion today which i am happy to help and be helpful in any way, because it is a good policy decision, keep in mind, you know there were choices and trade offs that the mayor made and so when we are talking about doing additional new things, it is important to also talk about the choices that the mayor made and where might the board make a different choice. so for example, the rebalancing plan includes additional funding for immigration for the free city college, street trees as well as 20 million a year in ongoing homeless fund and this includes all existing rentals and navigation centers and
really what we prioritize after speaking with the department and supervisors and community members whats really where is our existing service? that must continue and move forward because it is already being use and we didn't want to be in a situation where anyone was losing service that was a high priority for us when we did that process, and just where we are at on timing in the year. >> we are three months away from your committee and from us having to propose a balance budget to you and your committee reviewing that in a much larger context with everything altogether at once. i think right now when i think about making decisions on doing more or adding new money for new programs there are two reasons that i am concerned about that. one is, if we take some of this six month money, the this 54 million and we spend it and then it is not available to balance
the budget, instead of 400 million, to 350, it will make the devastate stay higher and additionally it is a one time source of funding. which makes the deficit worse, and because really what we are talking about is ongoing services today. and i am happy to help in any way that i can. >> colleagues any questions? >> just a quick question, last year when we went to around this time of the year, and i can't remember maybe you could remember? that did the board ask for supply mentals to support or in crease the support of certain
programs during the latter half of the year. you know, i could not remember off the top of my head i am no the sure. >> in other words, did the board make decisions that would have increased the projected deficit at all last year. >> i can't remember it happening later in the year. i believe past practices it is usually some what earlier in the year but i am sorry i can't remember, but maybe the controller's office can check or let us know. >> supervisor i don't have that information at my finger tips, but i can reresearch it. >> as we recall we have the full board approve a few supply mentals. >> we will do that homework in the next few minutes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i don't believe there is a bla report on this item. so what we will do is we will go to public comment. ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to comment on item
three, do so. at this time. >> all right, seeing no public comment, closed. >> i will make a motion to file this hearing. >> we will take that motion without objection. thank you. >> madam clerk, could you call item four and five together? and as at this point, i would like to recognize that we have a supervisor sandy fewer who is joining us for the next couple of items call four and five. >> item four.ordinance appropriating $6,945,965 of general reserve to the office of public defender, to create a legal unit to defend immigrants from deportation in fys 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 . and item number five,ordinance amending ordinance no. 146-16 (annual salary ordinance fys 2016-2017 and 2017-2018) to reflect the addition of 17 new positions (7.08 ftes in fy2016-2017 and 17 ftes in fy2017-2018) at office of public defender for establishing a legal unit to defend immigrants from deportation. (. >> thank you, supervisor fewer is the sponsor of this item
>> thank you, and i am happy to be here at the budget and finance committee today to discuss the items before you. we are calling items four and five together as items four is a supply mental appropriation that would fund immigrant legal defense through the san francisco public defenders office and item five, amendz the annual salary ordinance by adding those positions in the office of the public defender. before hoping up for the presentations i wanted to say a few words. >> this is an important issue for me. when my youngest son roy went off to college in 2010, my daughter asked my husband and i if we would host an undocumented san francisco student in our home. and so we hosted udera for four years while she was attending san francisco state. and we learned first hand how the lack of legal papers effect the every days lives of our immigrant populations, when her grandfather was picked up by ice, we also learned the power of legal representation.
as he kissed his wife good-bye and set off to the job that he worked for over 40 years, repairing body work on cars, ice surrounded him and took him away, claiming he was another person with an arrest warrant, he insisted that he was not that person, but ice refused to listen, because his family was able to secure legal representation for him, the van that was transporting him to the border was stopped and he was taken back to his family, which includes u.s. born grandchildren, this is what legal representation can do, this trump association will not be so generous, for thousands of people they are in desperate need of legal representation to insure the due process rights. >> i would like to remind. >> slow down. >> i would also like to remind my colleagues that the immigrant communities are being impacted
include latino, asian, and pacific islander, white, arab and african residents. as a city, we have stood together to take important actions and response to this threat. including 1.5 million dollar supply mental for non-profit immigration legal defense services and a lawsuit from the city challenging the constitutionality of the order to defend sanctionary city, but there is a group of people that are vulnerable and that is people who are detained, of the 1600 people in detention through san francisco immigration court, the only immigration court in northern california, 60 percent, 67 percent of them do not have legal representation, and two-thirds of them have no criminal record and many of them have u.s. born children they are supporting. if we believe in civil rights for all, if we believe in human rights for all, then we must believe in due process for all.
because without due process, human and civil rights people will be violated. earlier this month, i asked the budget and legislative analyst office to draft a report and other cities response to the trump administration aggressive actions towards immigrants. san francisco should not be the only. and we are not the only ones, san jose, and santa clara county have committed significant, legal defense funding as well as alamena county last week for both community organization and public defenders. our efforts are linked to the efforts of other public and private entities who are stepping up to provide funding for critical and legal defense, in addition to training and education for immigrant communities. but san francisco should continue to be united in leading this issue, and that is why i
have taken over sponsor ship of this legislation originally introduced by supervisor campos in 2016. based on the 6 month report, with he have a surplus in the current year budget due to a significant amount of salary savings and unexpected increase in the city's transfer tashgs while of course the majority of the money should be set aside to help with the budget shortfall, i believe that there is room including saving in the public defenders own budget to prioritize these critical issues, in light of the circumstances since the legislation was originally introduced, i will be accepting your recommendations made by the budget and legislative analyst's office and suggesting making the following amendments, reduce the amount of supply menial to effect the numbers >> remove the fund and reduce the positions in the public defenders office, reduce to 13 positions in fiscal year, 16,
17, which would include one head attorney, six attorneys four legal assistants and two senior process clerks. reduce to 15 positions, and fiscal year, 17, 18, to one head attorney, eight attorneys and four legal assistants and two senior process clerks. total amounts to 418,105 in physici fiscal year, 17, 18, to 2 million, 692 dollars in fiscal year, 17, 18, and two million, 441,797 dollars total for both years, with that i have asked several office to come and present today, i want to thank in order of presentations adrian from the office of civil engagement and fred from the
budget and legislative analyst office, brian chu, from the mayor's office of housing and community development, davis from the human rights commission, white house from the mayor's budget office and jeff san francisco public defender. first i would like to bring up pond for the first presentation, focused on analysis of the existing and pending federal executive orders regarding immigration. >> it is good to see you. >> good to see you supervisors, good morning, chair cohein, and committee members and supervisors, the office of civil engagement and affairs and i am joined here by senior, policy analyst, francis sha and the researcher amal, and our language services staff, will also be interpreting part of the proceedings today for the residents who don't speak or understand accomplish so that they can fully participate.
oc, as part of the general services agency and one of a growing number of immigrant affairs offices across the nation and we work with about, 100 offices nationally, and we are the only one that has policy grant make and direct service responsibilities. and our programs range from community ambassador safety to citizenship and civil engagement and deferred action assistance and day laborers and language and immigrant rights and education and out reach, we also over see the city wide compliance with the ordinance and staff the san francisco immigrant rights commission. our job is to provide information resources and tools to city departments and capacity support to cbo to help them better serve our vulnerable and communities in a cohesive way. and as you heard, earlier from supervisor fewer, the need is great. we were asked today to provide an overview of federo, immigration policy, and
executive orders, and how these and anticipated actions may impact san francisco's people. there are 2.2 million born outside of the united states, includes nationalized citizen, and lawful residents or green card holders and refugee and legal non-immigrants, including those who are on student work or other temporary visas. and persons residing in the country without authorization. so in san francisco, there are about 71,000 with some sort of
legal status, of these, 47,000 residents may be eligible now for citizenship. they are mostly from the asian region, one in every 7 is san franciscos is an immigrant and that is nearly, 300,000 san francisco residents. and there are about 44,000 individuals without documentation status in san francisco. mostly from mexico, central america and asia. with mexico and china the top countries of birth. there are also many mixed status families or families whose members include different citizenship or immigration status. for example a family with u.s. born citizen child. and an adult child who is a doca holder and may be undocumented parents interesting to note that of the undocumented population in san francisco that is ages 16
and older, 67 percent are employed. and they are contributing to the local tax base, mostly in the arts, entertainment and recreation, and accommodation and food services industry. but because of their lack of status, 38 percent lack any kind of access to healthcare and insurance. so if we go to the next slide, this is dense and try to shrink it down to its essence in less than four weeks, the new administration has issued 12 signed executive orders and 12 presidential memos. it is kind of like a memo a week or a day with over, 200 leaked documents and i am sure everyone saw the president aep comments today about leakage in the administration. while issuing executive orders and memos in the first week of office are not really unusual, a lot of presidents have done that, what makes these actions atypical are the uncertainty and vagueness around the directives.
very broad, many unclear leaving interpretation up to individuals such as border patrol agents so there are three immigration executive orders that have been signed with two additional unsigned ones and i will go over these quickly. but together these signal shift in federal immigration policy, one that does not distinguish between children, hard working immigrants and criminals.
reinstate scom which we know has been a failed program and expands immigration enforcement resources because you can't enforce unless you have the resources that support the additional activity and protecting the nation from terrorism entry into the united states by foreign nationals otherwise known as the muslim ban, bans visa holders from the seven previously named muslim countries from entering the
u.s., and thankfully this one is on hold. and will be settled in the courts. so that will take a little while. and then if we go to the unsigned executive orders, there are hundreds of documents floating around the internet right now, but these are the two that most people think well something will happen on, so the first one is entitled ending unconstitutional executive amnesty, wiping out president obama executive actions and all of his programs no new, and the permits will be valid until they expires, and re-scinds the dopa program that was blocked by the court and never implemented and the second order, protecting tax payer resources for insuring our
immigration laws by insuring our immigration laws promote accountability and responsibility. all of these have long titles to softn the blow if you look at what they are doing that is the ee sen shale thing. prohibits entry of any immigrant likely to be eligible for any type of public benefits, they are not defined in the order and so that could mean anything, any kind of public benefit, and we have many here in san francisco. and it allows for deportation of visa holders these are legal presence in the u.s., and requires sponsors of the immigrants to reimburse the government for any benefits that have been used so there are currently about, 3520 residents from the seven muslim countries that were affected by the travel
ban but this has been far more has had far more impact as we saw recently at sfo and airports across the country, whether you are a citizen, have a green card or visa, and you are undocumented this is affected everybody. there are 26,000 visa holders and talking about the impact on the workforce as well, the unsigned order could effect about 3500 to 5,000 daca eligible youth under the original, 2012, program in san francisco, and of course, there is going to be the residual effect of the youth that would be aging into the program and the undocumented parents of u.s. citizens or daco holders, because when you eliminate the possibility dopa you put them in the same boat, it is hard to say
how much sf residents will be affected by deportation orders, since it is unclear at this point, we don't have that information. beyond the headlines, it is important to note a few things. cities and counties are preparing for the unknown, whatever that may be. and the response needs to be coordinated, and well thought out. we need to consider what is immediately actionable and the many priority to balance from legal defense to citizenship, language assistance and
antidiscrimination, and all of it. there are many threats to healthcare, transportation, education, senior programs and public benefits and low income communities, we are all going to be affected by this. we have to think about what information we are collecting, especially on our vulnerable immigrants and how to protect their confidentiality by not collecting personally identifiable information such as religion and other non-required
data. the may ir's office has asked all department to work together so that as a city we are collaborating to provide resource and services and support and assurances to our vulnerable immigrants, while educating and reaching out to the host city family and protecting everyone's safety safety, health and well-being. and so, you know, in summary, supervisors we are definitely a divided nation at this point, but we should be a united city. thank you very much, be available to answer any questions you may have. >> who is next? >> i would like to introduce fred from the budget and analyst office. i have directed the bla to develop a report on efforts regarding immigrant, legal defense from other municipalities from across the country, since the 16 election to aid on the discussion of this
item. >> thank you. thank you, good morning, chair cohein, and members of the committee and supervisor fewer, fred from the budget analyst office. we prepared a report and released yesterday surveying a number of other cities and counties to determine what they are doing and how they are funding enhanced legal services and education out reach and other related services for immigrant populations. excuse me, in their injuries
jurisdiction i have put up a table and these are the jurisdictions that we surveyed and i will quickly one through them and give you an overview of what they are doing, what i should say at the outset though, is that we found, all of these jurisdictions had some services in place. particularly the legal services and you will see that as i go through that and there is a greater emphasis on providing full representation in the immigration court and particularly for deportation proceedings and individuals who are in detention while they are going through their proceedings. and some of this is changing as we speak, or in process still as we speak, there are jurisdictions who are making
decisions right now about the level of funding they are going to be providing. the county has appropriate ated a matching, $750,000 and for a total of 1.5 million that will be available through the fiscal year, 18, and that money will go through it. and they will provide services for the immigration proceedings and an emphasis on deportation ask those in detention, the city of boston was one that was identified in our research when we contacted the city they
actually have not yet appropriate ated money or identified the amount that will be appropriate ated. they are expanding however, their existing education and out reach services and an emphasis on providing additional legal clinics and services for deportation oriented cases. the city of chicago has in december, appropriate ated $1.3 million in one time funding from a property tax rebate program that had surplus funds and they are funding two organizations. and direct legal representation for those in deportation proceedings. >> the city of los angeles and the county of los angeles are combining forces, with the city committing $2 million the county has appropriate ated $3 million, and they are combining with the private foundations two or three
foundations including the california endo youment and the california, community foundation and the wine guard foundation, and the moment that they committed about 3.8 million and their goal is $5 million and so they will have a total of 10 million, through the year 18, and that will be pro-he vieded to community based organizations, through one of the foundations for legal services particularly for immigrants facing deportation, and additional education out reach legal clinic type of services. new york is not expanding right now, that is because they have been funding a series of programs for several years, starting in 2014, they implemented a program known as universal representation and for that program, they provide full legal representation for immigrants in deportation proceedings who are being
detain detained, this year the money for that is about 6.2 million dollars, and their . they have the full funding is about $30 million, and that covers a variety of services including what i just mentioned, the services for those in detention. the services are provided through three non-profit community based organizations but those organizations are also part of the public defender structure in new york city. they contract out with a variety of organizations serving individual buoros and they have contacted with brooklyn, and bronx and the legal aid society and so it is an enhancement of the service and operated like the public defender office.
san jose and santa clara, is the county is proposing 1.5 million, and not yet appropriate ated by the board of supervisors and they are working with foundations to match that, for another 1.5 million, so the total would be 3.1 million. all combined to go through community based organizations and provide representation services for immigrants in danger of deportation, excluding the violent offenders. and additional community out reach services as well. and washington, d.c. for services for their immigrant population, that is the summary of the other injuries injures
dishgzs and we have that in the report as awell, no every we show the current caseload in the local immigration court, and the number of deportation proceedings and the number of individuals detained in 2016, in san francisco, are as of december, 2016, 12518 deportation cases added in fiscal year, 2016. 2229 detain ease during that same year, that is the summary of the report and be ha py to answer any questions. >> thank you calling for this analysis, and one of the things that i wanted and i no he that
you have the summary, but i wanted to be a little bit more clear about where the legal services are actually coming from for each of these counties, for example, going through your report i see that they have one full time and san jose has alamena has one full time immigration, and one part time. and san jose has one immigration specialist attorney as well. but it looks like the other counties have actually contracted out or partnering with non-profit organizations cht >> everything that you have said is correct. the expansion however, in alamena county will be through the public defenders office. >> and the others are using
contract services, but they all have let's see, chicago cook county and boston's, they have immigration rights specialists also. there was a supreme court case in 2010, to compel the clients when nerp this danger of deportation about the possible implication and so we have found that every public defender office has enhanced that type of service at least.
