tv Transbay Joint Powers Authority SFGTV December 13, 2020 12:00pm-2:01pm PST
medications to help people, we define abstinence as being on a medication and taking it as prescribed. we have almost 6,000 people who are abstinent in the city because they're on maintenance medication. >> supervisor stefani: okay. if they're on maintenance medication, one would assume there wouldn't be an overdouse resulting from that. and if you think there are people on maintenance medications that could still have overdose, and that would be -- and die because of it, it seems like another intervention would be necessary rather than just maintenance medication. so if there's 6,000 people who are on maintenance medication that aren't in danger of overdosing, that's great, but if there's 6,000 people that are on maintenance medication
that could still result in overdose and death, something else needs to be done. >> yeah, we have armys of counselors in the methadone clinics, for sure, and there are -- of course, some people are addicted to other things and might need to be in residential treatment in addition to medication, and some people -- it's sort of -- if you think about diabetes, some people just have to cut out sugar from their coffee, and they're fine, and others cut out all sugar and junk food, and lose 50 pounds, and they're not fine. recovery support is something that is a part of our system, and we have it set up as a kind of continuum of services from very high intensity services to
step down to intensive outpatient and outpatient and then recovery support, and we're -- you know, that's what we're always aiming to provide, and that's what the -- even the drug medi-cal health plan is set up that way. . >> supervisor stefani: i'm still not clear. how does abstinence based recovery and people that don't want to use the drug, how does that fit into harm reduction prevention in san francisco? is it a method that's being explored? because we need all hands on deck here. supervisor haney just said it, supervisor mandelman just said it. i am wondering how that plays
into this conversation? >> i think, supervisor, that goes to what i was saying to supervisor mandelman about the continuum and recognizing that there's low barrier treatment, and there's lock -- lockdown live-in treatment facilities, and recognizing that there's places all along that continuum, and what's right for someone. one person, they may be, like, i don't want to go to treatment, i don't want to quit using. in t and there may be people like my friend who says, i'm done, and residential treatment and ongoing meeting is what works for them. there's other people that may go through treatment and strong harm reductionists but no
longer use, and that works for them, and i think that's what makes it so complicated. but the conversation and the framing is always the continuum, and that's where i said that we could all do a better job of just making it clear that it's really the spectrum of services that are available, and it's not just one or the other; it's the whole continuum. >> supervisor stefani: is there an emphasis placed on one more than the other or is there one that's easier to provide than the others in terms of harm reduction? i know that people who want to get clean and sober, they have to have that moment of clarity or that moment of willness, and you can't make someone get clean and sober if they don't want to get clean and sober. i totally get that, and i know more about addiction than you
would know. but i need to know, what are we doing in san francisco to help those individuals. for people who say they don't want to continue drug use, you say that there's a continuum, and i want to know, how does this work? we have people in s.r.o.s that are addicts, and isolation is one of the worst things for addicts. are we checking on them? locking someone up -- not locking someone up, but putting someone in a room without that fellowship that has a drug problem, that -- or an addiction -- i don't want to characterize it as a problem, kbu what are but what are we doing to make sure that if they want help, what are we doing to help them?
what programs do we have? who are the frontline providers? who are going into the s.r.o.s to see if people are ready to get clean and sober? if they're ready to get clean and sober, are we not there? are we bailing? >> judy, can you talk about if healthright 360 has outreach, and safe harbor, they have outreach, and they're able to facilitate people to residential treatment, aif that's what they're interested in? can you speak more to that? >> yeah. i think there are devly people that want to get off drugs, for sure, and the path to that is through counseling and mutual -- definitely people that want to get off drugs, for sure, and the path to that is through counseling and peers
that have a few more years under their belt of being sober. and peer navigators are a big backbone of the system. so covid has been hard on those groups, and sometimes in the residential programs, they can do the groups because people are in quarantine for a while before they join the milieu, the congregate setting. otherwise, what our programs are finding is that even though they can advertise to do zoom groups, some of our clientele doesn't even have cell phones. so some places have booths that you can see people through glass, almost like a phone booth, and they have a pad inside where you can video visit with people in the waiting rooms.
