That does not account for others that come into the area that work here, who have a 49 square mile city. So these people do the odds. There are some bad apples everywhere. If we have them have this background check, we can eliminate some of the bad apples, it will be good for both industries, im urging an aye vote here. Supervisors, we are your City Industry and were being thrown under the muni vote. If they start putting taxicabs out of business when theyre really close, they can do whatever they want because they have no 1 regulating, thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good evening, thank you for allowing us to speak, my name is marcel. I have been driving a taxi full time in this city for 28 years. I came here to urge this board to support supervisor peskins resolution urging the cpuc, to adopt fingerprinting, for all drivers, its a noncontroversial safety measure for drivers. It is the most reliable way to confirm a persons, identity. If i could have the overhead. This is a letter from the mta demanding that the submit myself for a drug test. If i do not comply with it, i will not be able to operate my taxi. Even though i welcome drug taxes for all taxi drivers, it bothers me tremendously that thousands and thousands of tmc drivers are not drug tested. Sot resolution in discussion here to have everybody deed of trust tested, its a Public Safety issue so i not only urge this board to support supervisor peskins resolution, i also urge you to look into the drug testing policy, for everybody for in the city and county of San Francisco. Thank you. Any other members of the public, that would like to speak at this time . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. Colleagues is there a motion to go into closed session . Motion by supervisor, tang. Seconded by supervisor, farrell. Without objection we are adjourned into closed session. meeting is in closed sessio session . Welcome back to the San Francisco board of supervisors. The board took no action during closed session. May i have a motion to not disclose any portion of closed session. Mowed by supervisor farrell, seconded by supervisor campos. Can we take that without objection. Without objection, the motion passes. And on item number 87 is there a motion not to approve item number 87 . Supervisor peskin. Or do we vote no . Okay, roll call vote madame clerk. On item 87. Farrell . Aye. Kim . Aye. Mar . The recommendation is to vote down so i will vote no. Supervisor peskin . No. Tang . No. Weiner aye . Supervisor yee no. Supervisor avalos . No. Breed . No. Supervisor campos . Aye. Supervisor cohen . No. There are 4 ayes, and 7 noes, with supervisor cohen in dissent. The ordinance fails. I thought we were voting on the do not pass. I apologize if there is confusion, would you like to rescind the vote. Yes. Supervisor, kim has made a motion to rescind the vote for a legit mate reason. Without objection. The motion to rescind passes. Madame clerk, item 87. Shall this be passed on First Reading . Farrell . Aye. Kim . No. Mar . No. Supervisor peskin . No. Tang . No. Weiner . Aye. Supervisor yee . No. Supervisor avalos . No. Breed . No. Supervisor campos aye. Supervisor cohen no. There are 3 ayes, 8 noes, with supervisors in the dissent. The ordinance fails. All right folks. Madame clerk, would you suggest that we adjourn the current Board Meeting and move to the next 1 . Yes madame present. All right. Can you read in memoriam . Supervisor peskin . Item 82 is not before us, item 83 we have not dealt with. I would make a motion to table item 83. Okay. Do you want us to open up the new meeting and leave this meeting open . We can do it that way and table 83 and when you call the meeting, if there are enough votes, to approve item 4 to hear from the public, on that committee as a whole, we can come back and table item 83 on this agenda. Okay im going to leave this agenda open. Did we take action item 83 i dont remember that. That is not in front of the board. Was it continued . It was a special meeting occurring in a moment. Okay. Thank you. Were going to leave the Board Meeting open. Colleagues, we will go directly to our special meeting which is bouncing around all over the place. We will not convene that special meeting. Madame clerk, please call the roll. Thank you president. Supervisor avalos . Present. President breed . Present. Supervisor campos present. Supervisor cohen . Present. Farresupervisor farrell mar mar present tang. Call items, 1 and 2. The board of supervisors has agreed to sit as a committee as a whole for items, called for committee, pursuant to board rule 3. 37. And a motion approved by july 15th. For items 1 which is a public hearing to consider a resolution affirming that board of supervisors will not approve policies, or submit ballot measures, that under fund or undermine the ability in support of housing, for a housing and Public Health approach first. Pursuant to motion m160991, approved by the board on the 19th. Contains, in item 2, subject to the resolution. Okay, seeing no members on the roster, i will open this item up for Public Comment for items 1 and 2. Any members of the public who would like to provide public xent for these 2 itay Public Comment for these 2 items . Come on john. No . Its closed. Supervisor peskin. I would like to make a motion to table item 2. Supervisor peskin has made a motion to table item 2. Its seconded. Item number 2 is tabled without objection. Okay, that was weird. Madame clerk. Can you please call items 3 and 4 . The board has agreed, to sit as a committee as a whole, pursuant to a motion, number m16091. Approved by july 19th. 2016 for