>> how are they administered in >> they are through the city offices so they are offices of forget the title but it is something like immigrant affairs and they work to provide legal clinics and educational. workshops. >> and --. >> this local. >> this local office contracts with other non-profit organizations is that what you are saying? >> it is a city office and they work with community based organizations yes. >> and do they have any plans to beef up the $500,000. >> not that we have heard of. that was one time money. >> when was that allocated.
>> so this is new. >> most of this is post, november, 2016. supervisor yee has a few questions. >> i am having a little difficulty sort of getting the details of all of this. like in san jose, the legal representation that one would get is through the public defenders office. >> the proposal would supervisor yee, the proposal for the new services would be through the community based organizations. however, their public defenders office does have an immigration specialist also. but for these deportation proceedings, the public deep fender office does not provide representation in those cases. >> what do they provide then? >> they provide a standard public defender services which are largely criminal cases.
>> and these are civil proceedings and there is no mandate for public defenders to provide the service in the same way that there is a constitutional requirement for them to do so for the criminal cases. >> in the case of alamena, what are they and what kind of services are they actually providing? >> they have had the immigration specialist for a number of years who assists with other criminal cases and enhanced that staffing now with the part time attorney, and but the proposal and what they are going to do with the new funding is actually expand representation for more deportation cases. so that is not a service that they have been providing as extensively as they will be with this new funding. >> thank you. >> thank you for your presentation. supervisor fewer is there anyone else. >> yes. next i would like to bring up brian chu from the mayor's
office of housing and community development. in the supply mental pass by the board for legal defense through the community organizations and his department is overseeing those contracts and i thought that he could provide some context. >> good morning, chair and supervisors, brian chu the director of community development and the mayor's office of housing and community development here with julie, the senior development specialist. as you may be aware, they have had a long history of supporting legal services for immigrant community, since our department was created in 1974, we were the first organizations to fund the
focuses on immigration, and since that time we have continued to support our community based organizations that provide legal defense for immigrants. back in 2006, our department was honored to be selected to fund the creation of that san francisco immigrant legal and education network. which has survived to this day. and we also fund the san francisco immigrant legal defense clabive which was founded about two years ago, to support the docket surge for the unaccompanied minors and their families coming over the boarders. we recently were selected as the department to receive 1.2 million from the most recent, and i want to specifically talk about the services that were part of that subpoe that. >> and as you can see the funds
and two organizations and on the left, the immigrant and the network and that organization is funded to provide an ongoing series of know your rights, workshops as well as some case management to individual and families, who may be affected by this recent surge in i would say that the recent change in immigrant policies at the national immigrant level. >> the clabive is also 13 organization and they are they are funded to provide full scope legal representation, if you go to the next slide, you can see that our funding that we have received goes from today through june 30th. and we anticipate that the clabive will be able to serve, approximately, 190 client frz now to the end of june 30th. and he with will be put og 30 to 36 know your rights hearings as
well as providing ongoing case management. >> this is in addition to the current funding that the san francisco immigrant legal defense clabive currently receives and they have a base line of 1.2 had million and with that their target is 400 clients per year. so if that continues they will be able to serve a total of approximately 800 clients or so with the 1.6 that they may be receiving next year and they existing 1.2. it is a combination of representation of individuals that are both non-detained and detained clients. of those 13 organizations three organizations have the expertise to focus on the detained clients and the asian law caucus and the legal services for children the rest that are served are
non-detained at this point and so that is a very brief summary of the services that are being funded through the most recent 1.2 subpoe supply ment /* mri >> thank you, we appreciate your presentation. >> supervisor fewer? >> yes, i would like to introduce, davis from the human rights commission in the suppliment all pass, and also received the funds and i wanted to ask if could she share the work being funded. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisor fewer and two our other supervisors, davis, human rights commission, i will just quickly go through.
they were the funding was for know your rights and non-discrimination and immigration resources and laws, community meeting and under served neighborhoods as well as ali communities and working with the school district, and then out reach materials on hate violence, discrimination, and immigration resources. we have since the process, we have had about 8 meetings already that does not include the planning meeting, some were from the students where they are going to be trained to be equity ambassadors and in that process, we did have one student who was undocumented that wanted to share with the students the impact and the anxiety and fear of being in school from day-to-day, having those real experiences and those conversation and i am powering other people to go back and have
those conversations in their classrooms. we also have done workshop with the churches and one thing that was brought up was the idea and the notion that often, people do not feel comfortable and we do need to be working with the clabive that is funded to do this work and allowing them to host those in a safe space. and the economicty advisory
complitty is looking at the issues facing education and we are developing a tool kit that can be shared out and that will be the conversation along with those component and we working with the school district to also develop curriculum and that can be used and that will be based on the work that with he have down doing thus far, i don't know if there are additional questions, about you that is the quick snapshot of what is already been launched. and we are also working with the police department to be able to do some workshops with them around how to be welcoming. and how to be a little bit less threatening if they are engaging in community, and we are also working with the immigrant
rights commission and adrian pond office to have the commissioners go and do the community conversations of so the small gro ups for gather feedback, and what their concerns or fears are. >> thank you, and i appreciate your presentation. >> i don't know if you have any questions for us? >> all right, we are good. >> thank you. >> all right. >> supervisor fewer? >> yes, next i would like to bring up white house, the budget director from the mayor's office, in particular since we know that the community has been a part of the funding in these efforts in the bay area and across the country, i was hoping whether you could share whether the mayor office has been in conversation with the thil trop pick community. >> thank you and i am going to hand it over to colin and he is the mayor's director of partnerships and he will be better to speak on this point. >> thank you. >> glad to be with you this
morning. i wanted to just share the strategies and the efforts that the mayor has made with the fill tlop pick community. >> we are in a good place of the leadership and elected officials and the larger community has stepped up to these particular issues. the mayor has held several meetings and some of them have been joint and some of them have been individual meetings with a broad breath of the community to do three main things. to make sure that we as a city are clear about what steps that we are taking and inform the philintropic community and the events and activities are taking place, director pond and chu covered the particulars that we have been talking about to make sure that they are aware. >> third the mayor wanted to ask the philintropic to continue to support and step up even further
and to invest greater in around the efforts and asking that one we continue to communicate with the mayor's office in the city so that we can do that in partnership and that we can provide access to some of the non-prof non-profit agencies. folks ask how much, and it is difficult to estimate. >> we are a community that many of the local funders have been engaged in the issues for some time, and they have funded them around the title of immigration and service and they have also funded them through education, and health, and through all of these different areas. i could easily say that annually, there is over, 10 million of the kind of support from our local philintropic community that goes to these particular items in the discussions that the mayor has had, our emphasis has been that right now, there is an urgency
that we have on the ground, non-profit agencies that are providing these services and many are funding these now and we are glad to work with them and to identify them and make that connection. >> lastly who is the philadelphia community that we are talking about? for us, the philintropic community entails institutional philintropic and state wide, and the corporate, and the corporate arms of the foundations and funding and individuals who have been interested in these issues who have been high wealth donor whose have shared that and lastly, very specifically, legal
folks. particularly the law firms. are this he having any matches for the similar categories. part of it is if the san francisco foundation is funding alamena and the courts are not over there, but most of them are over here, what are they doing, with what we have to deal with in san francisco. sfechlt supervisor yee, i can't speak for each of the foundations including the san francisco foundation but i do have the knowledge in some of their recent funding since january. they have released 3 million new of funding around these
particular issues. 1.5 million are going inside of san francisco, and as we understand it, those dollars are to support the very things that i was just talking about, specifically non-expansion of services to deliver a supports around know your writes workshops and pathways to citizenship, and legal defense, and all of those particular issues, but that is just one example and we have several other foundations in the area that have done the similar things and lastly in terms of alamena county, we believe, and i understand that the funding is exactly the same as i just described. are these family foundations? are they, and could you give a little bit more context or color around what are these foundations. >> not a problem, it is a full range, many of the ones that we are familiar with here in san
francisco, traditional family foundations like the hos funds and like the zelerback fund and the family foundation and also, several of them are private and they could include things like, some of the company ones, and like the gap foundation or levi, and like the stewart foundation or locally we have here the foundations who have specifically focused on this area. so it is a broad breadth and then we have corporations that separate from their foundation, they have a corporate arm that gives and so we have invited them to come and be engaged in the information.
how do they contribute, do they contribute to the general fund or what is the mechanism? >> there are several ways, often times the philintropic community sees an issue that they care about and they want to leverage that with regard to what the city is doing, and so they will approach us and say that we are interested in that particular issue. how might we help, and we give them guidance and connect them, but there are other times when there are initiatives that we as a city are launching and we invite tphilintropic to come an have a briefing. and one of the largest and ones that we are discussing lately is the issues around homelessness and so we share with them what the opportunities are and they identify if they are interested or not to do that. so he that is the broad way in which we have engaged with the philintropic community.
>> thank you very much. >> all right, thank you for your presentation. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer who is next in >> yes. finally i would like to interester duce, jeff the san francisco public defender to share why these resources are important and what will be funded. >> good morning. first of all i would like to applaud the mayor and the board of supervisors for your strong position. reaffirming that san francisco will remain a sanctionary city. i think that the mayor's strongly stated position as well as the board's allocation recently is an important first step as is the city attorney lawsuit defending against the executive order. however, there is a huge population here. there is a ga p that is not being covered by current services. and that are the folks who are
most vulnerable really now. people who are detained, meaning that they are in jail in a facility being held and are facing deportation or removal. in the san francisco courts alone and these courts are regional. so the san francisco court covers an entire region, there are 1500 people at any given time who are detained. and make no mistake, the facilities that her held in look just like prisons they are dressed just like a state prisoner, would be dressed and they don't have access to their family and they don't have access to basic services and most importantly, they don't have access to a lawyer. no legal representation, 67 percent, that is 1005, people have for access to any legal representation, whatsoever. if we can go to the screen.
we have a long history in both california and in this country of excluding people based on race and immigrants scapegoating. this is an ad, saying that the way to dispose of them and the way to arrest them. 200 years ago, again, the irish. we also see that immigration is used as a wedge to divide communities. here is one where they make the argument that irish and africans are related and therefore, irish should be excluded. >> here is another cartoon from that same era. depicting a chinese and an italian. >> here is part of the chinese exclusion act, the chinese must go. but who keeps them?
of course, in 1882, we have the chinese exclusion bill. which excluded chinese immigrants. the chinese who built the rail roads and it is the same pattern that you see when the labor is needed they are brought in as a cheap form of labor, when the times is hard they are used as scape goats and you can see here where over three decades one million chinese and asians were detained. all without lawyers. >> this 1905, in san francisco. no japs in our school, by the japanese and korea exclusion league, and it features the then mayor. this the immigration bill of 1924, which out right banned all araband japanese. and it limited the immigration enter of the united states of the jews and italians from the
southern and eastern europe and africans. >> of course, the executive order in 9066 my parents and grand parents, and is 25,000 other japanese americans were detained for four years without lawyers. no legal representation. >> and of course, the brocero program where hundreds of thousands of mexican workers were invited into the country to work and then when the times got tough, what happened? they were one million mexicans that were deported. and about half of them were citizens. and if you look at our immigrant population, had this is between, 2008 and it 2010, by country, and you can see that 28 from china and 9 percent are from the
philippines and 43 percent from the other. and that other represents almost every country. and it is interesting just you know since we have announced that we are working on this, we have been contacted by immigrants from virtually every country, living in san francisco. i was you know -- dutch people from haiti i had no idea and it was really an education for me. >> if you look at the undocumented we have 44,000, 11,000 from mexico, and i think that sometimes the assumption is that you know, everybody here undocumented is from mexico, that is not true, 10,000 from china, 3,000 from guatemala, and 3,000 from the philippines and 18,000 from other countries. >> if you look at the dem graphics, of immigrants over all, between 2008 and 2010, # 1
percent are employed, and these are the folks. and our children, and they are part of our economy. and one out of every ten workers in california is undocumented. and you will see that it is inadvertise distinguishable from a prison. and you could be held there for years. and just to give you an idea of one of the cases that came across our office, and a woman by the name of anna was a passenger in a car. and the car was stopped, for a
traffic violation, and she was picked up, and she doesn't have papers. and she was detained, and sent to deportation facility where she was, therefore, much before she was deported. she had a ten-year-old daughter. >> no criminal history. keep in mind that of the detained immigrants, as i said, 1500, there is 1005, and 67 percent of them are unrepresented by a lawyer, this is the national statistic from syracuse university, and from 2008, and 2012, only 22 percent of non-citizens subject to the ice detainer had a criminal conviction, even looking at the 7,000 people that were detained from san francisco and deported last year, two-thirds did not have any criminal record, record history whatsoever.
believe me, we have plenty to do, and we again to meet with the non-profit and we collaborated on the unaccompanied children initiative and was able to get more lawyers and more resource foz that effort. and they have done an amazing and the 500 children that they have represented and not one has been deported since the city. instituted the program. >> and there is no way, that the non-profits will be able to handle the detained dayses, and remember that these cases are the most complex and the most difficult, because the people that are in custody, and the most vulnerable population
therecy backlog of the immigration court alone. now there is only, 27 percent --. >> question where did you get that figure from? >> 36,000. >> if you could site your source. >> there is a report that i have that i can provide that was done by the public policy institute but those are non-detained cases. so, 27 percent of the non-detained immigrants have or do not have lawyers, and so the percentage of immigrants. >> now, these numbers that you are coining is it specific to san francisco county. ? eyes, this is the san francisco court, all right? >> yeah, so. and it became clearer that the only way that we can provide representation for the volume of
folks is to a public defender's office and that is why we look to new york and we met with the defenders in new york and we met with the policy makers there, and it was shown to us, that the system there works. and we figured out what it would take in order to fund that, and so the proposal that we would put forth is to hire, ten public defenders each of whom will handle 40 and 60 case and now because we will staff the courtroom and so rather than having 12
>> 48 cases for one attorney. >> a year. >> just go through that because i need to make a note of that. >> our proposal is that we will hire, 10 public defenders each of whom will handle 40 to six cases a year. >> so i thought that the original request was for 17, you have changed it. >> there are seven support staff. >> and ten attorneys. >> so ten, attorneys, that would hire that would handle 40 to 60 cases a year. >> yes. >> thank you. >> and before i stop, i just wanted to mention one other thing is that we have been working with a non-profits, and you know, we are very excited about potentially being able to work with them, but there will still be gaps, even if you fund
this and that is where the foundations can come in, i have been working with from the foundation and she has put together meetings that the mayors, and >> we will put together the pro bono and there is, i think, you know, a need for a public private foundation, partnership. and i have been very mindful about that. because i'm sure, that you are
and to show your heart but i do have the difficult questions. so for example, in the budget analyst report, it sites that in fiscal year, 2015, through 16, there were 229 detain ees in the immigration court and as we all know here it does not just contain those who are only i want to make sure that we have the numbers straight here in terms of the number of detain ees. >> so basically you are saying that 1500 of the 2209 are san francisco residents. >> yeah, and the most recent report i have here, is called the california due process crisis, and it is a june 2016,
report which is the most recent one, by the california coalition, for the universal representation, and they have all the numbers here you know, from the immigration court and i believe that the number, 1500 also, appears in mr. rose's well researched report. and so, i believe that that is the correct number and we did verify that with the court. and that that number is the most accurate number. and i have gone through the case myself and certainly, observed it i know that it is very come mri indicate and that is why your office wants to be aible to consult with some of the other,
organizations and the non-profit organizations to assist with what is very complicated matters and so in terms of those who are actually detained on citizens, and immigration, court. and i would imagine, that the staffing level is incredibly different, and in terms of how you calculated, the number of attorneys that you need, and i am just not sure that we would get to that same number here, because you might have to go to court, the non-profit organizations handled that they can handle between, 20 and 40
cases and the reason why our case will be higher is because we would staff each of the courts with an attorney. and that attorney will handle all of the cases on that day and, it is the same reason why it is efficient to have the public defender to handle the criminal cases. and so that attorney would be there and handle all of the cases that were on a particular date, and they would be assigned you know, to the various court rooms and because the immigration courts are set up in that fashion, it makes sense and we have also talked to the immigration judge the chief judge here in san francisco. now we have one immigration specialist who has worked in our office since three years ago, there was the pediat decision
which required public defenders to advise clients as to the immigration consequences and the city as well as the office would be liable for the failure to do so. that attorney also in addition tho advising all of the attorneys in our office as to immigration consequences. and making sure that if a person decides to plead guilty or is convicted after a trial that they don't face deportation unless they have to, that person also handles a limit number of immigration cases in the detention court. and handles 12 cases. and if we had attorneys who are dedicated to doing detention defense only, we again, estimate that they will be able to do between the cases. it is not because the non-profit is not working as hard. they are. it is just that they have more
resources in addition to the support staff and also i have over, 250 volunteers who work in our office, law students and lawyers, and every year, volunteer their service and so we would also start at immigration clinic, and utilize law students to do some of the work. thank you, and don't confuse my questions to not think that this is important work i want to make sure that the members of the public really understand that and we want to make sure that the funding is going to where the appropriate needs are and so forth, and so again, these are just trying to get more clarity around the situation. but in terms of other cities or counties, i am wondering has
there been any conversation about how those other neighboring jurisdictions where they have residents, who have non-detained non-citizens going through our sf immigration court whether they can also contribute to some of what we are trying to achieve here. because i think that we should all be a partner here.