people are creative about it, but another thing that's been discussed is in the supportive housing locations, to allow people to visit each other on the floors even after it's dark, even after lights out, so that they can give each other that kind of support. and then, that group can sometimes consider themselves "a bubble" within the housing group. i don't know of any s.r.o.s that do that, though, but certainly in permanent supportive housing is one place that does that. and you know in san francisco, we have millions of 12-step programs, all kinds, a variety of 12-step programs. >> supervisor stefani: [inaudible] i'm wondering, and maybe i'll get into it more in my hearing on february 11 in
terms of the summit working group and the recommendations that they made. i have a lot of questions around this. i feel like we need to include all methods of getting -- of addressing addiction and, you know, i think -- i don't know if it's just maintaining -- like like, if there's a particular philosophy, whether or not somebody can be on a particular drug, and whether that drug -- in the recovery world, people have a saying, using time and time again a drug that doesn't work for you leads to three things: jail, institution, or death. there's people that can maintain on a certain drug to the end of their life and do it well. maybe that's the case, or if there's a difference in
thinking that some people continue to use that drug because certain drugs cause them to do certain things they have to make amends for later in their life, or whether that drug can intervene in their life so badly that they have to make amends for. i don't know if there's two different things that could be competing in their lives. i know that only one in ten addicts go to recovery or beat or recover from their addiction. [inaudible] and whether or not
there should be a focus there. and i don't want to take up too much of supervisor heaney's hearing on this because we could probably discuss this for hours and hours shlgs but, but make sure that when we're talking about overdose prevention, we talk about it all. we can't talk about overdose prevention and getting people into the treatment beds, and to look at how many beds are actually left empty. and also, we cannot talk about overdose prevention without talking about how easy it is for people to get drugs on the street, how easy it is to find fentanyl because an addict is going to find his drug, an addict is going to find her drug. overdose prevention in my opinion includes it all. i can't thank you enough four the work that you do. this is personal to me in terms
of just knowing too much about it. i wish i didn't know as much about it as i do, and i -- i just grieve for the families and especially the parents of those that have their kids or -- you know, on the streets that are addicted and can't get the help that they need. it's just -- it just breaks my heart, and i thank you -- i do. i want to thank you all for doing the work that you do because there are a lot of people that are able to turn their lives around and lead a better life, but i think we need to do everything we can. and it's not just about harm reduction, it's about doing so much more. again, i'm not going to take up too much time, but i think my hearing on february 11 will provide more on the recovery-based side of this in terms of what those who have been on drugs -- what finally
worked for them in terms of no longer being in danger of overdose and what worked for them. i'm not going to ask anymore questions. supervisor haney, i'll turn it back over to you, and yeah, that's it for now. >> supervisor haney: thank you, supervisor stefani. i appreciate those questions. i had a few more kind of specific questions, both about the -- what we're doing in the s.i.p. hotels and what we're doing in the s.r.o.s. in the s.i.p. hotels, i know there have been naloxone stations set up across the sites. i wonder what other type of education and outreach is being done in those sites. are we assessing people in the sites and providing counseling
or referrals to treatment and other types of support in addition to the naloxone and harm reduction kits, and if so, do we have numbers on how many people have been referred from the s.i.p. sites to substance use disorder treatment and escalating lef effecti escalating levels of care? >> i'll start with that. i think that starts with the harm reduction liaisons that i mentioned, specifically at some of the larger sites, like site ten that you were at for a while, site a, which is moscone west, have harm reduction liaisons. one of the liaisons works very,
very closely with the medical staff and has engaged in conversations about connecting people to medical care. currently, this is something that is just, quite honestly, sort of piecemealed together in terms of this is something that all of these harm reduction liaisons are either staff that work for me or have other duties, and so we have them at these sites for two hours one or two days a week, but that is a day to completely engage with people and have those conversations.
>> supervisor haney: so just -- just so i'm clear on what has happened, there was a program that was announced in the s.r.o.s, and for the most part, there was a reprioritization to focus more on the s.i.p. hotels -- i mean, the s.i.p. hotels, it sounds like, based on the presentation, have become a priority this year,
and of the -- i know there have been 30-plus sites, there's a harm reduction liaison to six of the sites? >> mm-hmm. mm-hmm. >> supervisor haney: so are there broader sets of trainings or policies that would be standard across all of the sites? and are we tracking both the trainings as well -- it seems like we have 2400 people, you know, in the s.i.p. hotels. it would seem reasonable that we would have some universal policies or approaches to connecting those folks with both harm reduction as well as potential referrals to treatment or other placements. i'll give you an example, and this is anecdotal, but i was at
harbor lights on thanksgiving at salvation army, and they told me that they have, i believe, 40 -- at least 40 residential treatment beds empty, and that they had been trying to get referrals from the s.i.p. hotels, and they have had no referrals from the s.i.p. hotels. are we accepting, counseling, as well as providing harm reduction to the people in s.i.p. hotels? i i'm understanding the broader picture of what we're doing for people, and i understand there's been overdoses in the s.i.p. hotels? >> yeah, there's several points there that you touched on.
the way that the s.i.p. hotel and the s.r.o., they're both separate things that were happening. the s.i.p. hotel, and myself, the d.o.p.e. project and the foundation just kind of pushed through. and over here, katie and the s.r.o. project, things were halting, and then, there was the revolution of oh, this is kind of similar in the work that we're doing, given the covid crisis.
