Good morning everyone. Welcome to our speed was Committee Meeting of thursday, june 30, 2016. Im katie tang chair of the committee. Joined by vice chair supervisor eric martinmilius to my left melia cohen to our clerk is derek evans and from speedy sfgov tv we like to thank jim smith. Any announcements . Yes. Please sounds all electronic devices. Items acted upon today will be on the july 12, 2016 board of supervisors board of agenda unless otherwise stated thank you please call adam one item 1 [reading code] thank you. I believe we have supervisor peskins office. Thank you chairman tang and supervisors mar and cohen and thank you for consideration of this item this mentor apologizings supervisor peskin is not able to join the discussion. The Charter Amendment before you is a simple Good Government measure that seeks to provide oversight and transparency to 2 acres of the city housing and Community Development function. A supervisor peskin stated in his local comments the combined budgets of the department are significant. Totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars it largely without any public oversight were transparency as to how these dollars are spent. A small example in fiscal year 1516 a total of 47 of the invested edwards budget was allocated towards general unification public Home Improvements programming and Capacity Building for Community Based organizations. This is almost 4 million of public monies allocated to proposals go through an internal scoring and vetting process about which consists in a posting on the lew. Org website according to a letter of Inquiry Committee to oewd back confederate. While supervisor peskin does not dispute the functions or roles of the departments in fact both are extremely important to the work of the city and the supervisors priorities in particular, there is a practical question of appropriate governance of public transparency. The Planning Department deals with an extraordinary amount of land use policy and projects and thats those projects through the lands of expertise. As guidance and advisement from its commission. Why should our office of housing and Community Development not also the commission that is to draw upon for expertise recommendations in public input . On issues ranging from how the city of beaches and tracks and later tracks are below market rate units and ensures their not being foreclosed on or otherwise lost to ensuring Community Stabilization funds are secured and critical funding is allocated to neighborhood Infrastructure Projects for small site acquisition. The commission can play an Important Role in centralizing information and ensuring these issues are given space for discussion monitoring and enforcement. Commissions are not intended to add more bureaucracy than they are intended to shed a light on existing bureaucracy. As well Charter Amendment less is more. We have endeavored to create a process that does not undercut the power of our departments but rather glanced further transparency and tool. Departments would still have the flexibility to operate as they always have with an oversight body as an additional resource. With that in mind, the supervisor would like to offer several amendment for your consideration today. After consultation with our city administrator with like to remove those functions of the department of real estate from the Real Estate Division from the purview of the commission that do not directly relate to the conveyance or financing of Affordable Housing and we can clarify with our City Attorney whether or not that extends beyond Surplus Property. But that is my understanding. In addition, would like to include in the amendment grants the commission the authority to make recommendations to only wcd for the inclusionary ami level under this provision any ordinance at the board of supervisors puts forth setting these ami levels would be considered by the commission and that ordinance was approved by the board of supervisors would supersede any Ballot Initiative that sought to set the ami level outside of the legislative process where it belongs. I got copies of these amendment for you to review today. I want to affirm that the supervisor is very open to further amendment. He is actually you know, given me some flexibility today to discuss if folks decide they have amendment they like to propose on the floor i am happy to consider those as well and take those back. Most today im here to listen and ill take the feedback and comments back to the supervisor and i want to thank you again for your consideration. Thanks so much thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate they said youre here to listen to make it especially to supervisor peskin is not here. I do have a number of questions although i was glad to hear the Real Estate Department was taken out of this particular proposal. I so many questions i dont know where to begin. Essentially, we have now to departments that would be subsumed under this particular commission in so, i know that one of the things that you had mentioned was that we are not trying to create more bureaucracy and would actually try to create more transparency. So, one of the things that you touched upon was about grantmaking and lew d but im wondering if you can tell me a little bit more about both oewd and the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development good what are some of the issues that are actually risen under the current structure that supervisor peskin has found so problematic we integrate this new commission . Well, i think that like i said, any time we are doing with very large budgetary issues particularly when theres a public dollars granted to neighborhood organizations based on criteria, that largely the Department Sets itself internally we had a lot of neighborhood organizations that have been put in somewhat of a position where they are competing against each other and we have been unable to define for them or you elaborate for them why they had in the process is the way it is good how the outreach happens. Why certain funding is allocated to certain places and not others. It is problematic in many ways because of course, we want our neighborhoods to be able to drive down on grant opportunities and receive funding for neighborhood Infrastructure ProjectsCapacity Building. It does create a tense political environment and everything becomes highly politicized because they are basically, trying to find out where they can curry favor and who gets what. It has led to some arguments and some very tense relationships, and a lot of our neighborhoods, they are microcommunities that have their own personalities and politics. I think without a clear process in place that has transparency that is the rules are the same for everybody and theres an understanding of who is actually betting your proposals and giving feedback i think thats important for those Community Groups to have an understanding that we can also defend our position as of the legislative body. So, i guess my question is, how would this commission operate such that yes, there would be towards transparency in a clear process and actually not result in neighborhood organizations competing against each other. I do know for example, also, even during our ad back process at the board, for example, there are many many requests that go through to oewd from all our districts. Right. Again im wondering how this commission would actually help make that better . Well it would be a place to actually that those proposals. I mean whether or not without bringing very prescriptive in the Charter Amendment, i think it would be an appropriate place for those glands to be discussed and offer feedback and to actually have that internal scoring process be public. Okay. I am just wondering if especially because in the Charter Amendment, there is language that actually describes what i think supervisor peskins intent for