>> no matter if you are from ant arc ka, you are going to be represented and yet for the person in the san francisco immigration court and some have suggested that we, you know, only i don't want to be part of that sort of system or representation, and what about the people that work here, and what about the people who have family here, where do you draw the line? that would be incredibly cruel to going to the courthouse and to say that you are from san francisco and say that you lived in south filipino, and you moved outside, sorry. >> that is not what i am trying to get at. >> so i am just trying to say that because there are people who are in sf immigration court
we don't have that information, and that information is not currently kept, and so if you look at the detention centers, right, there is one in richmond and there is one in bakersfield and they are all over california and so theyed that it is not practical given what we are experiencing. >> and then i know that the other colleagues have questions, and my last one is you know,
actually when i first came into the office, and i know that, the number of cases that have forth ahead of your department, and for for example, since 2001, and 2002, the total ftes in the public defenders office has grown by 49 percent, and total cases have declined by 44 percent, since that same period of time. and so, and then the budget has grown, 155 percent since then, and so i am just, again, i think that we are all very supportive of this he have /* effort and if you could in the six month report, that just came out there was an identified salary savings of 238,000 within your own
department and so i am wondering if there is a way to figure out how we can achieve the staffing within your own >> when i came into the office in 2003, we worked with the controller to determine a matrix for our work load as well as our caseload. and with realignment, and prop 47 and a number of criminal justice reforms, and there is a shift in san francisco. and we are rather than with the felony caseload, rather than again, ten or 12,000 low level felonies that number is now down to 6,000 or 7,000 but these
cases now are the more serious case and there is a shift by the district. to focus on homicide, and violent crimes frment and serious felonies. we are seeing many more serious cases ask what is reflected in the work load, which i provided tho the budget analyst and i will provide one to you now, shows you that in terms of the work load, and misdemeanor attorneys are handling approximately, 70 cases, and in a given time, and they are working 68 hours a week, on average, and we track all of
this information, and precisely for this purpose, in the felony attorneys, are handling cases of over about >> we are expected to the surplus at the end of the year and believe me that i tracked that number very carefully. and the reason why it shows as a higher number, about 200,000 is because we have an employee who was out on family leave, to
leave before the 6 month period that is required before the employee is not required to pay it back. >> she had to pay back well over 100,000 dollars, and 125,000. and that check was written to the city, however, it is posted to our account. and so our surplus as i see it is 63,000. now, if the city wants to give me, another 150,000, i will be happy to take it. and certainly, you can apply that to this program. >> thank you.
>> i think that i just want to say that, your line of questioning is to get to where we feel confident about what we are asking, and what we support. and primarily because as you know, and melissa has mentioned that we don't and there are so many unknowns we have to be really careful about our next year's budget and so forth. so, just i wanted and i have several questions here and it is sort of unrelated. and in regards for the people that are detained, where are they? i mean, or detained in san francisco? or is it a bulk of them where they have a whole jail just for
detain ees of undocumented folks? >> i mean, so do you have that answer? >> yeah, i mean, there are primarily, 4 centers which include bake kerz field. and the closest is in richmond county, and also in sacramento county. what has happened is that there is some countia ills and some counties, which have made the space available in their jails to hold the ice detain ees and san francisco did that for a while and are not doing that any more, because we don't have the space and the policy decision, i think was made under then. and what we are also concerned
about is that under the trump administration, they are going to start now using. they are using some video, and video, taped sort of appearances and in order to facilitate that. that is where the attorneys will go and meet with the client and they will be brought there from the facility, by ice to meet and that is another reason to ask why, that is why to have the
mayors in san francisco. >> so the attorneys don't have to worry about the travel time to these facilities. >> no, there may be some need for that and certainly cases that that could be. and thus far, in our practice, we have not had any problems having ice bring the clients to court either for the client interviews or for the court dates. >> and then, there seems to be more cases than the attorneys that you wanted. and would be able to handle, even if they could handle 600. there is still more cases than that. so, how does, how does one, determine the priority of who they serve? >> well, currently, right, we only handle about 12 cases so we
have to do that too. >> yeah, how do you do that? >> we look to the cases where now, all of the cases are former clients. so they are clients of the public defender, who are in immigration court. and we will intervene on cases where we believe the person has the best chance of prevailing. and now, of all of the non-profits in san francisco. three, handle detained cases and it is estimated with the current level of funding, and the additional funding by the mayor, they would probably be able to handle anywhere between 50 and to 80 cases. so if you take that off, the 1005, we will be able to determine if the person does not
have a good defense and, maybe the person does not want to stay here, and we will be able to help that person to get to a place of safety, and if that is desire, where there are case and issues that will be litigate and we will do that, and it is no the to say that every case, will require the same level of attention. so you already explained the patterns and why you need more staffing for the fewer cases. so we will need less staff than n >> no, no. >> yeah. >> this is supervisors eokay. >> tang's question was asked earlier. >> yeah. >> okay. >> the last thing, i, you know,
we had a hearing or something a few weeks ago and a non-profit came up here and made their case. and i, are the non-profits are they here? >> yeah, i see. >> are they in agreement that you should that the public defender should be taking the bulk of these cases? you know? how are you communicating with them? >> you know, would it be okay if i yielded to. >> is somebody here. >> yeah. >> that can speak for them. >> yeah. >> i don't think that we have any. >> all right. >> all right. >> is anna here. >> that is okay. >> that is okay, we will
continue with you. >> okay. >> if you want to speak you have to come up. >> you will have to come up and be on the record so anyone can hear you and see you. >> bill hersh with the aids legal referral panel, with he provides legal services for immigrants with hiv in san francisco, and we are not part of that clabive, but we are very supportive of this effort. >> my question is to those that are. >> and part of it. >> thank you thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. we are preparing to speak after. my name is anna is i am the managing director of the services and we are part of the collaborative to receive the funding to provide additional services chl >> do you feel like that your
collaborative would be not in as good as a position as the public defenders to actually call these cases thereof the people that were detained. >> we are already taking on these cases. and we are responding. >> sure. >> we believe that we the city of san francisco as a leader in defending immigrants, should provide the most robust and comprehensive legal defense services and that includes the public defenders office that is a model that has worked in new york and a model that alena county is doing now and a model that should be implemented here in san francisco. there is only one immigration attorney in that office currently. and the public defender model is provides high quality, high volume defense. that is the kind of volume that
we need against trump high volume depowertation machine. >> and we are working together as we have been thus far, but we you know the original proposal the community based organizations have worked with the public defender, in working together, and ramping up all of the services that we provide and there is a void because the public defender does not have no, sir services yet. so we are fully in support of increasing their services as well. >> okay, thank you. >> so just real quick, you're supporting increasing his budget at the expense of your allocation? >> allocation of public dollars to your non-profit? >> no, supervisor. i am fully in support of supervisor fewer proposal today for the public defender. >> thank you. >> hi, my name is nulo and i am with a non-profit service and we are one of the organizations here in san francisco that
provides representation to detained immigrants. the majority of our cases are non-detained and that is also the majority of the non-profits in san francisco and provides representation. and so i want to provide a little bit of context about a year ago, non-profit organizations came together to talk about this gap for detained immigrants. and we soon started talking with the public defenders office. we realized that we could not be doing as non-profit community based organizations we could not be doing this work alone, the need is far too great to be able to service everybody that we want to and need to represent. so, we were really grateful that the public defenders office jeff and francis, and stepped up and i mean that it took some convincing i mean at first, we had to approach them, and ask if there was interest, and if there was capacity and it took serious considerations by their office.
>> supervisors asked about the residency question, in new york city, what the city council decided when they decided to fund millions of dollars to provide representation, what they looked at was where is the jurisdiction? they said that we believe in access to council and due process in our courts here in new york city and so we are going to provide attorneys in new york city for anyone who is going through our immigration court in new york city. that is what we are asking for here in san francisco. and the immigration court is in san francisco, and jeff went through some of the history you know, the folks who were brought in in the 1940s and, between, 1900s to the 40s. everybody was actually detained here in san francisco. everyone who was taken initially in the angel island and then at 630, street in san francisco, in the financial district, and.
which are are with you. >> pangea legal services. >> you are doing the representation in the courts. what happens, let me ask you this, if the feds were to request people's personal information, is the city government more liable because they must be compelled to turnover this information? as opposed to working with a non-profit? so i guess the question that i am asking, if a person is needing legal representation is it not in their competitive and best interest to be represented by a cbo as opposed to the city agency. like the public defenders office? >> in terms of privacy, and security, it does not matter, attorney privilege is attorney privilege, an attorney cannot turnover the client information,
whether they are represented by the defender or the non-profit. but in terms of you know, strength and competency and capacity to build, a city agency is you know that is where all the nop profits came together last year and agreed that this is not about us, this is not about the non-profits or the public defender, this is about the community members and you know there are several that are going to be speaking this is about what do we think is best for the community members, and community based organization and the public defender together decided it is best for the community to be represented by the city agency like the public defender. >> that is my question. what was the thought process behind that, i understand that you came to this conclusion, what was the science and the facts and the data that you used to support this? because i agree, everyone wants to put the community's best interest first, i am pushing back and looking for a better understanding as to how the public defender's office became
the lead agency, as opposed to the community based that are already doing the work and already success, having success in this? that is my question. >> well, the public defender has already been doing the work, the public defender has been representing people in detentions for decades. >> thank you. >> next person, please. >> thanks. >> this is unice lee and i am the co-legal director for the center of refugee studies and we are one of the member organizations we provide technical assistance and training to the collaborative. i think that they pretty much covered, you know a lot about the process and the support. i just wanted to reiterate that we do hear, we do address a birds eye view of how the collaborative has gotten off the gro und and the need that is out there. and we absolutely support and think that it is the best model for the public defender, to be staffed up in the way that is proposed together with the community based organizations.
also receiving the funding that they are receiving. >> okay. >> thank you. >> i'm -- i'm actually done with my questioning. thanks. >> we should go to public comment though? >> i don't know. >> do you want to go to public comment? >> is there anything else. >> i do have a couple of questions. >> you gave us this schedule one following the unit waited analysis right here, maybe you can walk us tlut it because i just want to make sure that i am interpreting this correctly, you have attorneys, one through 41 on one page, and to protect the attorneys, but what is level one, 2, 3, 4, and 5, what does that mean? >> okay, yeah if you look at the first page, those are our felony attorneys and then the second page are the misdemeanor attorneys. the attorneys dby number, they are actual people, and we just
didn't list their names. level one, level 2, 3, 4, 5, designates the kind of case that they are handling. 1, is the least serious, 12 five and 4 are like homicide cases. and then so you see the total days load that they are handling and then you can see the allocation of ours throughout the week based on their caseload, this is the science that we used to manage the case loads and so when an attorney is at 60 hours a week, 65 hours a week, that is when we will stop assigning them cases and assign to an attorney who has a lesser caseload that is how we maintain a work load that is reasonable and insure that they have sufficient time to work and investigate their cases. >> could you tell me again, what is level one, out of the level one through five, obviously the level one has the heaviest caseload. >> level one are crimes like
second degree burglary, drug offenses, there is about 40 crimes that fall within level one, what we did was we determined these levels working with the controller's office. their city project's team using actual case studies, surveys focus groups, and they also plotted out cases over a period of time to look at the average time that were spent on various types of cases and so based on the charges, and the seriousness of the case. the cases are categorized as 1 through 5, and then the time is allocated accordingly. >> thank you. is there anything else. >> i do have the studies you were asking for. >> perfect we will take that. >> let me see if i have any
other questions. >> no, that is it. thank you. >> okay. supervisor fewer is there anyone else or could we go to public comment at this time. >> yes, we can move into public comment, and i want to thank the community members for being so patient. and also to the city department heads and as we move into community comment, i want to prioritize these three speakers, raja and anna and then ryan, and co-stostf and the immigration rights commission. >> i am sorry, excuse me, before we go to public comment, let's go to the bla report. >> is there a -- mr. rose, is there a bla report for this item. >> yes, there is madam chair, and members of the committee as i understand it, supervisor fewer has submitted amended legislation, which is consistent with the recommended reductions that we have made. i would be happy to briefly
summarize the rationale as for our recommended reductions or whatever the committee would like. >> would i like to hear your summary of your recommendations. >> absolutely. >> on page 15 of our report, we point out that regarding the time line, we say that since the public defenders office cannot begin the hiring process until the requested appropriations approved by the board of supervisors and approval will occur, on february, 28, 2017, at the earliest and i would emphasize that, the budget and legislative analyst estimates that all new hiring will start on april first, 2017. that is point one, and secondly on page 16, the public defender's office, estimates that 400 to 600 cases per year, and the budget analyst rejects that the initial caseload will be less than estimated in the
public defenders office, because the policy to detain, the undocumented immigrants is not clear, and about the caseload will take time to develop. and therefore, the budget and legislativive analyst, recommends reducing the number of positions from 17 to 13 positions in 16, 17, that is based on the estimated caseload, 415, and fiscal year, 1718, and based on the load of 500. and the requested number of ftes shouldn reduced from 7.08 as shown in table, in our report, to 2.25 ftes to account for a start date of april first, as i mentioned instead of february first and that is thrown in table three of page 16. on page 17, we notice that the ordinance appropriate ates, 925,000, in 16, 17, and 2 million, in 17, 18. and no a total of 3 million 503,
176 and that is to create, new 17 positions. and that is for salaries and benefits, the budget and analyst recommendations will result in 13 positions as i noted, 3.25, with the start date of april, first, 2017, and then, salary and benefits of 418, 105, in 16, 17 and then 15 positions and salary and benefits of 2 million, in 17, 18, and that is shown in table four on page 176 our report. our recommended reductions will reduce the total appropriation for salaries and benefits, from 3 million, to 2 million, and or reduction of 106, 1, 379 and these are the numbers that supervisor fewer has mentioned in her legislation. and then because the board of supervisors previously appropriate ated funding of 1.5
million in january of 2017. for community based organizations to provide legal representation in 16, 7, our recommendation is to amend the proposed ordinance to delete, 3 million, allocated to the community based organizations in 16, 17, and 17, 18. >> so, in finally, supervisors on page 18, of our report. our precise recommendations is we recommend that you amend file 16, 12, 88 to reduce the appropriation by 4 million. and from 6 million, to 2 million. we recommend that you amend file 16, 1289 to reduce the number, 16, 17, ftes by 3.83, from 7.08 to 3.25, and the if is calhoun year, 17, 18, by two from 17 to 15, and finally we can consider
approval of the proposal ordinance as amended to be a policy decision for the board of supervisors and we would be happy to respond to any questions. >> thank you, i do have one question on page, 23 of your report he talk about the pending legislation and i am curious to know where it is kur currently in the process, and i am interested in the bill, three. >> i am sorry, page? >> oh, go ahead. >> supervisor cohen. that was in the other report that we did, for supervisor fewer. and our understanding is that there were hears tuesday on both of those bills. and can i don't think that they have taken final action yet, they are still pending in committee. >> there whats no action taken. ? ethat is my understanding. >> and you guys are watching the bill. >> we are. >> will you be able to report back to us and let us know the status. >> yes, we are. >> yes. >> supervisor fewer, i think that we are going to go ahead and go to public comment.