if there are unfavorable comments about a program, it goes really far. i think of one example, we had health care, and we only had one bed, and it was harbor lights. and the woman who wanted to go into treatment goes, i can't go there because my sister, my street sister said i should only go to healthright 360, and they'll treat me right there. and, like, that was where this woman was coming from. and i think that, like, that -- you know, we can't -- well,
this is an empty bed, and you have to take this. what can we as a is being do to break this down so that all systems are looked at as equally inviting. katie, i don't know if there's anything you want to add about the connection with the s.r.o. and the s.i.p. stuff. >> so we have one staff funded for this project at d.p.h. and one staff fully handed at the national harm reduction coalition, and so one of the things that happened early on were -- excuse me -- the harm reduction coalition in partnership with the san francisco aids foundation made some official harm reduction videos that were intended to be training for all the shelter in place sites, and so those were kind of foundationali training
that were made available to all of the staff there. and we are talking to h.s.a. and meeting with them this afternoon about what sort of top-down trainings that we can implement now. there have been some specific trainings that we're piloting, but what sort of can we do beyond the trainings around [inaudible] overdose prevention at these sites. it's already in production at the sites that we are at, and there's plans to expand it. >> supervisor haney: so i know at certain locations, there's standardized trainings around reductions and narcan, but does every staff member who's at the s.i.p. hotel or a provider, are
they having some sort of training in narcan or other types of -- >> yeah. it's not mandated, and that's why the work that we're doing around the standards with the command -- the covid command does, like, make this a standard practice of what we did at the s.i.p. hotels is so key, because now, it's, like, well, it's given the option well, i'm really busy too. so sometimes trainings, i just don't have the time, but we all have mandatory city trainings that we have to do, so you set aside the time to do them, and i think that's something that we need to think of. and, you know, there have not always been welcoming policies at shelters. just a few years ago, there was a policy at a shelter that said
they used syringes as weapons, and if you had syringes on your person without checking them in at the front desk, you could get removed from the shelter, so the fact that we've been able to make this progress inside the shelter in place hotels is huge. but how can we standardize this work so it's the standard practice, rather than just something we were able to do during a pandemic? and i think they're the conversations that we are engaging at the covid command of different levels, and i think would greatly impact the work. >> supervisor haney: right. i mean, i think that these sorts of things absolutely have to be standardized, and i'm absolutely in big shock that they were not. we've had these shelter in place hotels open for eight months. in fact, some of these are
being demobilized or attempted to be demobilized. when something is this deadly or can potentially take lives, it needs to be standardized across the whole system. we are learning so much about masks and hand washing and social distancing and all of this, but meanwhile, all of these people are dying because of overdoses, and there's things that we can do with education, with tools, with consultations and referrals, you know, to save lives. i want to ask just real quick about the -- what is the status in a little bit more detail of the s.r.o. program. so are you currently working with specific s.r.o.s or s.r.o. service providers, and if so, how many, and what are you doing with them? i didn't fully>> where our stad
technical assistance. we've also provide sd some policy technical assistance from sharing some off the contractual requirementstu that our division had put into some of its contracts around mandating overdose response policies on site and where to get additional. our staff in two buildings at this point working around doing this policy work. training the staff around overdose readiness and response. the third sro is where the project has been working with them about installing the brave button. those are the three site dollars
we'rs we'rein now. our sro project staff at dph had been doing a lot of the shelter in place work at site ten in terms of being the reduction rates in this role. piloted that role there moving into 2021. i think that's contingent on additional funding. >> the two that you are in are those srh funded? >> they are all hrh funded sites. i think some sro's have some nursing support involved in them. what dph has been doing again is providing the training and technical assistance and the
policy work around support of policies for overdose prevention. >> i know dph has a certain set of contractual obligations and responsibilities for providers support of housing providers as well. does srh have similar policies for prevention. >> i can't speak to srh policies. >> this is something we have also brought up at the covid command. i think that if we were able to move forward with the policy being a city wide policy the other pieces would be able to fall into place. yeah. it's not my understanding that they have anything as concrete
as what we have at behavioral health and dph. i just want to add as something else we have in our brand at the health department. we not only have those requirements but established what we call the reduction training institute where with the national harm reduction coalition, we have specific trainings that are available to our dth funded providers so they and their staff can have that capacity and several times a year. >> thinking through if other city agencies are going to have some contractual language they have to have some built in support. when i mention the support training that's being piloting right now if that could be a standard of practice, that would be great.
again, it's about being able to fund that. >> right. one of the things i'm processing here. i know this program was announced over a year ago. it was announced to some degree as though it was a very large thing that was going to help us really address the overdose epidemic in our city in the sro's, it was a big proclamation. it was on the front page of the newspaper. it's a little-i'm a little surprised to hear that we are in just two sro's. i believe there are over five hundred sro's in san francisco. the last set of data said that 30% were in sro's is the challenge that we've been under staffed or had to divert people.
i guess i'm concerned that we haven't been able to reach more people in the last year in the worst year by far on record for overdoses including in sro's. >> just to give you a sense of the parameters of the grant. there's two full time staff on the grant. one is hired at dph and it's a part of the the dope project. it's also activated for covid at this time. the time line of the grant got shifted because of the covid crisis that pushed back our hiring several months. we were full time activated. there have been challenges getting started because of covid. we have as we said shifted our focus to do more work in the shelter in place.