each of the departments would be. I am just wondering if i can Ask Department staff to comment on that because i do notice that some of the definitions and descriptions of what he would want state oewd or mo each cd to be slightly different from what exists in our charter currently. So i am wondering if someone maybe lets are with oewd since were on that topic. If you can comment on what that change would mean to the department . Thank you supervisor. Todd rufo office of economic and Workforce Development. Just to be clear, even competently for the department and not just as a way to the title yes, thats correct thank you supervisor. As you know oewds mission is to support Small Businesses to start our neighborhoods to grow jobs help connect residents to those jobs will build housing a particularly Affordable Housing. We closely analyze this proposal and shared i think with supervisors interest in transparency and Community Engagement. However, the proposal as we read it does not accelerate our ability to carry out this mission in the way we sit in fact with slow ability to get people jobs and help Small Business. In a given year oewd grants more than 20 million to cd oh per job training and Western Addition. That help support manufacturers in the bayview and to invest in Community ProjectsNeighborhood Group project in west portal in the excelsior. This proposal would delay our ability to grant these dollars out by at least three months. We estimate this delay would be exacerbated by the fact that multiple agencies out going through a Single Commission and that would have to be taken to consideration is different items can we work every day to try to accelerate moving quicker i grantmaking process. I feel this would move us in the wrong direction achieving that after. Ill there are, as laid out in the proposal, there are two commissioners that are required to have at least housing or Community Moment experience there is no one who is required to expertise in Small Business assistanceexcuse meWorkforce Development, neighborhood project. These important areas of our work that also deserve expertise and careful guidance from the commission. From this proposed. The proposal focus on a lot of oversight. I am proud of the amount of Community Engagement and oversight oewd engages in today. The last fiscal year alone, oewd presented more than 56 Commission Meetings including planning, puc, mta, ocii, thatpark and the Arts Commission could be presented nearly 100 Advisory Boards and task force meetings. And weve attended more than 500 community and stakeholder meetings. Many of those are through invested neighborhoods. Many those guided the verythe priorities of which we draft our solicitations for. To the point that was being made earlier by the supervisors office. This is in addition to the extensive oversight the board also provides. That includes the approval and review of our budget annually. Itd includes the approval of all the Development Agreement. Which was a focus of this proposal and opportunities that call hearings an increase in the light. This proposal as i said focuses a lot on oewds agreements. Just to be clear, for all das that projects that oewd worked on without grew in close coordination with other agencies and the respective commissions. Which oversee real estate entitlement and includes planning, qc, mta wreckpark and the court. We have under the direction of these commissions as well as ultimately the board. We have no independent authority to move approved a ba outside these commissions were the other respective departments. Under the citys Administrative Court the Planning Commission is a regulator da. We take all of our da to the Planning Commission. I think one question thats raised is how would this commission not be duplicate of of the efforts of the Planning Commission and other . One recent example was the approval 5m which was the Development Agreement it was approved as you know supervisor earlier this fiscal year and was heard more than 10 times as six different boards and commissions. Dozens of Community Meetings. What additional oversight is missing i think your question supervisor tang what additional oversight is missing this mission can provide . We be interested in hearing that. Additionally come i do one appointment that some potential conflicts that what the proposals and focus on housing the development i worry and im concerned about what it means for work was the roman programming which is represents more than half of our budget. Oewd staff workforce Investment Board in San Francisco which the federally mandated board under the workforce opportunity act, the federal law requires the workforce board revamp Program Oversight oversee the operations of cities one subsystem and job training Career Pathway studies for career and youth. Our assessment we cannot transfer power to the another commission overseeing oewd. We are by law appointed by chief elected officer to the mayor and certified by the governor. This is in addition to the fact is that the commission overlapping or similar responsibilities as create inefficiencies and slow the process as well. Which would impact the grantmaking work to our workforce cbos were delivering services to rise the good i want to conclude supervisor with one final point. In the last fiscal year oewd workforce programs that serve 5000 participants more than 3200 jobs. 36 africanamerican, 26 asian, 26 with keynote 11 of the People PublicHousing Resident here we try the assistance more than 230 local manufacturers and this is more than 90 nonprofit organizations at 124 loans for Small Business and 12 million. And we provided for districts 5000 in grants to cbos for neighborhood implement project. I dont see how this proposal accelerates these efforts and im concerned in that it slows down our ability to continue to do this work and injects uncertainty for cbos, residents and the businesses we serve. So, i just want to summarize the major getting all the pointer. In terms of the deponent agreements again, mostly under the purview of the Planning Commission as well as several other commissions, potentially such as the port or so forth, in terms of Workforce Development, in grantmaking, how much is that of the 20 million grants that oewd doles out each year . Im good at walking ways come up here and speak to that process. Good morning supervisor. Thank you for hearing this and having assisted a walking tour is Deputy Director investing edwards for the office of economic and Workforce Development. Die just a quick bit of clarification on the question again in terms of the allocation in terms of our grants . Yes. Im trying to clear five because i know that some of the comments made earlier when supervisor peskins office at it with a transparency and grantmaking sounds like you allowed about 20 million in grants each year. There is the Workforce Development side of things. So, i want to know, of the 20 million in grants that oewd hands out how much of it is consistent workforce the moment. I much is in terms of just . Seven. Speaking for the invested neighborhoods budget, visit which includes both neighborhood influence in the app that process. We simply mentioned the total about 2. 6 million that was for fiscal year 1415. But a total 3. 3 million for fiscal year 156 and could i do want to take a moment to talk about the level of transparency that is a core principle of invested neighborhoods. If something we value and pride ourselves on in terms of the level of engagement on the ground persontoperson, businesstobusiness organization to Organization GetCommunity Group to Community Group. They would least organizations merchant organizations that all of the staff is directly involved in. The language in terms of collaboration that we choose to pursue collaboratively among interagency partnerships as was Community Partnerships is listed specifically in the language of all of our rf