i have a stack of cards that are here in front of me, so you mentioned a couple of names, why don't the persons that heard their names line up here at the podium. and then again, just as a reminder, there is a two minute limit for public comment. i want to make sure that we hear every comment from everyone. you will hear a soft chime indicating 30 seconds remaining on the balance of your time. don't forget to state your name. welcome. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is ryan, i am a first year law student at uc hastestimonying and a member of the immigrant rights igs xh. i would like to express my whole hearted support for establishing this unit in the public defenders office dedicated to die fending our immigrants against deportation, san francisco would not be san francisco without the many contributions of our immigrant
community. this is a necessary step ta we as a city must take to protect our immigrants. i have spoken with a number of people regarding this issue. ranging from my classmates to residents, to old friends from across the country, and to even a forkmer ice agent and they hae expressed their support that immigrants facing deportation proceedings should be access to council through the public defenders office and i hope that this committee and the full board will support this as well. thank you. >> thank you. >> i am from mexico, and i am facing deportation charges and if whats naught for pangia, the lawyers there that helped me out, i would have still probably
be detained or been deported. i am a veteran, and i was able to see their faces how sad they were when they needed to represent themselves against the monster of immigration. against the monster of the united states government, it is very difficult when you are no the educated and when you don't know what information to look for, for your defense. having the right defense at the time is crucial. for us to fight or deportation, i fought for this country, one time shths i gave it six honorable years of my service, the least that i could expect is
for this country and the state of california and the city of san francisco which is a great city to have us represented by the great lawyers and the great gift from the city that is always contributing to this appreciated have are well appreciate ated gifts of representation. thank you, next speaker. >> at this time, i would like to remind the new faces, that are maybe unfamiliar with the process. in order to insure that we can hear everyone in the timely manner, with he asked that you refrain from applause. but we definitely want you to weigh in on items that you like, so we asked that you use your spirit fingers like this and when you hear something that you do not care for you can do a thumbs down, all right? and so, jen price, please. >> good morning, supervisors my name is price and i am a staff attorney with the justice center, we are a legal services non-profit and we represent women and children who have fled
violence to date we have represented over 19,000 women and children fleeing violence, and we are here today with our whole hearted support for this additional funding. i would like to share a couple of stories that will highlight the women and children that we have worked with that will be impacted by this. we with vun client that who was pregnant and a victim of domestic violence and was beaten so severely that she suffered two miscarriage and another client, a victim, who abuser poured gas line on her and lit her on fire. and those two woman fled to the united states to seek protection and were detained by our immigration and customs enforcement and just by chance they both ended up listening to know your rights presentations and were connected to our organization andly luck were able to be represented by us to
fight against their deportation. and we are not for organization such as ourselves and some of the other soaringizatiorganizat women have been returned to the violence. >> and so i just wanted to highlight with this new administration and new emphasis on enforcement and detention and detainment, all of our clients now have complex cases they are all at risk of deportation. broad categories of victims, domestic survivors and human trafficking and stek youal assault survivors are targeted just last week, a woman in elpaso was detained by ice, so this is unheard of in our immigration system. we support this funding and we hope that you do as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors
thank you for welcoming community comments, my name is tala and i am the vice chair of the northern california chapter of the american immigration lawyers association, and on behalf of call, i am here to speak in support of the budget for immigrant defense. alanore cal is made up of 900 immigration lawyers in northern california, our members are non-profit attorneys who are working in community based organizations. and private bar attorneys who represent individuals, families and also companies. many of our members are already providing representation to low income immigrants, and immigration court. it is also already working with the collaborative in many areas and has particularly worked closely with several to support probono representation at the
luckily i had the chance of having an attorney. >> i know that many people don't have this opportunity. my stay at the detention facility was short. >> but in the time that i was detained my family was very grateful impacted emotionally. and economically. >> i was lucky to be represented but i saw many, many more immigrants that didn't, or that were not represented.
in addition to that i came to this country at a very young age and i feel more from here from this country, than i do from mexico. if i didn't have the defense of an attorney, i would be in mexico right now. >> thank you, and just to note, he is now a lawful resident, he has received a uvisa and on the pathway to obtaining a green card. thank you. >> i'm voter of district one, first i would like to say that it is my opinion, full citizenship rights for all immigrants, the rich can always buy them and they do.
and these immigrants as the attorney has stated, proved, that the 91 percent are in employment and paying tax and not getting advantage of many of those taxes. the city wastes a lot of money, the subway went over budget in the first four years, the city had to come up with, 260 million out of the fund to help to pay their share of it. they are going to waste, 260 million plus on the geary corridor. and they are going to waste another 260 million or more on the van ess corridor and not to mention how much money on the central subway. where you are asking for 45 million dollars in this combined
thing, which is a lot for a fixed income and retired work and stiff like myself but it is not compared to the money floating around this town, so to sit here and argue and demand all of this information for 45 million bucks, to do the work that it is going to do, seems like a waste of our time. thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> good morning. >> first i would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to chairman cohen and the committee and supervisors fewer. my name is claire, and i am here as the managing director of the big elz worth foundation, and an attorney interested in doing pro-bono work and the founder of the network, the legal founder network is a network of over 630 local organizations that all believe that legal services is one of the most effective ways of working on poverty ee leavation, and we include private foundations and community, foundations and crowd
source funders and law firms, and government and individuals. >> over the past three months, i participated in dozens of phone calls and meetings related to this issue, my meetings have included pure, funders and funders networks, ngo and attorneys and even government officials. the funder community is eager to help. but, many feel we are on hold as we are preserving many of our dollars in order to figure out where the needs will be the highest and greatest after this body makes decisions about the government funding. >> discussions have ensued about as immigration super fund, but again, until we know what the city is going to be doing, it is hard to private philintropic to know what our role will be and how our dollars will be best spent. >> attorneys interested in pro-bono work are frustrated as the ngos are no the at the current time, having the capacity to work with them. >> all of the communities that i represent strongly support this
proposal. and we urge you to move forward quickly to make decisions so that we know how we can come and partnership with the government, and provide the best representation for our communities and those most in need. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> good afternoon, i am pascal and i was recently hired by the public defender office as a social worker to work on immigration detention and we all know that much needs to be done in this field. i am going to read a letter from my colleague garte.
in the midst of these unparallels attacks, san francisco must act, and it must takes steps to insure sha detained non-citizens have basic rights, including the right to an attorney if they cannot afford one. while most detained non-citizens have viable claims for relief, most waived those claims because they do not have lawyers. and are unaware that they have a chance of obtaining lawful immigration status, however, if non-citizens are represented in a fair legal proceeding they will have a better chance at success, and our communities and our city will be a better place. >> the public defender's office and accustomed to managing a large docket of the high stakes matters and hafz the skills, resources of and capacity to provide high quality representation in all the cases it handles.
my supporting this sensitive, the city and council of san francisco can once again make a strong statement in support of immigrant rights, amid a terrifying climate of hate. thank you. >> i wanted to take the comments of why not to fund the public defender. >> pull the mic. >> the san francisco public defenders office in this battle against the impending wave of detention and deportation. detained and incarcerated folks do not want someone to stand next to them and represent them, they want someone to advocate for them with passion and skill. when i came to this san francisco public defenders
office ten years ago it had a representation of one of the best offices in the country, since then we have become better every single year, we had a win rate in felony trials last year that was perhaps the best in the country. and as the former training direct ir, i have spoken at conferences about our collaborative approach to trial preparation, and other head public defenders have asked me about how we do this. >> we have a checklist initiative to insure on this, and every aspect of case preparation, we have a highly funk pg bail unit that fights against the prehearing incarceration to insure that the vaf he isty for the clients to get out of jail happens less often, we collect data on the performance of the attorneys and provide feedback to help each staff member practice at a high level. i have spoken with our immigration attorney, and he has talked about how his approach to representing detained people has transformed as a result of some of the practice beings that we have implemented in the public
defenders office, the functioning and reality is that there are people in this country, that are being incarcerated and sentenced in the criminal court and then detained or deported in immigration court. because the quality was not what it should be. >> when you hear that chime the time is up. >> i am a member of the national lawyers gild i am here not just
individually to ves my support for supervisor few are's ordinance but also the support of the immigration committee and i am the former of the national lawyer's guid, and the former chair of that committee. i practice at the intersection of criminal and immigration law. my practice has informed me over the years i started out in domestic violence prosecution and ended up in defense. merely by chance. but perhaps the reason why it is so important for you to hear from me today. is that i understand the importance in a way that it is fundamentally different about the intersection of criminal and immigration law. than many of my colleagues in the immigration bar. i know why it is so important for jeff adachi's office to have the absolute authority to go forward with this representation
so that access to council is afforded in the immigration courts by the public defenders and the reason for that is that they have when there is a necessary prerogative to provide the essential bi furcated defense, for the individual, against the criminal and the immigration issues that might be related to entry without inspection and unlawful presence and etc., those are different issues and many times something can be afforded on the determine. >> thank you. next speaker. >> what an honor this is, thank you for your leadership. and thank you to those who spoke, i am an average person. nor not representing an organization, but myself and my co-workers here today are
participants in the day without an immigrant national movement. and we are here today on a day off and my sweat pants. and we said what are we going to do today, we are going to come here and support this awesome initiative thank you guys for taking this on. san francisco should be a leader here we can't have any other city be ahead of us. with regard to you know these reforms. my family, i am a greek bone handsome refugee. and we came here to san francisco in 1988. and they welcomed us. and so you know, let's keep this tradition alive and remain as leaders as we are, and we look forward in participating in other days, because we are immigrants and we are proud and we are san francisco. much love. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> hello, there, my name is rich order and i have been a san francisco resident for almost four years i went to law school
here. and i want to share my thoughts with you if i could. having been a former san francisco prosecutor for 23 years, i do personally attest to the ability and commitment of the san francisco public on the defenses on behalf of their clients, having just returned from the new york city visit and observed season trial lawyers from the brooklyn public defenders office practice in the immigration courts there, i am confident that the san francisco public defenders office would be an essential asset to fight the threat and deportation, and other threats that the federal government may soon initiate, and therefore, concur, that san francisco needs to bolster its immigration defense, immediately and i urge that the money be allocated now to hit the grouped
running. thank you very much. >> i am with cuav and we are a member of the domestic violence consorcum of san francisco and i work with lgbt survivor and we know that the people are in dire need of these services are isolated by society, what happens when someone pro-desperately preaches out for help and they are placed in to deportation proceedings or a survivor of violence is deported away from their community and their access to safety and employment and usherred into the face of extreme violence, this particularly applies to transgender women, and latin anies and lgbtq survivors in
>> is >> we are afraid and feel unprotected. i myself feel this as a transgender person if i were to be deported to mexico i would not have access to medical services, i would not have access to the hormones i need or the medication for my depression. it scares me to think of the possibility of being deported. without any exaggeration, the
possibility of me being deported means me being killed. in my country, there exists a lot of tranphobia and please provide legal representation for all. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> >> i am one of the effected families as a result of deportation proceedings. my husband was taken away by immigration and we were separated for 7 months. >> i lost my home and i was
still in the hospital because my son was born prematurely. >> now we are still recovering, and we are still affected by all of that has happened, even though. >> we are afraid that the same thing could happen again. >> i am asking for all of the immigrants to help everyone in our community. >> thanks to having an attorney,
my husband and i can be reunited with my son. >> thank you for everything. >> hello, good afternoon, my name is rodriguez. >> i want to share a little bit about the impact that i have it was difficult being detained and separated from my son and wife who was in the hospital. there were seven difficult months that i was fighting for my self-and my family.
i was lucky i found a lawyer who was able to get me out of immigration detention. but i'm still afraid, i am afraid that they might come and knock on our door and something similar might happen again. >> it was very difficult what i experienced and i don't want that something like that to happen again to myself or anyone. >> i want to support the efforts here and the effort to stop the deportations of our families, thank you. >> my name is mar get raverdy
and i am here to support sandra lee fewer's prop. and i want to say that we are all immigrants. announceme announcement, ancestor of mine came to this country without papers on a boat for religious freedom. the boat that he came here on is the may flower and his name is william brewster. >> >> next speaker? >> good afternoon, first i want
there is no attorney, then what is due process? >> we immigrants they have criminalized us, and they have criminalized our poverty and inability to get the attorney and it is the poverty that is the criminalation that is at issue here with our immigrants. >> thank you. >> thank you supervisor cohen from the bottom of my heart. >> >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker please?
>> good afternoon, my name is norma. i would also like to thank supervisor co-hen for what my colleague has said. for all of the support that you have given us. and also my community in bay view that is pushing forward. being a community of latinos and african americans, we are used to being criminalized. for me it is really important that the public defense be
assigned to defend all of us immigrants against the deportation in the courts please. >> it is unjust that minors be in jail and that they have no lawyers to represent them. >> it is necessary and urgent that we provide public defense to these people that are waiting in these centers. with the current administration, trump's executive orders are tearing families apart and these families don't have the
resources to provide proper representation. >> that is able to fight for our cases. there is an urgency to protect our community. >> i urge you to approve this proposition. >> we have to come together and we have to protect ourselves. and we also have to tap into the resources that this city has for us because we are part of it. because a lack of humanity of this president does not have any limits. >> i am a mother, and i am terrified of all of trump's
executive orders because they are pretty much against humanity. >> i think daily, what would happen if i am deported and what would happen to my children? >> when they come home and this don't find their parents there what will they do? >> we are living a lack of certainty. >> i ask each of those supervisors of san francisco to respect each of us who are also citizens of the city. and to contribute to the development of human rights, thank you.