there was a crisis there and they were very vulnerable. there were planned to expand in 2021. we've adapted the best we can this year given everything that was throne at us with covid and the fact that we can't meet in person with sro residents that's prohibited by the health order. part of what we're doing now with staff is brainstorming about the best ways to reach folks. generally the populations that we're trying to reach in the hotels don't have great access to technologies like zoom and conference calls and stuff like that. we're working on it and thinking about it, we're problem solving and trying to adapt to the circumstances as best we can. i think that we have-you know i can't emphasize enough that the
conversations we're having at the policy levels have been significant progress on this issue. we're providing training and it's a significant shift. >> i appreciate that and the really unique barriers and challenges that existed this year. another piece of this definitely i would like to see some more contractual obligations from providers if you operate support of housing there should be certain commitments around training, around procedures, around prevention that exist in that environment that are somewhat standardized that we know can help to save lives. there are very large support of housing providers c ht that i hope we can have a lot of impact
when we work with them directly and help to support them in developing effective policies. i hope that is happening at some level already. there are private sro's as well. figuring out how to system i hads this across, this is every bit as important as anything else they can protect lives there. maybe even more important than anything else. obviously also the consultation and opportunity dollars fories l if they need higher levels of care or treatment. all right. i could ask a hundred more questions. i won't do that. i do appreciate your work. i continue to be as i said, concerned about the level of our response and it's not questioning any way the commitment that any of the folks here have. i know you all have devoted your
life to this. i think our city needs to provide more resources and support and coordination and urgency to address this employ demic. we've seen this year what it looks like to respond to an epidemic and tracking data and seriousness and training and data all of our departments working together. frankly i have not seen that when it come it this epidemic which continue it tragically take many many lives. i know there are folks who have called in. i do want to here. there are people who are part of the dope project and drug users themselves. i want to hear from them and what they think are the solutions and what we can do better as well. i will pause if supervisor
stephanie questions or comments. i'll open it up to public comment as well. >> no questions. >> i think that are you muted. >> thank you. yes, we can open this up for public comment. each person will have two minutes. i don't have the script in front of me. clerk. if there's anything else you would like to say about public comment, please do so. >> i'll give the spiel so everyone knows how to call in. operations is checking to see if there's any caller nz the queue. press star followed by three to be added to queue.
please wait until prompted to begin. you'll be prompted that your line has been unmuted. for those watching by streaming link or sfgov dot org. if you wish to speak, this is your opportunity. call in the number enter the meeting today's meeting id. press pound symbol twice followed by pressing star and three to enter the queue to speak. could you connect us to our first caller, please. >> i'm the director of affirmative actions policy. i want to say a huge thank you to the supervisors for having this hearing and a huge thanks
to the san francisco of public health team for understanding this prodpram. program. i do want to emphasize consumption services as one of the necessary tools that we need to have addressed, overdosed here now we have a different administration. i would hope that the supervisors and ask the city attorney for a new analysis and see if they need to wait for sb57. i also want to make sure that we are thinking about things that decriminalizing drug use and what that has on racial disparities on our streets everyday. give people immediate
information about the drugs that they are about to consume. especially in this context. how do we ensure that we have full coordination across the system. alternative to policing they are all really essential important initiative. they need to be coordinated as much as possible to ensure that we are getting the most for these funds and that it's a principle from the ground up. ensuring that a significant percentage of these new funds for behavioral health are harm reduction services that help people find a way into other services. thank you again and i look forward to hearing more. >> thank you for sharing your comments. could you bring us the next caller please.
>> i'm a front line provider serving as a health educate at the aids harm reduction center. overdose rates are extremely high right now and only getting worse. currently in san francisco two people are dying each day in san francisco. that would be extremely higher if it wasn't for harm reduction programs. at the center we are getting reports from folks of two to five overdoses a week. people are scared and they need support. the community knows exactly what we need to do to support people who use drugs. a safe sanitary place for people to use. it was mentioned earlier that only one in ten people who
struggle from drug use recover. we know that there's never been a single fatal overdose in any safe consumption site. waiting to open these services is costing the lives in our community every single day. we don't have time to waist. waste. the city of san francisco believe that people who use drugs deserve to live. thank you. >> thank you for sharing your comments can we get the next caller please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm a policy manager for glide. i appreciate the attention you've given this today. it was only a few months ago that they released the death data. at the time as providers we knew we surpassed those figures this
year. we've lost five hundred seventy of our neighbors and loved ones mpleones.i suspect the figures e rest of this year will be grim and next year as well. i don't think this comes as a surprise either. last september they warned that increased death in 2020 and that overdose contributes to death. this year it's even more overwhelming. i also want to highlight and thank the community of people who eudz drugs and experiencing homelessness. they've done a tremendous job of limiting the transmission of disease in the middle of a pandemic. if it were not for this work, the city would be losing
thousands more people each year. we cannot end overdose until we end structural violence like poverty and racism. we need bigger structural change. this includes housing and economic disparities. drug testing and supervise advised consumption services. please listen to people who use drugs and provide them with what they ask for. thank you.