and i tem that has been called from committee for public hearing to consider a Charter Amendment third draft to amind the charter of the city, county of San Francisco to create the housing, and commission housing, to over see the department of housing, and Community Development, to review and make religiouses, regarding, proposed, development agreements, consider such proposals, and to require the commission to hold hearings, and make recommendations, for Housing Developments, and to require the commission to adopt rules, as a competitive selection process. And expenditures, for the development of apordable housing, on the department of housing and Community Development [reading]. Aformentioned. Thank you. Supervisor peskin . No comment . We will open this item to supervisor tang . I have a question are we also or have we called a tem 83. Its before the body. Thank you. All right im going to open up the hearing to Public Comment, any others, would like to provide Public Comment at this time please come forward. Thank you, my name is fernando. With the community housing, organizations, as you you know, Affordable Housing, has emerged as 1 of the important issues of our day, passing a Housing Trust fund in 2012, and Affordable Housing bond in 2015. 25 inclusionary, 2016. As well as development agreements, for pier 70 and the giants, as we talked to voters, 1 of the questions, that comes back again and again is how do we decisions get made and how does Affordable Housing, move forward and become implements, what the measure before you will do, is provide a smoother, transparent process, in front of people now. They will create a single point, where discussions will happen, about Affordable Housing, Economic Development and agreements, for the surplus of the city. It is transparency, that the voters, and public will understand how the city is delivering, on its promises, to meet Affordable Housing, here on out. Again, i urge you to support this measure, put it before the voters in november. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please . Good evening supervisors, im with the chinatown Community Development center. First of all, i want to support the comments, that fernando made, and urge this board to put on the ballot, includes the commission, were not sure what is 3 and 4. Supervisor peskin said were at measure 4. I want to add something to this conversation. We in chinatown have always understood that Affordable Housing, Economic Development, social services, are part of a broader, package around comprehensive community strategies, this will create an opportunity how these pieces Work Together in a cohesive way, if we did not have this kind of comprehensive conversation, in chinatown in the early 80s, the chinatown master plan with a conversation that understood that small businesses, were depende dependent, upon residents, and those residents, were folks, who were low income and could not survive, a rebuild of chinatown, as proposed by Downtown Office developers, this opportunity to have a public conversation, about marrying, these strategies, is something were excited about, in the 39 year history of our organization, not just Affordable Housing, not just Economic Development, not just social services, has been key to our mission, we look forward to this commission, thank you supervisors. Thank you. Next speaker please . Good evening supervisors, im john of the taco group. Im the battle scarred, veteran in the room. Which is ironic. I have perspective. 20 years ago, month was a small agency, because all of the money, was handled by the. Rfps, and developer, selection, was done by the public process. There was not an moe now they handle, billions of dollars, in development. And all they do is done in the dark, its all done, and their office is privately, there is no commission, there is no accountability, there is no public hearing, nothing happens, until it gets to you you you, until its too late to unscramble the eggs, they present. Secret government is always wrong. Its obviously, open to the political favoritism its open to political retaliation, im not casting dispersions on any of the current and mayor, but it does happen. In early 2 thousand. We [inaudible] it was denied to us, at commission because we went head to head, with the city mayor, in the 2 thousand election. That points out the second problem, that commission was all appointed by the mayor, it was not split between competing checks and balances, as this measure would do. Secret government is always wrong, we should have done this decades, account, to be accountable for everything, everybody. Now. Thank you. Any other members of the public who would like to provide comment at this time . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Supervisor peskin, i have a question. With this commission, arent we just adding an additional layer of bureaucracy, that would slow down Housing Development madame president , i would like to answer that and address something supervisor, weiner said earlier, with the charter having to do with the transportation agency, and i hark back a number of years ago, i believe it was 2002 when the Planning Commission entirely in those days, appointed by the mayor serving at the mayors pleasure, was out of touch with the city and county of San Francisco. Neighborhood after neighborhood, the affordable Housing Community we put a Charter Amendment on the ballot, that gave the president to appoint a minority of 3. The mayor appointed a majority. For election, the same way the Senate Approves a nominee to the courts. I say that today, we actually have much better deliberation