>> next speaker. >> hello, my name is yesterday ka lopez, and i am a phd student studying the linguistic experience of the parents in the bay area, and my husband teaches in san francisco and he teaches 7th grade. and i like to make a comment about how attorney defenders for people in deportation proceedings is a human right and is absolutely essential for us to be able to teach our children ideals of equality and of fairness, but also of the same children that are being educated here in san francisco, come to school every day with die pregs and severe anxiety because they are worried about their parents being deported.
our children here in san francisco and i am also emotionally upset by a term that was used earlier to say that we are unsure that at best we are it is unclear how the federal government is fwoeg to respond to issues of immigration, and i think obviously if anybody has been following anything in the news, the response by the federal government to immigrant communities is hostile, people are already experiencing deportations and raids and i think that it is time for san francisco to step up. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, i want to thank sandra lee, for bringing this forward and i want to urge every member of the budget and finance committee to send it forward with vig or, my name is cathy, and i am a teacher at city college and i am on the
executive board of our american federation of teachers, 2121, faculty union and i am here because our board of trustees passed a resolution to be a sanctionary college. our union passed a resolution to support our being a sanctionary college, on the day before the inauguration, we had an action at mission campus to show solidary, with our immigrant students. and i thank you, sandra for speaking that day. and one question is sanctionary, but what does it mean if it does not have teeth? we are constantly, figuring out what do we do next? where do i get trained? what, or what do i tell my students? >> and it seems like this is a civic issue, and it is a national issue, it is more than any npo can handle, and we have heard every npo speak strongly in favor of it today.
it is hard to balance the life against the budget line, and 2.5 million dollars of whatever the budget was that came up today is not a lot to help insure that every immigrant who is detained has a public defender. and it is a human right, if we are really progressive we have to put our money where our mouth is.
they the tax that they pay for, and they may not have papers but they participate in the tax paying, responsibilities. i hope that you gives the funds to this defense. >> thank you. >> my name is stephanie, and i am a resident of district three. i want to thank supervisor fewer to taking the initiative to expand legal defense funding for our city's most vulnerable residents as the grandchild of
i am here to express my concern as a latin that and an immigrant from latin america and given that we are a nation of immigrants and that the people come from many places here. >> >> i am really concerned about the increase of the deortation and i am not just talking about the depowertations due to the commission of felonies but also of minor crimes.
we are living in the san francisco city and given the circumstances san francisco has the opportunity to arise up to the occasion and do what needs to be done to stop these deportations. >> i am worried about the separation of family whz fathers are deported, the families are left in sham bells, and the children go to other families where they are being taken care
of and this is a situation that is creating a lot of stress in my community. >> i ask all of you that are here present for their support to our community and that i beg you to not give any private information to anyone that asks for it. thank you. >> all of these cases it is likely that we need the legal
reputation, but we cannot afford to have this legal representation. >> thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is -- and i am a community organizers with -- and i want to thank supervisor fewer for taking this initiative and being a champion and issues that are important to my community and our city and i am here to ask you to please help me do my job, i am a community organizer and i go to a lot of schools and churches and other community service provision agencies. and what i see is a lot of fear. so i want you to please allocate the necessary funding to the public defenders office so that i can go out into my community and assure my xh community that our city is standing in unity with them, with he have the resources we also have expert attorneys who are going to be taking care of their cases in
case of an emergency. >> please we have the power as the county and the city and to provide the support that our families will need and you will help me to bring that hope that it is not there right now. because there is a lot of fear in our family and communities. >> making sure that we all have or that we provide due process for all. is something that we have been advocating for many many years. and i do believe that in and i have seen this in my work and in the life experience of my community that they trust the public defender's office, just the way that they trust the non-profit organization, and therefore i please, i ask you to allocate the funding in to this office. because i know my community are going to be looking out organizations and other city departments that have more resource and attorneys that will be fighting for their cases. please take into consideration all the stories that you have heard and please i ask you to
provide that services to our families need and not be sent home thank you. good afternoon, members of the budget and finance committee, my name is amy, and i am a civic engagement organizer as my co-worker said, we work a lot with our communities. we do a lot of know your rights presentations, how to create an emergency family plan. just so that our families are one step ahead if their families enter any type of detention or deportation. and so that is why i just want to say that we are first hand seeing all of the fear that is being created in these communities all of the children not wanting their pashts parents to leave them because they are afraid they won't see them again, this is happening every day at these schools when we are talking to parents. so i just want to say that right now is the time to show our immigrant communities that san francisco is ready to stand up
and protect them and defend them. right in this time of crisis, we have to know they have to know that we have their back and that they stand in solidary with them. it is has been mentioned that progressive cities like new york saw this as a need and they are doing it. this is why i am here to ask that you support the funds, to go to the public defenders office because it gives them the legal representation without having to worry about finances or putting food on their table and paying their rent, and they know that they will be able to stay here with their families. right? already we have legal organizations and that are representing our communities, and there are also, limitations through capacity, expertise, and an economy of scale to provide all of the necessary legal defense that our community needs in this time,
>> thank you for these most important matters. >> hello, good afternoon, supervisors my name is cathy and i am on the executive board of senior and disability action here in san francisco. senior disability action gives a special thanks to supervisors kim, and fewer, in their compassionate and intelligent attempt to cobble together funding to get legal service foz immigrants who face reckless, cruel, deportations. senior disability action stands firmly with the immigrant community and it's fight to push back ice, and trump. passage of this bill and san francisco sends a strong message to president 45, and the nation.
thank you very much. for passing this bill. >> good afternoon. we are here to express for the needs and the funds to defend our community of immigrants. >> because the immigrants contribute to the economy. because it is not just the community of immigrants that will be impacted it will also be the economy, and the society at
large. and this country is made of immigrants, i live in fear that i will be separated from my children, and i know many families that are also live with the same fear and it is destroying them. >> i am the face of displacement of racism and anti-immigration sentiments and also what has happened in latin america. >> thank you. >> i am the board president of manila town heritage foundation, and i speak in the memory of my
uncle, the poet in the i, hoi tell whose birthday we celebrate today. he devoted his life to remembering the stories of the early philippine immigrants that came here like my grand parents, they were scapegoated just as they are right now, that related in the death in the 20s in watsonville of a young man named tobera who was a farm worker, who was murdered by a mob who accused the philippine know workers of taking their jobs. we are seeing come to fruition as james balkbin ignorance with power, the most enemy that justice can have, i two like to thanks, supervisor fewer to introducing this legislation, and we need to make sure that the legal defense is expanded and that the due process is
given. and i can only imagine, or i can't imagine, the integrities that are suffered by the people by our brothers and sisters that are being detained and yanked from their families, and the humiliation that they are enduring because of the ignorance and the hate filled rhetoric that is going on right now, and again, it you very much for this legislation, thank you. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. my name is judy and i work for somcan, as a family coordinator, i help the immigrant families navigate the resources in the community, one of which is the immigration concern, since they are low income, they are unable to access private lawyers who could defend or advocate their issues. with these, we strongly support, this budget appropriation legislation, because we believe that everyone deserves legal
representation, regardless of income and their status in the community. thank you. >> next speaker? >> i am a resident and a worker of soma, this is heavily populated by immigrants, with people by beliefs and contributions that very well might vary widely from your own, i ask you what will it mean not to approve this proposal. the obvious question, where would we be without our immigrants approval authority society, what we do to keep our families together. people who have not committed violent crimes are incarcerated separated from their relatives and children who likewise have committed no violence, at the very least, no one should be locked up and waiting so long for resolution and answers. >> less address this backlog and allow these engineers and doctor and students and artists bus
drivers and care givers, parents, siblings and sons and daughters torques resume their lives thank you. >> go ahead. >> thank you. >> my name is neil and again, and i am with pangia legal service and we are an immigration organization here in san francisco, representing detained and non-detained immigrants and removal proceedings, i just wanted to reiterate the issue around why the public defender again. so pangia for example, has six immigration attorneys. and hiring just one extra attorney it increases our staff size by a huge percentage, it adds a huge burden and infrastructure capacity need on to our organization.
whereas the public defender hiring 17 staff, is you know, ten percent of their capacity. for us, ten percent is one. you know, or even, actually 15 percent is one new person. together, with the non-profits we are filling in and stepping up as a stopgap measure, temporarily, but for a real permanent solution we need an organization that has the infrastructure and the mass capacity to take on this mass need that we have. and the on the point of residency, again, you know, due process, is happening here in san francisco. our court is in san francisco, we used to detain folks here in san francisco, and we believe basic rights for our immigrant community right here in san francisco and, so we strongly support supervisor fewer's proposal, and hope that we can all work together on this, and
move forward on a united front. thank you. >> hi, this is unice with the center for gender and refugee studies and i just wanted to make one final point. we are a technical assistance and training center. and we you know we do one on one technical assistance in thousands of cases and protection cases and each year. so we see the gamut of cases and it is not just the attorney but it is also the quality of representation, we do see a lot of cases where the attorneys are no the prepared and not trained and not adequately supported, and we absolutely think that having defenders at the public defenders will make a big difference, and our other prior community members and organizers testified as to the trust that the public defenders has in the communities and we think that is
another very important factor. to have the public defender along with the community based organization attorneys. thank you. >> all right, thank you ladies and gentlemen. is there any one else that would like to testify or offer public comment? >> okay. public comment is closed at this time. thank you. supervisor yee, tang is next and then to supervisor yee, please? >> thank you so much for all of your public comment, on this item. >> during that time i also just wanted to i guess bring back our public defender because i wanted to clarify some numbers that i think were not stated accurately. >> in terms of the caseload that is in our san francisco immigration court, we talked about the 2209 number, and i believe that the public defender stated that 1500, are detain ease who are san francisco residents. >> i said detain ees.
how many are san francisco residents? >> we don't know. we have tried to find out that information, but there is no documentation as to where the current detainees are from. >> i don't know if we want to speak to it, because somehow they have the information and i have a better sense of what we are looking athe in terms of the caseload. >> i am the mayor's budget director and, thank you, supervisor tang and i want to say quickly, the mayor's office has been talking a lot with the community on this item, and with the supervisors and the department. and you know from our perspective, we have a lot of policy questions about this
proposal. and really heard from everyone about the need to move forward quickly, with the supply mental which, of course the mayor and the board supported together. >> and we have been asking the office for information and they provided it, and one thing that they told us was that approximately, 15 percent of that number is the best estimate that they will have of who will be san francisco residents. so that will be about 225 cases. and i think that i just want to say that we are also supportive of making sure that this work and representation is happening. and so we are just working through the process with the department and we are actually meeting with the public defender later today as well vment to continue to get answers to these types of questions. and so thank you for holding this hearing. the public comment in particular was really helpful. and nice to hear at the same time that we are going through this process and i want to appreciate everyone for that. >> i don't know where that information came from, because we don't have information as to the number, the only information that is listed as to the detainees is where they are detained. >> so your staff member told that to our office. >> i just texted him and he said
that is not krek. >> we are happy to talk to you about that more. >> we wanted to make sure that we had the answer. >> he said that an estimate. he said that was the best guess. >> would you say is your best guess is the question if you don't agree with that assessment in >> i could just say that we don't have that information. as to how many people are detained, this proposal is pro-he vied representation for everyone. who is being detained. >> sure. >> that is the point. if if you going to give it to only the san francisco residents, we will not want be part of that. >> just for the collarfy of information, no the to say that i only support you representing san francisco or not, i am trying to get accurate facts here, that is all. >> and so i would just say that you know, it looks like we need to some some more follow um conversations on this particular item. and you know, i was listening to
the public commender say that really the san francisco it is the time for us to step up and that they are tired of us being so conservative with our budget. and i just want to remind everyone that if you look at the analysis that was done by the budget analyst report and all of the counties, and how many people are in their immigration courts and how much their funding whether it is legal defense or education out reach, that san francisco absolutely leads in that. san francisco will be spending 6.8 million dollars to help to provide money for the non-profit organization to provide whether it is legal defense or education or out reach to our immigrant communities and so i just want
to put that for the record that we are spending $6.8 on an ongoing basis and, so criticize us for being conservative with the budget and unfair. and i wanted to vote down time and time again, and but i have supported each one of these, for the immigrant complunts and i want to make that very clear, when you look at boston, la, new york san jose, santa clara washington, d.c., again, all of them are spending not only a combination of their spending mostly a combination of city as well as private dollars, we are spending 6.8 of our city's dollars. not even including any of the philintropic money coming through. and so we are a leader and we are standing up for what we believe in, it does not mean that we can't still scrutinize, proposals that come before us. and so thank you, public defender but i wanted to make that very clear. >> thank you. supervisor yee. >> i just want to also, declare
about the 1500 that are detained. and they are detained right? >> yes. >> they are in one of the four holding facilities. >> yeah. and of the 1 # 00 that are detained, what percentage of them have privately, legal representation? >> 33 percent have representation 67 percent do not. >> so, that leaves about 1,000? >> 1005. yeah. >> so i guess the question becomes actually talking about what is current and what is existing, and you mentioned earlier that the only person that you currently have in your office, then, and with these cases, was able to work on about
18 or something like that? >> last year? >> he has got about 18 to 20 cases. but he also has a responsibility of devising our staff on immigration consequences. >> and all of the cases. >> so what happens to the other 980 cases? >> that is where i -- i don't --. >> currently we do not provide representation to the detained individuals, we only provide limited representation to the former clients who are in immigration court. >> i see. >> what this will do is expand the representation to all people who are being detained in immigration court. and we would staff each of the core r court rooms with an attorney for that purpose. and i mean, you know, you could feel that as a board is enough is enough, and you don't want to provide any more support for the people who are detained in
custody, and that is your per rogty. >> that is not my question. >> that is what i heard earlier. >> i was just commenting on that. >> i am asking you questions. >> that is fine. >> the 900 or so, try to go through without any legal representation. >> they have no lawyers, they have no access to a lawyer. they have you know, no ability to communicate with a lawyer what they have a question. and so what will be different is that we will be staffing those court rooms and they will be aible to have an assigned attorney who would meet with them, who would answer their questions, who is an expert in immigration law. >> and can help expedite their
case and make motion to have them released on bond. the study that was done by the organization that i mentioned earlier is a collaboration of the california organizations that do immigration work, found that a person represented by an attorney is five times as likely able to stay. because they understand the rights and they have access to the information. and that is all that we are asking you to do is to be able to be that conduit and provide that representation that the people don't currently have. >> it seems like much of the discussion came about with the threat of our current administration doing certain things that would make it worse for our undocumented residents. and it is almost feels like regardless of what he does, with the administration does that there is a need right now that we need to address. >> yeah, because we have been
working on this for a year before the election was decided. this is a problem or a crisis that has existed for a while. and we are trying to address it. before it gets worse. we know that it is going to get worse given the executive order. but at least this will allow us to provide people with basic information about their cases. and you know, it will go a long way in terms of establishing san francisco you know, as a model for how immigrants should be treated. >> okay. >> that is all the questions that i have. >> thank you. >> thank you, no other questions i think, we have already heard from the public. and after hearing from the departments, and the community today, i think that we need to i would like to have a conversation about increasing the number of positions in the public defenders office, however i don't really know what that
number is, and i don't think that we have the exact the magic number just yet. so what i would like to do is entertain a motion to continue this item for two weeks so that we can continue working on this item. so i would like like to ask for a continuance for items four and five, >> second or so moved. >> all right, thank you. >> without objection. >> i am sorry, supervisor? >> yes. >> please. >> as for the previous items there is an urgency to pass this to the bore as quickly as possible. so i am wondering if this could be continued for one week instead of two weeks? >> this is what i want to do. i am going to continue the item for two weeks, but we do need to make a motion to amend and to accept the amendments for the bla so that the legislation that we are dealing with is in the current form. so before i gaffele down on the motion to continue, i would like
to have a motion to accept the recommendations that supervisor fewer read into the record as well as the bla read into the record. >> so moved. >> chair? >> just a minute. >> i would like to add to the amendment. which is to reduce it further. >> yes. >> by the 2008. the savings. >> and so whatever that amount is. which is 200,000. >> it is the 200,000. >> so maybe we need to restate what we have here. >> so, the amendment that you are trying to address, the third one, 418,105 in the fiscal year 20, 16, 17, be reduced to