>> this is not about saving money. this is about saving lives. san francisco has been a leader in the home reduction and compassionate services for people who use drugs. opening and operating safe consumption space will improve the quality of life of all san franciscans. >> thank you for calling and sharing your comments. next caller please. >> [indiscernible] our own agency -- we talk with
people everyday who are able to save lives. some of the community based life saving has been complicated by police operations focused towards people without housing, split up groups of people that may have life saving ability of narcan on them. as certified counselor, i think this city should be -- [indiscernible]. obvious harm reduction intervention all the way to treatment. more options for social model and medical detox programs with
>> i actually -- i think that the role of law enforcement could be used. i don't think that necessarily need to be sending people to jail or anything. i know it's not necessarily fashionable to talk about law enforcement these days. police could be used to direct drug users to services, whether it's harm reduction services or people end up in jail -- i was
talking to someone recently who been to jail multiple times. every time he was released from jail, he thrown out on the street and left to fend for himself. he didn't have an i.d. without an i.d., he wasn't able to get access to services. he resorted to stealing to support himself. integration for services needs to be a lot better. i don't think we should view the prison system as the enemy here. they need to be seen as a partner. they need to connect drug users to services, not just drug users
by all prisoners. the d.a.'s office needs to be involved in the discussion about -- >> thank you for sharing your comment. next caller please. >> i appreciate -- i want to recognize all of the presentations today devoting their life work to reducing the harm these addictions are causing in our city. they are really showing the way forward. i wanted to say that i appreciate them for doing that. as politicians, i want to say i find it frustrating that regularly we end up debating the
significant increases in funding that these programs will need from the alternative. our police state is hugely expensive. it takes a huge portion of resources way more than these devoted medical professionals are suggesting that we use utilize to save lives. i'm calling on the supervisors today to recognize that this is both more helpful, kinder and more benevolent and the police forces. thank you again doctors for devoting your lives to solving this problem. it's a vital concern for all of us. >> thank you. next caller please. >> good afternoon supervisors.
my name is andy stone. i'm with the sa san francisco of the ed foundation. as you heard today, this problem is getting more worse. in the city of san francisco we had more folks die from preventible overdoses than covid-19. i want to reiterate, home reduction is a treatment option. one of our programs works with people at their own goals related to substance abuse management. which includes not just substance abuse but abstinence from certain substances. i wanted to talk about one
option. these services that can save lives and prevent the transmission of hiv. i want to thank this board for how important this intervention can be coming to san francisco that can save lives. now that we have a new presidential administration, i urge the board to act to address this problem that we're seeing by implementing -- [indiscernible]. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you for sharing your comments. next caller please.
>> hello. i'm an outreach worker out in the street everyday. i was shaken by one of the callers comments about the police. i'm going to say that you can't provide services all over the area. it's not possible. safe consumption site is an excellent first step. when i heard you talk about liaison on harm reduction, most -- we need to pay the people. the right people that can deliver conversations that bring in other service providers to do actual home reduction work that
delivers compassion. that's how we arose to structural violence that we see now. starts long before we get to this point. i find is disturbing that we have more overdose deaths than covid deaths. we're spending all the time and money to address that. thank you for your time. i thank you for listening. >> thank you mr. castro for your comments. next caller please. >> that completes the queue. >> thank you. supervisor haney, do you have any comments to wrap up? >> i want to thank everybody who called in. i want to thank all the folks
who are here for the work that you're doing. i do think that this is -- this needs to be an ongoing conversation. i'm sure there were other hearings called. there's legislation that i'm working on, work that we'll do outside the hearings. i think i said it in the beginning, i think that to truly respond to the impact and the devastating death that has been brought by this pandemic, we need to be coordinated. we need everything. we need harm reduction. we need treatment. there's aspects of the legal system that need to be brought to bear. there's every single department that needs to be involved with this. i don't want to put it on all of you. one thing i will say that this year, we have to get these
overdose prevention sites open. they are so important. folks have been working on them for so long. it's my commitment to work with all you to get that piece of it done. i want to thank the committee for holding the hearing. for everyone who works everyday to all the organizations that called in to make sure that people have support and have access to help. i think we all agree, i hope that we need to do better and more than we're doing now to save lives. thank you so much for your work. i don't think we need to keep the hearing open. i will defer to the committee on that. >> thank you supervisor haney. supervisor walton, you have anything you want to say or add? >> i want to thank supervisor haney for all this work.
this is very tragic and something that we are all working to hard to address. i look forward to really diving in and doing the work to prevent these deaths. if they are preventible. i want to thank you for all your work and commitment to this as well. >> supervisor stefani: i want to add my thanks to supervisor haney for his continued focus on this extremely important topic. talk to the presenters and all the work you're doing. someone said it best in public comment, people who use drugs deserve to live. keeping them alive, to prevent overdose, to help them lead a better life, whatever it is. no one on this committee certainly believes they deserve to die. i believe that deserve all methods to help them live. they deserve people in positions
of power to understand addiction. they deserve an environment where drugs aren't so easy to get where they aren't so reading available for them to use and to overdose and deserve people who provide pathways to recovery. they deserve fellowship, friendship and compassion. we have to find a way to work together and to get all the departments, not just public health but the d.a.'s office, other recovery providers to address this issue. it is so important. i'm looking forward to my hearing on february 11th to further discuss city response to addiction and to hear from the recovery summit group, has comprised of people in recovery who has been through the system and to hear their voices. i want to thank you supervisor haney and if you want to file
this item, downing -- we can do that or we can continue call to the chair. >> supervisor haney: you can file it. i'm sure i'll call another hearing in the future. this one was pretty specific about the overdose prevention program. >> supervisor stefani: i'll make a motion to file this hearing. >> clerk: before we take a vote on that motion, will we be closing public comment? >> supervisor stefani: yes, public comment is closed. >> clerk: motion offered by vice chair stefani the hearing be heard and filed. [roll call vote] we have two ayes.
mandelman is absent. >> supervisor stefani: this item will be filed. can you please call the next item. >> clerk: item 5 san francisco housing co conservatorship preliminary evaluation. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. it's my understanding sponsor of this like to continue until february 11. we need to take public comment
before we take that motion. >> clerk: we can do that. operations, checking to see if we have callers in the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until you're prompted to begin. for those watching our meeting, if you wish to speak on this item, please call in bifollowing the instructions on the screen, that will be by dialing 415-655-0001.