at the Planning Commission than we had a decadeandahalf ago. Every day, Peoples Trust in the process has gotten better its still got a long ways to do, i think what you said is just right. Someone involved, in the redevelopment commission, should know that layer of bureaucracy, should know that exists for functions for many decades, does it take time . Yes does it increase trust . Yes, does it create better public input . Absolu absolutely. This conversation we have been having which i know is not an easy conversation for the administration i understand it is seen as taking poir away i actually think is a set of policies that will make these processes better. Let me say in the discussion we have had with the various effected departments, a number of good things, have come forward, i appreciate supervisor tang as we tried to find another compromised path that will make everybody happy. In the discussions in item 83 and the other meeting were having simultaneous, the motions come forward from those departments, because finally, someone is scrutinizing, and calling for over site, lets create a 5 year housing plan, that is reviewed, by a public body, the problem with item 83 before us is it really doesnt give any daytoday over site. It does not give the public and interested stakeholders, a venue for real participation, i respect that the body would convene the informational hearing, everybodys, eyes will glaze over, there is no decision this body will make, and will prove to be a lot of show and tell, i think item 4 which is a real commission is actually going to improve the process and outcomes, and i mean no disrespect to the head of housing, or mayor lee. I worked with him over a decade in a half. The same for mr. Rufo, and ken rich at ofwd, but i think these departments, who have overlapping, in the realm of housing, will be balanced, with a commission, i hope we will send item 4 to the ballot. Thank you. Can i get clarity what would happen with Public Housing, with the successor agency, developments, how is this going to work . How is this going to impact the production of those like rehabilitation of Affordable Housing and production of Affordable Housing, how do projects in the pipeline continue unobstructed. I suspect, they will be embraced on this commission, this will receive support by the public. There will be a forum in the venue for people in that kind of housing to have a place to go rather than figure out how to be politically connected to get to the Mayors Office and work it out, there will actually be a place that real every day people, can go year after year, to the commission. Oc i. I, is a backwater, this will not effect it at all. The action is really at moe thats where the action is today. The action for dbas and das, is at eow d. Let me give you an example. There has been a lot of work that has been of course happening as it relates to housing, things that im concerned would not be able to happen without with a commission. I actually am very concerned about the impact, and the housing, falling apart in my district. We were able to work with the mayor for housing, and the Housing Authority to get them 2 Million Dollars, to rehabilitate formally, and the eunts, empty, and they were able to Work Together to house, homeless families, that now have houses as a result of that. We did the rat program, which people were skeptical about, i wanted to make sure we were able to tear down places, and rebuild like west side courts like some of our older public holly courts, some of the old est Public Housing in the city, we didnt have enough money. The challenge with right now as we speak, with pits, plaza in my district. Those eunts, i was almost in tears, seeing the night and day, what the eunts used to look like, not just mice and roach infested, but rat infested, we had of course there are layers associated with trying to get a project of this magnitude done through the city through Public Housing, im not seeing the connection of how this particular commission is going to help us move the project that i care about forward in a more timely manner, specifically, a lot of the rehabilitation work and i want to understand exactly how this is going to help because i dont want people to continue to live in these conditions a day longer than they have to. And i dont want a department that is going to be an obstructionist department preventing us from getting to that point, if its layers of approvals, and requirements, and someone reaching out to not only all the commissioners, but members of the board, what happens, with the ceqa and all the layers, that come into place that make this a challenge. I just want to understand how this is going to work. Im not seeing the writing on the wall. So madame president with regard to your fundamental concern as i understand it, there is widespread years of consensus, between the executive branch of government be it at va lens yelencia that are go help benefit projects, in your district, and supervisor cohens, district, and the district i represent. I think there is widespread agreement on that. I dont think the commission are going to undermine, particularly given this board and this mayor are universally held consensus around those issues, but there will be a place and venue for people to have input, i go back to the controversy granted this is before the rad program. It was the Housing Authority, which was not exactly wasnt really the city and county of San Francisco. But i remember the hundreds of residents, at the north beach projects, who had no place to go as they voiced their concerns, about how that project was going