286,000. ; is that correct? ? >> 218,000. >> 218,000. >> for fiscal years 16, 17. >> yes. >> i just want to make sure that the clerk understands the amendments. >> yes. >> do you have them? >> yes. >> thank you. >> so can we take that amendments without objection? >> supervisor? >> yes? >> may i. >> yes. >> yes, could we item then be agenda as a potential committee report? >> no. >> so we are going to take these amendments with that objection. >> so the motion is amended. juflt a second. >> is there a discrepancy deputy city attorney? >> supervisor tang. >> just to reiterate what the chair stated earlier i would like to make a motion to continue for two weeks as amended. >> yes. >> thank you. >> without objection that motion
passes. >> yes? >> deputy city attorney, so none of us over here know exactly where the amendment that supervisor yee is proposing >> sure. >> goes so we just going to have to prepared the ordinance after this committee meeting. i don't know whether that is something that we can work out now or leave as a place holder to add an additional amendment next week. if you are reduce the amount next week, >> what is the confusion? >> supervisor yee? >> where >> supervisor yee, the amendment that you want to change the amount. >> i guess that i don'tnd, is there a confusion? because all the bla report or the recommendations are what it is and we all i said was that rather than accepting the 418, 105,000, for the year 2016, 17,
all that i am saying is rather than have, is that number not right? >> i think that came from the report. ? esupervisor yee, if ind through the chair, if i understand correctly, the ordinance as amended just before you now, would still has infiscal year, 16, 17, an appropriation of 418,105 based on our recommendation, what is discussed how is there is 200,000 in the salary safe gdz in the budget for the current year, 16, 17, you want to use that to reduce that amount. >> right. ? eto 218,000. >> right. >> and is 05. >> which will fund the same number of fte but would mean
that they can use the existing resources within their budget. >> correct. >> okay. >> does that make sense? >> so i just modify your recommendations. thank you for the clarification. madam clerk? >> so we have already voted on the amendment. we clarify it after the vote. so the vote still stands. >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> now the next motion that we are entertaining >> it to continue the two items for two weeks' amend million dollars. >> supervisor tang made that motion. >> we that perfect. >> yes. >> could we take that without objection? >> all right, without objection. as amended. thank you. >> the motion passes. it will be continued for two weeks. >> yes. >> madam, could you call item six? >> item number six,ordinance
de-appropriating $38,057,546 of salary and benefit expenditures in adult probation, the asian art museum, the assessor/recorder, the city attorney, the office of economic and workforce development, the city administrator, the department of public works, the department of technology, the health service system, the human rights commission, the human services agency, the juvenile probation department, the law library, the department of public health, the commission on the status of women, and the treasurer/tax collector, and $1,698,298 of overtime in the police department in fy2016-2017 to fund services at the department of homelessness and supportive housing and general city responsibilities in fys 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. >> all right, thank you. again, this item before us, and it stands today, it is a little out dated i think that supervisor fewer has a few remarks on it. >> item six was originally introduced by supervisor avalos, in december of 2016. and with deappropriate ate the salary savings and reappropriate them to the particular issues. we have heard from the controller regarding this report and there was significant salary savings in several departments for the first half of the physical year. i have brought proposed amendments that i asked ben the city controller to make and i will ask him to walk us through those amendments for the benefit of the budget and finance committee. before he does so, i wanted to share my intention regarding this ordinance, in june of 2016,
the board of supervisors included in the budget an expansion of rental subsidies for homeless families, seniors and people with disabilities. but when the proposed sales tax did not pass this november, the mayor's office withheld, spending for these subsidies. this is decision has kept the 1.5 million for 125 senior and disability housing subsidy and $1 million in subdidies for children, from providing shelter for the children most vulnerable residents, boelth of these types are need based and are used to secure the private housing or below market rate units and this legislation will take salary savings from unfilled positions providing a source of funds for 15 months, of rental subsidies for homeless and marginaled housed. and fully fund it at 2.5 million for the next fiscal year, with that i would like to ask mr. rosen field to walk us through the amendments please? >> we have a representative from
the controller's office? >> thank you. >> i'm michelle, ben is not able to be here right now. but to your point, the scope of the appropriatization and reappropriation has changed as the supervisor mentioned in the current form and it will deappropriate savings in current year aid expenses, at the department or the human services agency of 3.125 million. and reappropriate them for housing subdies. so the for these populations that are named in the amendment. so i think that it is largely just that the scope and the scale of the deappropriation has been narrowed a bit. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> yes. >> we have got a budget legislative analyst report. >> madam chair and members of the committee, supervisor fewer, based on this revised
legislation, we withdraw our recommendations on page 23, and we concur and recommend approval of the legislation that is just explained to you. >> thank you very much. for that. >> supervisor fewer, do you have anyone else to speak on this item. >> no. >> colleagues, any discussion on this item? >> all right. let's go ahead and open to public comment. >> i have got a couple of cards here rngs i am, i am not sure, there was confusion as to how the people filled out their speaker cards, i have brian, kim, steve, jennifer, anet hasan, bill hers shchlt, charles minster. take it away. brian. >> thank you for coming out
swinging for all of us. i wanted to provide a little bit of information about who the subsidies are currently receiving, who it is currently receiving the subdies and some of the impacts about it. and i am in numbers person, and i, you know, i lived on 938 dollars a month for a long time. i started the qfoundation with $100 out of my disability check. so i squeeze every nickel and i am very very focused on having real impacts. i also did not get paid for years and, so, my entire motivation with coming to work every single day.
next speaker please? >> good afternoon, supervisors, and this is actually out of order, and i am --. >> that is fine. >> okay, i am asking because there are families that need interpreters and they have to leave, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors thank you for taking the time to better understand and support the efforts being made to end the family homelessness in san francisco, my name is malia and i am the deputy director at homeless pre-natal program and i am a native san franciscan and in cohen's district. we operate the readiness efforts program better known as share. this is better organized to work with family whose need to stay in san francisco, reasons including medical care and the immigration status and the city, status and several of our participants have children that are disabled. >> and this program is based on
a three year. and to create, and set goals, to increase their income through training, and workforce development, training and schooling, and access to language, classes. currentry, the shares and the participants and 15 percent of them are african america and 86 percent are latino and 32 percent of them are were supervisor yee's district, and the other 33 are from cohen's district and thank you for your time. >> excuse me. >> yes. >> the number of families placed
in the program, it is probably more demanding than slots. >> correct. >> i am just curious, how do you settlement the families? >> i am sorry? >> we have the effort for the city that manages over the over all priority wait list and so we worked with compass as well as in internally, to identify the families that were ideal for this program. and we created an initial wait list, which were the first 20 participants which we have been working with over the last nine months, about and we actually have a number of other participants, that definitely would qualify but we don't have enough subdies to go around, and so yes, to speak to your point, i just didn't want to go over time. >> okay. thank you very much. >> and i am happy to provide any additional break downs about the
dem graphics if you would like. >> thank you. >> >> and if you, and the families and that are the beneficial, and the --. >> my name is maria and i am one, family member, and one of these families that is to share with you, of the subdy. >> the is subsidy has changed our lives. and we are able to live in normalcy. >> i want to thank you because i
chairing this committee and joined by the vice chair aaron peskin as well as supervisor katy tang. i want to thank sfgtv for covering today's meeting as well as the clerk of our meeting alisa somera. madam clerk do we have any announcements. >> yes. please silence all cell phones and electronic devices and electronic devices. all documents submitted to the clerk and items will be on the submitted to the clerk and on the february 28 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> already. madam clerk will you call item 1. >> >> womb one is the environment at code for green building requirements for municipal builds and findings. >> okay. we have staff here from the department to speak on this item. >> good afternoon. thank you chair farrell and members of the land use and transportation committee for hearing this item. we're ready for the over heads
for the presentation. okay. what you have before you are amendments to chapter seven of the environment code. now this has been sponsored by the mayor and board president breed. so this ordinance is not a new ordinance. it is it ej rated back in 1998 when our first green building program in place. it morphed and changed in 2004 to adopt lead silver as the minimum building standard for municipal builderce and in 2011 got lead gold as the building standard. this change was also -- it was also the same as what was going on in the private sector where also lead silver to gold is now the standard city-wide. there's a context and the reason we're having this ordinance come before you today
and that is that the building code has changed, want only for the city but the stay wide so you have the california energy code. >> >> as well as the california state building code and cal green are updated and our ordinance needs to corspend to that and lead leadership and environmental design has version three which is expired and now has version four so at one level had this is a clean up ordinance to make sure we're in context but using it as an opportunity to clarify and look to the future. so how are we doing? this is just a quick snapshot how the city has doing implementing the lead ordinance since 2004. to date we have 51 municipal bodybuildings, nine are platinum. this is one of the largest municipal portfolios in the united states. some specific examples handout hospital is an example of the -- laguna honda is a example the
first lead hospital. and the academy is double load for construction and maintenance building. the airport terminal two is the first terminal to be lead gold in the u.s. here in the building we find ourselves city heal is the oldest lead platinum building in the united states and with the retrofits that we did on this building the taxpayers as well as the employees can benefit tw of 25 energy savings and thousands of gallons of water saved and those are some of the benefit s and the new public safety you may not know not only is it home to our police and fire, but it has three living roofs, brain water harvesting, gray water reuse and water savings fixtures make this the most water efficient building in the city's municipal portfolio and designed before we were in a drought and having
this as our goal and pushes toward the future and resilient for whatever is to come so the proposed changes to this ordinance are in three buckets. updates which i alluded to. clarifications to make this i clear and easier to implement ordinance and finally additions to look forward to the future so the proposed updates the california energy code has been modified and we need to point to the recent code. the california green code has been updated and we need to point to the recent code in our ordinance and finally lead itself has expired version three and on to version four which is heavily focused on energy and efficiency which will help us as we try and meet the statewide goals of zero net energy building. the lead three to body four was perhaps the area that gave the department heads the most heart burn and
concerned about the comp implications would be so we worked closely with public works and as with the building construction team, with the consultants to do an analysis of actual city projects to see what the impact would be on the building if we go from three to four. for new construction was a wash and 0.8 increase in the cost of the building. for renovations we get a range of impacts depending how we accommodate the solar photovoltaic system from 2.5 to 5% increase in cost. we believe these costs can be mitigated to a large degree by up front planning and yet it's important to go in with our eyes open and a small increase going forward. the clarifications that we put in place. the first one is that we shifted the applicability of
this ordinance to have a threshold of 10,000 square feet rather than 5,000 square feet. city-wide that threshold is 2,500,000 square feet so we're -- 25,000 square feet and leading by example but projects have a higher cost burden and asking us to join us in the spirit of lead if not certification of the second area had to do with the port. it turns out the port of san francisco has its own building code and confusion as to whether or not chapter seven applied to the port and it's explicit that section 7 05 and 706 that may seem redundant are not in effect for the port but the port changed the code to make sure it's consistent with chapter seven. there's a part of this program which is the waiver process so that if a city
department feels it cannot meet the standards set forth in chapter seven they can apply to get a waiver from either the certification for lead or specific elements that are in that certification, and for the port we have put in place a process in the port where they will do their own waivers and director of the port will have the authority to grant the waivers but we instituted a transparent decision making process where the task force will issue a recommendation to the port. the port will make a decision and made public at the environment commission and the port commissions, so we clarified and increased transparency when it comes to the port and they're incredibly unthese yatdic and willing partner and the last clarification which was very important is that we made it clear that this ordinance does apply to major renovations and tenant improvements in leased space so for example when the
san francisco employees retirement or the health service system remodeled their location they do it now with a lead check list and with lead certification and that way the taxpayers, the employees, the visitors are insured to have the benefit of a lead certified building, so that was then the amendments, and the clarifications, so the updates and clarifications and now looking towards the future how can this ordinance prepare us for what is coming ahead? how can we look ahead at what the state of california is putting in place? what about our climate goals? so the proposed additions we're asking each project to do a feasibility on what it takes to build that project to be zero net energy? it's a statewide goal where the energy budget for the building is the same as the energy generated on site through renewables. it doesn't make sense to do it for large skinny
buildings but three or fewer stories we may be able to achieve net energy before the deadline by the state of california. we're asking projects to do a cost benefits analysis for solar plus storage and how do we take the solar on site and meld it with batteries and use that energy in the evening or in the event of an earthquake or other disaster? and finally we're looking at what is actually going in those buildings and it turns out that the furniture in the buildings -- in fact the furniture you're sitting on now often contains toxic chemicals and flame retard arts so we're putting language in the ordinance for the department of the environment to draft regulations and city department to the change the procurement in the wonderful lead program soas that's a snapshot of this ordinance in terms -- like i said there is
larger context why we need to do it now. we have amendments that have clarifications and updates s and the idea to looking to the future so any questions you might have i am open. >> colleagues any questions right now? okay. thank you very much. we will open up to public comment. anyone wish to comment on item number 1? okay. >> hello i am here to support i am laura and here to support the update to the environment code. san francisco is an early adopter of buildings and lead the country towards innovative green buildings and the private sector to follow. it's gone on to be a success around the world and we can pride in that and this update includes important
true ups to stay current and continue to lead in this area. the gold standards for green building have evolved so we need to keep up and pushing the envelope and san francisco wants to be a leader in this area and we can do so with some of the amendments in the ordinance. finally we're especially pleased to support some of the key pieces that director raphael mentioned at the end, the idea of making the buildings zero net energy which is a staple that the state doesn't fully know how to execute so we can show how to do in san francisco, doing on of sight battery storage and paired with renewable energy is important as our energy system becomes more renewable we have to figure out to keep the electrons we generate into sun and something we recommended in a report at spur worked on over the last two years that being load at what the bay area and what cities in the area can do
to help advance a fossil free region especially recommended this idea be pursued so to see it incorporated into the municipal green building is a great idea as well as we're happy to see the ordinance include the requirement to implement the better roofs ordinance which we worked hard on over the years and pleased to see and incorporated into the sites such as the public safety building so in short we're in favor of the update and look forward to it be implemented. thanks. >> thanks. i have two other speaker cards. [calling speaker names] so if year free feel free to come on up. >> good afternoon supervisors. rich berman part of san francisco and i am here to express my support of the revisions. the port has worked closely with the department of of the environment in carving out some of the revisionsa and they have been a fantastic
partner not only in this but establishing city-wide goals and leaders for us in establishing our own climate action goals which are reflected in the port's strategic plan, and we're very appreciative of the ability to incorporate the especially 705 and 706 sections into the port building code. if there are questions about that i am happy to answer them. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is brendon mc haney and i am the director of the building councils northern california office and here to support the green buildings requirements for the municipal buildings and san francisco has been a lead on these issues and it ensures the leadership that these projects reduce environmental impacts. our lead rating system is the
leading choice for environmental impacts and certifying the improvements made. while this standard has been voluntary adopted in the private sector and many are in the public sector and governments that saw the benefits of reduced energy bills and improving environmental conditions and healthier and more productive working spaces. local government leadership and raising the ceiling for performance has in turn raised the floor and advances in the building and environment code and for technology and market advances and the lead system is regularly updated and this would require lead verse four and the current version of best practice in building environmental performance. the state of california has expressed its intent that all buildings are zero net energy by 2030 and producing clean sources and take a step in that dreakz and
mandating the standard consistent with the policy direction. with so much uncertainty at the federal level it's important to push for leadership on environmental cashes and thank the city and county of san francisco issue for the leadership and look forward to working with leaders and staff to make sure that municipal buildings meet a high level of performance. thank you. >> thank you very much. anyone else wish to comment on item number 1? >> yes. i am a neighborhood activist and here for the next item but i think at that point somewhere in our great bureaucracy and system somebody has to say something a little bit realistic about this building and what is going on with it and let's say we build a zero net energy building but all of the activity that go in and owl and embedded in an environment and economy that is 70% based on fossil fuel so we're increasing the fossil fuel
-- you know, juice, you know and that's the shortcoming of -- it's not beautiful in other words. it has a huge wart on it. >> thank you very much. anyone else wish to comment on item number 1? seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] . colleagues any questions or comments? if not a motion to move this item forward. >> so moved. >> second. >> okay. motion by supervisor peskin with recommendation supervisor? >> yes, sir. >> if we could do that and second by supervisor tang. we will take that without objection. [gavel] madam clerk will you call item 2. >> item 2 is ordinance amending the planning code to allow amusement arcades south of market eastern neighborhood and mixed use district except in the residential enclave districts affirming the department's department. >> thank you. i am from the department. thank you members. last week we heard this item and asked for a continuance so the
city attorney could prepare amendments spflg to allowing the arcade use or prohibited -- removing the prohibition of arcade use only in the soma light industrial district and we have revised legislation from the city attorney so we ask for your amendments to the original legislation that it only be limited to soma service light industrial and we have legislation. >> do you have copies? >> sorry.