>> we have no callers in the queue. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. public comment will be closed. mr. carroll before i make a motion, i like to make a motion to supervisor mandelman so it's reflected that he was excused from this meeting? >> clerk: should we rescind the vote to here and file agenda item 4 and entertain the motion to accuse and take that motion again and handle agenda item 5? >> supervisor stefani: i move to rescind item number 4. >> clerk: agenda item 4 is before us. i hear motion offered by vice chair stefani that chair mandelman be excused for
remainder of the meeting. on that motion -- [roll call vote] >> supervisor stefani: thank you. my next motion is to file the hearing in item 4. >> clerk: on the motion offered by vice chair stefani item 4 be filed. [roll call vote] there are two ayes. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, next motion is to continue the hearing to the february 11th meeting. >> clerk: on the motion offered by vice chair stefani that this hearing will be continues to february 11, 2021. [roll call vote]
point of inquiry prior to roll call? has anybody checked on supervisor mar for he was missing at our t.a. meeting this morning. is he okay? >> supervisor mar: president yee, it's supervisor mar here. i just wanted to say, i'm here. i was having technical difficulties this morning, so i wasn't available this morning. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. president. sorry, mr. president. >> president yee: we can deal with technical difficulties. thank you, supervisor peskin, for making us aware of the need to check on our colleagues. let's see...where am i? place your right hand over your heart. would you please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance]
>> president yee: all right. on behalf of the board, i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgtv who record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public on-line. madam clerk, why don't we start off with the special order at 2:00 p.m., the mayor's appearance before the board. >> clerk: okay. the honorable london n. breed
appearing before the board. there were no questions submitted from supervisors representing districts 1, 2, 3 or 4, and the mayor may address the board of supervisors for up to five minutes. >> president yee: okay. madam mayor -- >> the hon. london breed: can you see me? i turned my camera on. >> clerk: yes, we can see your picture, madam mayor. >> the hon. london breed: okay. can you see me now? i turned my camera on. >> clerk: no, we cannot see you, madam mayor. >> the hon. london breed: okay. it appears i'm having technical difficulties, too, so should i just go ahead? >> president yee: yeah, you can just go ahead and make your
remarks. >> the hon. london breed: okay. thank you, president yee. i'm sorry my camera is not working. before i begin, i would like to make some remarks against harlan kelly and naomi kelly. many of us are saddened. we all have an obligation to work to restore public trust in government from elected officials to every single city employee, and i'm committed to working with all of you to ensure that that happens. today, i want to take the opportunity to honor supervisor fewer and president yee. this is the last meeting that i will be participating in that they will be a part of, and i'm sad to see the two of these incredible public servants leave the board of supervisors. with them, we are losing thoughtful, passionate, committed public servants that have demonstrated amazing
leadership under enormous pressure. supervisor fewer, your commitment to justice, fairness, and equality is undeniable. whether it was creating the office of racial equity, accelerating the slows you are of 8 -- closure of 850 bryant or your insistence that we focus on black maternal health, i appreciate your commitment to dialogue, for your commitment to standing up for issues, especially when we disagree. i want to commend you for your work on the budget, particularly this year. we have and had our differences on spending, approach, and communication strategies. i do not like some of your tactics, and you definitely did not like some of mine, but we should all appreciate that in a year when we faced a huge budget deficit, supervisor fewer made is a priority to hear from the public, to put
racial equity and the most vulnerable first, and get the budget passed and signed. that willingness to try to come to an agreement is so essential in bridging various sides to do what is in the best interests of the people of san francisco. supervisor fewer, i will miss our frank conversations and your guiding influence on the board. thank you so much for your service. president yee, we started in this together, you and i, and i appreciate you so much for your partnership and board president these last few years. as supervisor, your commitment to holding the city accountable, for its promises to make san francisco a more child friendly city, with more housing and child care centers, and your work to ensure vision
zero goals have been outstanding. i appreciate your insistence that we hear everyone out, that we collaborate, and that we -- even if we can't please everyone, at least we take in everyone's feedback in the process. that is leadership, given voice to all parties, making sure that everyone has an opportunity to be heard, and then, being able to separate out the noise, being able to make tough choices, and to choose the best path for the city. you are leaving big shoes to fill for the next president. thank you for your partnership. i'm excited for 2020 to be over. i'm sure all of us are. i'm excited about the vaccine. i'm ready to open the city as quickly as possible, but right now, we have to roll up our sleeves and work for the people of san francisco, but i've got to tell you, it's going to be a little harder without president yee and supervisor fewer and their guiding presence, their amazing leadership on the board
of supervisors. thank you, everyone, for the opportunity to speak today. i hope you can try to have a happy holiday. please stay healthy and safe, and i know that, without a doubt, finally, we see a light at the end of the tunnel with covid, and with this vaccine coming, we will get through this. thank you. >> president yee: thank you, madam mayor. and supervisor fewer, would you like to say anything? >> supervisor fewer: yes. thank you, madam mayor, for your kind remarks, and that was very generous of you. i appreciate our working relationship that we've had during my term in office, and i wish you much luck in the coming years. i think, and i fear, that san francisco will be challenged in the next year or two, but i am actually hopeful with the leadership that we have at the board and at the executive branch with you at the helm, that we are going to get
through this. i also want to thank you for your working relationship, and, you know, it is true. we disagree about a lot, and we have had very heated arguments over our disagreements, but i, like the best, we can agree to say, let's agree to disagree and move on. thank you for being a mayor to the city, and thank you so much for keeping us safe from covid. >> the hon. london breed: thank you so much. >> president yee: and mayor breed, thank you so much for your kind words to me. i don't know if i deserve it. certainly, we've had a lot of disagreements, but we do it ordinary of privately, but when we do disagree, as you mentioned -- we do it sort of privately, but when we do disagree, as you mentioned, we do it in private. hopefully, what we've seen this year during this emergency, the legislative branch and the
executive branch have worked together in a way to really get us into solutions, even though sometimes we have different ways to get there. but i feel like we've worked together, and i'm hopingful that the -- that the model that we've developed over this year will continue next year, with people from the executive -- people from the legislative branch and executive branch working together to continue some of the big issues that we're going to be faced with in the coming year -- i mean, we had a rough year this year. it's been rough, and i'm already anticipating that next year is going to be even rougher. so good luck with your effort to get san francisco out of our situation, and i look forward to see you in some other situation in the future. supervisor peskin, did you have -- you raised your hand, i saw. >> supervisor peskin: i did, mr. president, and this -- i
want to make sure i do this correctly. a -- and correctly and pursuant to the board rules, but frankly, it's not a question. as supervisor fewer and yourself, mr. president, are leaving the board, and as the mayor stated her words about the both of you, i wanted to -- and i could pose this as a question and make it consistent with question time, but i just wanted to regale my colleagues and the public with a couple of facts, and one of those facts is that london breed, when she was the president, did not want
sandra lee fewer to even be a member of the budget committee, much less its chair, but ultimately came to respect her and salute her and work closely together and reach agreements. and the same thing is true with you, mr. president, when we had kerfuffle about who would be this -- >> the hon. london breed: mr. president, with all due respect through the chair, i don't need anyone to speak on my behalf as to what i did or didn't support because the fact is, you're not entirely accurate, supervisor peskin, about some of your comments, so i would prefer that you speak for yourself, and i don't need anyone to speak as to what i feel, what i
believe, or as to any other comments that i feel. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: madam mayor, and thank you very much. question time is timely working, but let me conclude my saying this, which is norman yee, you've exceeded all of my expectations, and i think all of our expectations, and let me concur with the mayor that you have done an extraordinary job as the president of the board of supervisors, and i do believe, without putting words in the mayor's mouth, that she and i agree on that. >> president yee: thank you very much. why don't we move on, and we have a long agenda. thank you, mayor breed, once again, and it's been a pleasure to share the podium with you in the last almost two years now, every month, and i will sorely miss having you sit next to me once a month at the podium.
>> the hon. london breed: thank you. thank you, thank you, thank you both. i appreciate the opportunity. take care. >> president yee: okay. bye-bye now. okay. madam clerk, are there any communications? >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. the minutes from this meeting will reflect that the members participated in this meeting remotely through video conference to the extent as though present in the legislative chamber, and the board recognizes that public access to city services is more essential and acute during the public health emergency. therefore, we are offering the public the following opportunities to be able to communicate with the board and to access this meeting remotely. we will receive your written correspondence and make it a part of the appropriate legislative file. if you're using the u.s. mail, the board's address is the san francisco board of supervisors, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett
place, city hall, room 244, san francisco, california 94102. if you're using e-mail, send it to email@example.com. that's b-o-s-@-s-f-g-o-v.org. you may watch the proceedings by going to sfgtv.org or you may go to television channel 26. to provide public comment, turn down your television volume and listen through your touch phone. the telephone number is streaming across your screen. it's 415-655-0001. when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d. number.