>> do you think maybe you could walk us through the amendments here can't vote on them until understanding what they are. >> yeah. originally the legislation had the arcades prohibition deleted in the south of market and mixed use district so all of the mixed use district and each -- eastern neighborhood but we prepared prohibition for the south of market service light industrial district and this is an amendment of the whole so it doesn't show the original place wrist it was originally allowed. >> okay. i have some cross outs and so forth. this is the amendment -- we can take this forward and move it forward today? okay. so just in the
title as well as it looks like 17 and 18 on page two? >> correct. >> you have an extra period on page one at line 17. >> supervisor peskin attention to detail here. >> john gibner and there were sections not amended in the first ordinance and removed from this version all together some changes to zoning coal tables that no longer need to be changed because the ordinance is scaled back. >> okay. colleagues any questions, comments for the sponsor and team in. >> less is more. i am fine with these changes. >> okay. we will open up public comment then. thank you. [calling speaker names]
if there is anybody else wish to speak please line up and do this for the next items as well. everyone has two minutes to speak if line up on the far wall. that would be great. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am president of the south of market business association. i remember as a kid i still loved to go to the local cafe in my town and play pin ball and not just games but meet people there and a fun time to have a friday evening or saturdays and so forth so it was a great time to spend with friends and so we feel it's the same thing now. we don't have the pin ball machines anymore. it's sort of more electronic and techy stuffs and i don't blame myself but it's great for the community and great for the young generation to come and spend time with friends and you know but also what it does is makes the area more vibrant and on top of that
the city benefits because of the money that comes in from the folks that spend at these places that will have these entertainment -- what do you call it? arcades, amusement arcades, sorry, so i urge you to please support this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> i was here lapt week and ask for your support and here again for that and piggyback on everything i said last week. you know this is a concept that is resurging in the country from new york to portland to southern california and it will be helpful to get it in our city now. thank you. >> thank you very much. anybody else wish to comment on item 2? okay. seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] colleagues we have an amendment whole in front of us. >> i will make a motion to adopt the amendments discussed and send forward with positive recommendation to the full
board. >> okay. motion by supervisor tang and second by supervisor peskin. madam clerk will you call items 3 and four together. >> item 3 is exempting requirements and authorizing land and on 180 jones street establishing the affordable housing fund and accepting a $2.7 million gift to the fund and approving the [inaudible] of conveyance of property and appropriate findings. >> okay. thank you very much. these items sponsored by supervisor kim. >> yes,. >> we will open it up to her to speak in the beginning. >> i know this committee heard this item last monday and just wanted to summarize the ordinances that are before us today. first of all i do want
to recognize many of our community leaders and residents from the tenderloin and mid-market area that were part of working on negotiating the deal that is before us today with 950 market. the ordinance that is before us today was an outcome of discussions that the community had with the developer group out of concerns that below market rate units for ownership wouldn't be accessible to the vast majority of residents in the neighborhood. due to that they identified a site, one of the last developable vacant parcels in the tenderloin, 180 jones which is currently a parking lot and worked with the developer to purchase and acquire the site and dedicate the city to build at least 60 units of step up affordable housing for single occupancy residents and this is a huge housing issue here in san francisco. we have many residents that are long-term
single room occupancy residents who are ready to move into step up housing, other affordable housing and freeing up their rooms for other individuals that are recently homeless as future housing for the formerly homeless in san francisco. this group worked close with the office to purchase the land and additional funds to build that 180 jones street. the primary project is important to the revitalization of the mid-market and the loin area. we proximate the value of the land purchase and contribution to the fund at approximately 25% of the on of site affordable housing obligation. i had mentioned last week at monday's land use committee when questions arose about the value of this deal that our office works very hard to push the envelope with all of the private developers to ensure that we're sharing in the value
conterto land and building the maximum affordable housing possible but also we want to make sure we're consistent with our developments so we crafted this deal looking at a project that passed unanimously at this board of supervisors last may of 2016 which is the 1066 market cite and the parking lot and residents were concerned they weren't qualify for the below market rate units and residents asked that developer to acquire another parcel that is very meaningful to the tenderloin neighborhood, 101 hyde street which is currently the old post office building, previously one of the ways that the tenants received mail and communication, and to purchase that site from property owner that had entitle to build 100% market rate units and that land is dedicated to the city and they also dedicated
an affordable housing gift to help jump start the predevelopment for that site so it will also be 100% affordable housing. on top of this because of some of the historic nature or the historic nature of the building in that it previously housed transgender, lesbian, gay and bisexual retail and environment sites. the compton's district historic district committee work with the developer to seed and grant a $300,000 fund dedicated to city to support webcor/obayashi tlgb. the money will. >> >> go towards the cultural heritage district in the tenderloin, create a transgender focus community in the tenderloin and want one or more transgender store fronts in the compton's this legislation codifies many of the components
i talked and i want to recognize the audience that worked together with the developer and 950 coalition and the sro collaborative, market street for the masses, the compton coalition and city side and mayor's office of housing and community development and staff that are here today, our department much real estate, the planning department and o ewd staff and city attorney and our project sponsor and team for working so closely with our community. we do have updated numbers based on some of the questions and concerns that came up at land use committee today which i know committee members have, and i just received additional amendments that we do want to make to item number 4 that were result of discussion with mohcd to codify we intend for the affordable housing
development to be offered to individuals and families with income of 40% ami or lower and intend the affordable housing at the site provide preference for tenants in city supported housing for at least three years and they haven't have all of the subsidy for the development on the site but do our best efforts to secure the gap funding so just to be clear because there were concerns about a gap in the affordable housing project and a gap for 101 hyde as well. while we pushed with both developers they were able to commitment to 25% off site which is greater what was previously gathered at 20% however it didn't cover the gap on both deals but we have an analysis that shows the gap for this project at 180 jones is
lower than 101 hide which the board supported last year so with that these are the amendments that i am hoping the committee will make. i will make sure each of the committee members get a copy of these amendments during public comment, and if there are no further questions chair farrell i ask that we open up for public comment. >> thank you supervisor kim, so and thank you for those amendments and we will be taking care of them after public comment. you know last week at the hearing on this item and my colleagues on the committee would join me on this wasn't comfortable moving this ordinance forward with the information in front of us, and perhaps i am -- too used to be at budget committee and harvey rose is present presenting for the board of supervisors and last week there was a memo is that showed ordinance had a two
and a half million dollars profit to the developer and just to be clear i'm not here to decide the profit for the developer but i am here to make sure that development deals made outside of a development process agreement are fully vetted. if we are exempting projects with the money it's important policy decision and i am glad to entertain those when we talk about the community that came forward and wanted affordable housing in the neighborhood but i want to make sure that the city gets an adequate return and the best deal possible and frankly the way we went about this we were holding housing hostage in the city and it's not the right approach. last week when i raised questions about the profit and the departments and the developer couldn't have agreement on the numbers so we didn't have the information in front of us and thanks to the mayor's office of housing and the developer and the planning for over the last week working with my office and i believe my
colleagues as well to do a further dive on the analysis up to about an hour and a half ago i was on the phone running through excel sheet wts developer's finance team to unpack the data in front of us and reality is today or two months ago we have completely numbers from the city staff. i want to run through the numbers but quite frankly from a process perspective and from a land use committee perspective let alone the full board of supervisors' perspective that simply doesn't work, so going forward supervisor tang and i and the rest of my colleagues will join us and introduce legislation to make sure we have a full analysis of these projects done before they come to land use committee where there are numbers that our city departments will stand behind both at the time of production as well as two, three months down the road and to make sure that again if we do not have projects going through a full vetting of a development agreement that we make sure we have full information here at
the land use committee before approving these projects so with that i know my colleagues actually have comments they want to make but after that i am going to be asking ms. kate hardly about the updated numbers and walk through that and ms. rogers from the planning department, additional items to add in and give you the opportunity to walk through the numbers as well so we will talk through the numbers and the differences from a few months ago but before they will turn it over to my colleagues and first supervisor peskin. >> thank you chair farrell and i want to echo the chairman's words as it relates to process but to put them in a little bit of context, and let me start by saying that over the last number of years the vast majority of residential development that has occurred in san francisco has occurred in district 6 in
supervisor kim's district, and i am profoundly aware that supervisor kim has used her office and worked with various departments including but not limited to planning and the mayor's office of housing to push the envelope to make sure that the community is getting the most public benefit in the form of affordable housing that is possible, and in deed it is i think has been an example time and again when we were back in the dark days of 12% on site inclusionary where supervisor kim showed us in projects that the required development agreements or not we could provide housing for workers, for teachers and so i want to salute that. as to process and i am not patting myself on the back when i say this. there has been something lacking and to that end that was one of the reasons that the board -- albeit it did not pass forward to the full board with a positive
forwarded to the department on housing and whether public or private deals could actually get that level of scrutiny. >> >> so that supervisor kim wouldn't be doing it all on her own as she was pushing the envelope to get us more affordable housing so i do conquer going forward and i hope this is meant in the spirit it is given that we will actually come together so that we make sure we're not leaving any money on the table, and the questions that i asked last week and some of my colleagues asked were really about whether or not there was money being left on the table. i conservation cur that develop -- concur that developers get into this to make money and it doesn't hurt my feelings when they do that and that's when developers do but it
hurts my feelings so we could get more affordable housing or closing a project whether at 180 jones street or on market has the maximum feasible amount of affordable housing. we don't have a crisis in luxury units in san francisco. we have a crisis in low income and middle income units and i think that is what supervisor kim has been trying to solve for, so i hope that going forward the board can actually have a conversation so we don't have what we saw here last week and i mean no offense to the mayor's office of housing or planning but it was highly siloized and clearly not the level of communication and the numbers were clarified and a lot of that has been done in the intervening week and made me more comfortable but as the hearing going on we have questions about presumed interest rates and crystal bale things that we can ask but the lizon going forward we should
have higher level of procedural oversight as the one off deals with created in the public interest. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you and i will just definitely echo what supervisor peskin and farrell said and of course i want to thank supervisor kim and her office for as supervisor peskin mentioned just always looking out for the district and make making sure we can get the best deal and we know she's a tough negotiator but i think what this committee was pointing to last week was not about this project on jones or market. it was about a larger idea of transparency and making sure there is information independently vetted whether by department or outside parties so really that's the point we were trying to get at but conceptually i can speak for the agreement that we know the -- committee and the agreement is the best for the neighborhood and i will leave it at that so we can move on with the
hearing. thank you. >> okay. with that we have a number of speaker cards and but ask kate hardly to go through the letter with updated numbers and so we're clear on what the updates numbers do say. >> good afternoon. i would like to begin by saying that we agree. we have a process in place in the city to analyze transactions where there's some concessions or variations from the legislation for real estate and development agreement and the mayor's office of housing participates in the agreements regularly and scrutinized by the legislative and budget analyst office and we're more than happy to do that sort of work and we do think that it's a great way to make sure that each transaction that moves forward
is maximizing affordable housing, offering a fair return to developers, but that we're very clear on what the numbers are, so -- >> before you go on i just want to say in the course of our discussions, our discussion and my discussions with other department heads over the past week since going through this rigamarole last week everyone is in agreement that we need a better process so i look forward getting that legislation through so the land use committee is dealing with facts when we have everything in front us and no one is pointing fingers and i think that's where we all want to be. >> sounds good to me. so i have copies of the letters i sent you via email this morning. i am happy to provide hard copies. you have them? okay. so essentially supervisor farrell you asked us to further investigation into the research that we did in december
regarding 180 jones and 950 market. at the time we use the information we had to assess the terms of this transaction and whether it made sense. there were a lot of moving parts and we did the best we could with the information that we had. as you have described in december we found that the difference between the developer's surplus and that is -- you know, i use that in sort of not standard way because we don't have our -- we don't have information on the entirety of this transaction which includes a hotel but it looks like the developer had a benefit of 2.4 million if the developer provided funding to the off site versus just building on site inclusionary. the developer rebutted that assessment on december 15 and said a few really important things. one is that we were
using sales cost inflation factor of 3.9% which was too aggressive given what the market did in 2016. also there were some policy questions about whether the developer should be exempt from the gray water system requirements as well as whether a fee applied for tdr transferrable development rights was appropriate and whether we should be looking at the developer getting a benefit by instead of all of the section 4 15 inclusionar y fees up front
at first construction document which is is typical and required under this section instead deferring a portion of the fees, approximately 11 million, until temporary certificate of occupancy -- >> sorry. excuse me. supervisor peskin had a few questions. >> if you want to go through the numbers -- i just have questions of taking a snapshot in time for 2016 as compared to using a half decade worth of data and while the market may have flattened -- although it's kind of hard for us to believe given that we just got our six month report from the controller and 2016 had the highest ever in the history of the city and county collection of real estate transfer tax and we are way over on property tax, so intuitivity -- i don't know if this type of unit flattened a lot bit in 2016, but intuitively if the 3.9% number goes back to 2010 which was at that point we were
coming out of the recession when nobody could get finance dispg what have it it seems a little dangerous to start using 1.2%. i'm happy to solve this in other ways conceptually and including but not limited to the return on investment and the exercise fundamentally is what is the difference of the 31 on site units and however many -- 60 to 88 off site units and if the developer is making more is something to think about but we're getting twice as many units. >> >> and there are lots of ways to skin it but i'm not sure if taking that number is the way to get there. >> well, it's a hard thing to argue. i think you could commission a full market study and come up with a number that is appropriate. the developer proposed 1.2% based upon -- and then provided market data from polaris that showed there was actual decline in sales prices
in 2016 for the building type they're proposing to build. in addition, we looked at information from parra gone real estate group, trillia, other market watcher who is are consistently evaluating the data and they all confirmed there was for this building type especially one and two bedroom units a plateauing and even a sales price decline. in addition these reports are showing because of increased inventory there isn't so strong a market. now is 1.2 the right number? i cannot tell you and that is -- that's something that -- you know it's a prediction and it's something that you know deeper study could probably provide a better answer, but there's definitely contradictory data showing that you had ten, 15, 17 price appreciation
between 2010 year over year and 2015 and the plateauing and then saw a drop in sales prices for this. will that continue? it's hard to say. >> well, i think ms. hardly to further supervisor peskin's comments though what we're being asked to approve though is literally putting our finger on a number and saying specifically that this is what we agree is the growth rate and the pricing increase for the next two and a half years, and so -- and we can talk about the merits and have further discussion about it. i for one i am mixed about that. one, i can't believe it on one side given what we have gone through in the city and talk about affordability issues. however, given the amount of meaning on line, given supply demand i am excited if that is the truth, but you know as we
talk through -- as i work with the developer through the financial model and share with my colleagues on this committee it's a very big difference what the developer is getting and not if we agree 1.2% versus 2.4% and the developer.2% -- i am sure you will run through it if we are the you speak they're losing a few hundred thousand dollars on this because of this ordinance, but if we actually think it's 2.4% doubling sounds like a lot but in the grand scheme of things and housing is projecting that much in the city of san francisco and project it out and many before would have said it's true and then at 2.4% they're getting a benefit of $500,000 and that's my point last week. i don't want to grant legislation and giving them hundreds of thousands of dollars and the additional
benefits. let's get creative but make it cost neutral for the developer so i think while it's difficult the point is though today we're having to decide what that point in the sand is so that's why i think this discussion is going to be an interesting one. >> well, i think there are ways to address that. we can commission a better market study then just sort of cursory review of the materials and i think it's important to look at the entirety of the transactions, so they originally came forward in support of this because we were acknowledging the community's desire to have the 68 units built at a lower affordability rate than 31 condos on site. granted we wanted to make sure there was no additional benefit related to the developer in that that was adverse to affordable
housing so a lot of turns on the inflation rate which we have to make a guess on. even a full market study we will make a guess. in addition since the time that we did our additional analysis in december the developer provided another million dollars in gift funds beyond the 2 million they previously committed to and there are the questions of the applicability of a tdr amendment as well as whether we should be looking at the delay and the payment at tco between first construction documents and tco as something that needs to be applied against the developer's contribution, so when you put all those together with the projected sales prices that's really the analysis that we need to consider, and as we said in
our last letter to you if you assume a 1.2 inflation rate then it's about break even between on site and off site, but if you say -- if you decide as policy makers that the benefit that -- there really shouldn't be a benefit conferred or a benefit applied to the developer because they're not paying their fee right at first construction documents as is typical in a section 4 15 in lieu payment. then they're actually spending approximately 1.8 million more to do the off site development. now, if you say 1.2% inflation on the condos sales prices is too low and go to 2.4 then you would have a different outcome and we're more than happy to
continue this analysis and give a variety of scenarios that bring in all of those elements, but there are some policy questions that have to be determined as part of that. >> okay. do you want to run through your analysis and just the comparison because i think it's helpful for everybody. >> so when we went back we took the data that we saw on the marketplace also with the developer claimed that we were too aggressive in the price inflation and revised the market rate they're projecting. we also failed to account for financial carrying costs for the developer from tco to the point where the sales was completed. we didn't have an absorption rate or the cost of funds were at that time. we now know what it is and so they're actually going to have to spend about $800,000 in interest in order
to borrow the money to make the section 4 15 payment. we kept the gray water system credit and the tdr credit the same but now that we know what their money costs we also gave them an additional -- we also applied an additional benefit to them for not having to pay their fee at first construction documents. they increased their gift to the city by a million dollars since the first analysis, and as you add and subtract all the credits and debits it came out to about a $260,000 loss to the developer if they provided money for inclusionary development at 180 jones street. again there are some policy questions here that should inform that analysis
about the tdr, about the requirement to pay the fee at first construction versus tco, and about gray water, and we tried to lay those out for you in the letter, and that is where we landed. >> okay. thank you ms. hardly. colleagues if no other questions we have planning planning. >> i'm sorry. i wanted to say one thing. we have staff here that has information about these issues. >> maybe this is for planning and my understanding along the way the job linkage fee was calculated originally at 1.4 million and subsequently $400,000. what is the behind the scene story on that. >> good afternoon. i have some of the behind the scene
story but supervisor kim knows more than i do. the ordinance introduced included a original job link am fee and a guess on the fee and shows how complicated to figure out the real value a deal such as this because that's the straight fee and the drafter of the ordinance didn't require when we would assess the fee we would give credit for existing office use that need to pay the fee so in this case the existing use on the site would credit the developer for a .9 million credit so due $.9 million in actual job linkage fee. so they got a credit for on site use so you have to pay for the impact of the higher intensity use but if you have already that use on the site you don't have to pay because you're not increasing the intensity. you only pay for
the amount you're increasing the intensity. >> so the final job link an number was? >> .9 million. >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> thank you to the experts in the audience. >> so it went .08 to $400,000. >> because of the credits. >> i like the other number better. >> sorry. >> supervisor kim. >> just to talk about the amendments we made to the ordinance. the originally ordinance was for 18.8 million and this was under the assumption that the linkage fee was that amount and however through extensive conversations with the developer knows there is a gap on the jones site the developer and i worked out a deal and despite the reduction she's stay paying off -- well, we're waiving the job link an
fee and instead of the reduction it's $700,000 reduction so she wanted to make sure there was a gift above what is required and that is codified in the ordinance that is before us today. just a couple of things though. i just want to concur with the land use committee. i would love for there to be a consistent assessment of all of the land use development deals. it has been incredible work for my staff and office that feel that the vast majority of the developments in the city to make sure we're getting a fair deal for the city and making sure we're building as much as affordable housing as well as contributions to arts and open space and pedestrian safety and the whole multitude of things we care about when building healthy and complete neighborhoods with the vast amount of development, but you know we do have to run our own numbers and we depend
on a lot of community members through the affordable housing developers to help us with numbers to make sure we're getting a fair deal so it makes sense for the city to provide that. the mayor's office of housing has been helpful and olson lee and kate hardly are always working with the office for the best numbers possible and we support that but i want to emphasize the 180 jones and market deal structured in a deal that we did a year ago a block away on market so we did a cost comparison between those two developments to make sure that while we're getting the most we could we're treating developers as fairly ooze possible, and not asking one to do more than the other, and so very similarly
1066 market, the market rate units and both of these projects are out at 25% and 101 hyde and the units there and on jones 60 units and i know there were concerns about the gap. the gap on hyde is -- and so because for a number of reasons we were able to crush the dollars more and offer the land cost more in 180 jones street than 101 hide but if we have concerns about the payment of first construction document and we didn't because we know it would take several years to build on jones and the timeliness of the payment wasn't as important to us but if we talk about the value of that this committee and board didn't
question us when in the 1066 market deal we let them make the affordable housing gift as an exempt contribution to a foundation so they actually got tax ex contribution and by giving to the san francisco foundation so there is a tremendous value to that as well and this board didn't question that value we gave to the shorren steinos 1066 market so obviously there's a lot of deals. they're apples and oranges. this is for ownership and hotel. sen 66 market was all rentals and we do the best we can to have consistent housing deals before the land use committee but i agree it would be great to have an independent analysis from the city to make sure we're running the best deal possible. >> ms. rogers, can i invite
you back up? i believe you were going to go through additional numbers. >> yeah, there were two other numbers that planning staff was responsible if you but i would like to support the idea of forwarding additional fiscal vetting support changes by the development agreement have such a process and the staff and commission would support such fiscal analysis by tree experts just as this body has concerned today staff and the planning commission has concerns when the ordinance was before them but we didn't have the tools to fully vet this from a fiscal perspective so we appreciate the board's interest in doing so. the other two fees i wanted to talk about besides the job linkage fee citizen gray water fee and use the numbers from the developer and the intervening woke the puc tested the numbers and concluded those are appropriate. however, planning staff does continue to differ from the project sponsor where
they should be subject to that requirement at all, and as i said last week it is our opinion that the project sponsor couldn't have received the entitlements before the date and it's a policy decision before the board to waive it and secondly on the costs. last week we estimated of $25 a square foot and compared to recent sales and with research we found it's a set rate required by board resolution by specific purchase for the site. >> thank you ms. rogers. >> thank you. >> and again in terms of all the analysis we looked through in the past week i concur and thank puc for weighing in on the gray water analysis and planning and talking about tdrs and the caring cost questions and the biggest question whether we agree as a board and i am supportive -- i have a amendment to make sure that we do, a 1.2%
growth rate over the next two years. i think that is subject to debate and so forth and i think we can have that discussion. colleagues if no other questions right now for staff i think we do have a lot of public speaking cards here so i would like to go through them if open for everybody else. all right. with that we will open up public comment. i will read your name off. please line up and everyone has two minutes. [calling speaker names] and i got some more here as well. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is rob peal and the development and communications manager with the housing coalition. i hope you had a
great weekend. 950 market hab through the journey and came to us in july 2014 so two and a half years ago and my goodness a lot has happened that time. at that time it was a sud. it was clear that the project sponsor [inaudible] deliver in this case the arts committee. that didn't work out and went to [inaudible] project and a year later saw it again and now in early 2017 with what we feel say terrific proposal and maximize the amount of permanent affordable housing it can deliver. we think this solution introduced by supervisor kim is very sensible. a lot of decisions on the project were made jeerg. it's hard to predict where things go but this is a smart proposal and it's good today and we hope to
move it forward. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello. i am helen beam representing the tenderloin equitable project development and we're here to support the 180 jones street ordinance because of the benefit its provides to the tenderloin residents and community. basically we believe that this ordinance is preferable to building on site affordable units and doubles the number of affordable housing that would be built and provides the units at a deeper level of affordability and includes the step up units available to sro tenants in city supported housing and free up their units for other homeless units needing a home and so for these reasons we believe that the 180 jones street ordinance best serves tenderloin residents and we request that the
committee move this item to the full board. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello. my name is josephine rivero and i live across the 550 market project since 1990. i have worked as a hotel housekeeper on the marriott for 16 years and a union representative here. i am representing the civic center -- [inaudible] park center -- [inaudible] and chancellor. i had housekeeping jobs with the union and without a union contract. i can tell you how much better it's for the hotel employees to have the union. the wages are better. we have job security and protection and we get health care and pension when we retire. the developers of 950 market have signed an agreement that will allow workers at the hotel to
organize a union without fear of retaliation. this will be -- this will provide good living wages, jobs that will benefit this neighborhood and also today i am asking you to approve this motion for 180 jones which is an important part of this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. cynthia gomez at the hotel union. as you heard the project sponsors signed an agreement that will protect workers right to form a union without form of retaliation which is increasingly important and signed in december 2015 and so the hotel jobs will certainly be the kind we need more of in san francisco in terms of living wages and protection and benefits. we have members who live in the tenderloin and
depend on sro and affordable housing so any project that will expand affordable housing options is certainly one we support. in this case we as i said the project has benefits and workforce training as apable way to good jobs and 80 jones -- the ordinance is something we're definitely urging you to support. don't allow for the community benefits and housing and the prospect of living wage jobs to be further delayed. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> >> >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is curtis bradford and president of the east tenderloin residents association and the and the coalition that negotiated the benefits as part of the thing and also here as one of the members of the tenderloin people's congress and i would like to say i am here
today to speak in strong support of the 180 jones street. worked on this deal a year and a half and negotiated by members in the tenderloin and residents like myself and sat down with the developer in robust negotiations to reach this agreement and an unprecedented the opportunity to support this resident driven process that created this. this is what the rose dents wantd and they asked for the development and negotiate thursday development and it's just part of a whole package of benefits that were negotiated for the tenderloin including a rent free space at tark and taylor and for the employment program and part of a larger package negotiated by the residents. i was one of those people and i would really expect that our board of supervisors would support this resident driven initiative. frankly we're talking about a
few dollars here and the dollars even out, $100,000 more or $200,000 this way? how do you measure the benefit of building affordable housing in a site in the tenderloin that wouldn't be built? we want this housing. we need this housing. we want your support. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello. i am jesse johnson and reiterate what curtis said today. the 180 jones street is important. it's crucial to the future of working class and low income people in the tenderloin and equally important the process by which the decision was made. this entailed months of negotiation between the coalition and the group and hours of conversation within the community. we covered a whole range of issues from strategies for our survival perhaps collective vision of our future, accountability, representation, transparency, all these issues were an important part of that
discussion. i know in the past two too often decisions of this magnitude have been made by political players or gate keepers and this time was different and had empowered residents and please support that. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> hi supervisors. my name is eric and i'm a community organizer in the tenderloin and member of the tenderloin congress. support the 180 jones street project. we have a state of the art agreement and standard for developers in the future. this process took over a year and agreement that speaks to the need wants of the community. the land use committee and the board of supervisors should honor the desires of the residents and approve this project as originally negotiated. the opposition to this project is a cynical attempt by supervisor farrell to politicalize the
project while appearing to be an advocate of affordable low income housing which has never been the case. don't play politics with our housing and benefits. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> mr. chair may i remind the members of the audience there are no audible expressions of support or opposition. if you would like to show your support you can use your spirit fingers. thank you. >> okay. thank you very much. next speaker and by the way as the next speaker comes up i will call up the next cards. [calling speaker names] >> thank you and good afternoon supervisors. my name is stephanie ashley. i'm the executive director of the st. james infirmary and here today as a member of the compton district coalition which is you know is a coalition of
organizations serving and made up of the trans community in the tenderloin and the compton's coalition came together as just one section of a broad community effort to reach agreements around the 950 market street project and i am here to sept that section of the community and we encourage to you move forward with the 180 jones project and the agreement as it stands. supervisor kim's office did a phenomenal office bringing the community together with agreements that really benefits as much and the most needy sections of the tenderloin community and we're hopeful that 180 joans can move forward as quickly as possible. st. james infirmary and other coalitions and justice project are a block away from 950 market and we're invested in seeing the best
outcome with the project and we believe that the 180 jones street in its current form is that version and we hope that you move the project forward with as little delay as possible. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i did not fill out a card. i am with land lease and general contractor on the project. we see it as positive plus -- can you hear me? it's a positive plus to the project itself, plus to the community itself. we would be providing publicly about 2,000 job in construction itself over a 20 month period for the construction. we work -- our company is well known for being safe. we're safety k. we will do everything we can to project the workers and the public itself and to maintain the necessary conditions that we neil best benefit both the people who live there and work at the site thank you. >>
>> thank you. next speaker please. >> yes supervisors. randy shaw director of the tenderloin clinic. you see togetherness in the community and every labor developer on the same page and why the project needs to move out of committee today and i appreciate the comments before why this is a good deal and not clear to some of you last week and i want to calk you when you're in the numbers game to realize something very important here. the money spent on site condos was no benefit to the tenderloin resident, no benefit at all so the fact that you give certain benefit from doing on site condos that cost one thing and comparing to 40% median for affordable housing that do benefit tenderloin residents that's humongous. taking the condo money is like flushing it down the toilet for the tenderloin and no benefits and
it is not simply a money game and in an article i wrote they had to get $18 million that supervisor kim arrange friday forest city to fut them in play. >> >> if we have a few new rule to have all of the money there won't be any development and the whether approved they're below budget because of the construction costs go up and we have to be careful about the money and not just the dollar amount but the value and in this case 180 jones is the best value for the city and the tenderloin. thank you. >> next speaker please. [applause] >> supervisors my name is ramone and i represent [inaudible] tndc has been part of this coalition for the
community to create this deal for the community between group and support of 180 jones and have a process and respecting that process once it's allowed by the city, and we want to encourage communities to participate in their communities and so in effort to do that and support that we need to move forward with 180 jones street and because the community has put the work, has shown up to the meetings, has worked together, and i think this is a very good opportunity for the board to support a community that has shown up, worked hard, made a deal, and that shows -- that is something that's needed in our society, more pe