that's 146-758-5325. press pound twice, and you will have joined the meeting as a listener. when you hear your item called, you should press star, three, and that is when you will enter the queue, and you may begin your public comment when your line is unmuted. there are two scheduled public hearings on our agenda. they are both set to begin no earlier than 3:00 p.m., and as specifically identified, we will have public comment, but in a specific manner. items 32 through 35, that's the appeal of determination of a community plan evaluation for the san jose avenue proposed project, and mr. president, on november 30, the clerk's office, we received
correspondence from the appellant to withdraw the appeal, so if that item stands, public comment will be taken on the withdrawal. item 36 and 37, that's an appeal for the 76 green street proposed project. public comment will be called on that matter, and if there is a motion to continue or a motion to withdraw, which we have not received, but in the event that there would be one, public comment would be taken on that specific motion. if you are interested in making general public comment, please wait for item 46 to be called. on item 46, you can speak on the mayoral appearance today. the november 3, 2020 regular board meeting minutes, and on the adoption without reference to committee calendar items, items 47 through 50. the items -- all other items on the agenda are not eligible
content for you to make public comment around. so we're working around not to leave anyone out of these proceedings. in a special partnership with the office of krisk engagement, we have interpreters. director adrian pon has assigned three of her staff to be with us this evening. i would ask them to introduce themselves, for chinese, for spanish, and for filipino. [speaking spanish language]
[speaking tagalog language] >> president yee: you're muted. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. thank you to the interpreters for being with us today. we are certainly hoping to utilize your skills this afternoon. two quick points. for those persons who may be experiencing connection issues, we do have a live person standing by who can assist you. please call 415-554-5184, and since we do not have an
individual, today, mr. president, who called in advance pursuant to title 2 of the americans with disabilities act, he's not making his public comment early, i will just add that on mondays and fridays, the clerk's office hosts regular virtual office hours, and we might be able to answer any questions that you have for rules pertaining to this agenda, looking for issues that might assist you. please go to sfbos.org. look at the banner it is tat t and you'll see where our office hours are being held on mondays and fridays. thank you for your patience to the members. thank you, mr. president. >> president yee: thank you. before we get started, just a friendly reminder for all supervisors to mute their microphones when you are not --
>> clerk: mr. president, you may be muted, sir. >> president yee: oh, my goodness. i'll start over. thank you, madam clerk. before we get started, just a friendly reminder for all the supervisors to mute your microphones unless you're speaking like me to mute your microphones to avoid audio feedback. so today, colleagues, we are approving the minutes from the november 3, 2020 regular meeting. are there any changes to these meeting minutes? give me a second here. okay. seeing none, can i have a
>> president yee: okay. without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. madam clerk, let's go to our consent agenda. let's call items 1 through 10 together. >> clerk: items 1 through 10 are on consent. these items are to be considered routine. if a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. >> president yee: okay. colleagues, anyone want to sever any items? i don't see any names on the rosters, so madam clerk, can you please call the roll on items 1 through 10. >> clerk: on items 1 through 10 -- [roll call]
redivide the standard agreement for up to $48 million of homekey grant funds from the california department of housing and community development to episcopal community services for the acquisition of the granada hotel at 1000 sutter street for permanent supportive housing, approving and authorizing h.s.h. to commit up to $33 million for project expenses and additional operational subsidies, and affirming the ceqa determination. >> president yee: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. president, and i want to thank h.s.h. for visiting with me. i would like to add my name as a cosponsor. i really want to thank the
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, the resolution is adopted. madam clerk, let's go to item 12. >> clerk: item 12 is a resolution designating jasmine blue media, l.l.c., doing business as the marina times, to be the neighborhood outreach periodical of the city and county of san francisco for the marina, cow hollow, north beach, and chinatown neighborhoods, and to provide outreach advertising for fisk the year 20-21. >> president yee: thank you. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president yee. last week's discussion
escalated my concerns. residents on my district rely on the marina times for news and information on what's happening in our city, and i'll note that the publication was among the first to report on the ongoing city hall scandal reporting unflattering news to the residents of marina, cow hollow, and beyond. just as the other eight publications in this contract did, the marina times submitted their application, the application was reviewed, and met approval. not only did some members of this board choose to single out the marina times, but the content of that discussion was extremely troubling to me. members sought to sever a contract based on their personal views. that is and always will be
unacceptable. the fact that this particular contractor is a news organization makes the proposal to strip them of their first amendment rights all the more horrifying. all of us on this board have had negative things written about us. choosing to run for office means choosing to open yourself up to criticism, fair or not. taking on that responsibility does not mean that we get to become the arbiters of truth, political viewpoints, or journalistic standards, especially in response to comments or tweets about us. that is far beyond our prerogative and the role before us. whether or not we agree with what it prints, what its staff writes on twitter, or what says about any of us in any format,
the marina times is a neighborhood news publication, and its first amendment rights must be protected. i hope the vote to approve this contract today will be unanimous. thank you. >> president yee: supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president yee. so colleagues, i want to update you on conversations taking place since our discussion on this subject last week, and i want to thank supervisors who reached out over their concerns about the comments made at the marina times as well as their concerns to withdraw advertisements from the marina times. i respect this position that has been communicated to us.
the while the marina times -- while the marina times regularly pushed what i feel are hate filled rhetoric and statements that routinely violate the ethics of the society of professional journalists, the last thing we want to do is take any actions that would chill any media outlets, especially during an era when social media is used to spread disinformation like wildfire. i think this is a challenge and a real dilemma in our time, so we're reviewing the options for updating the proposition j, section 9 of san francisco administrative code and the contracting standards going
forward. i think we should, at minimum, be requiring any news outlet wishing to contract with the city and get public funds to comply with certain basic journ journalistic starts, and through the absence of those existing in our codes, i think the prudent move would be to reup the contracts, including the one that's before us today. the code of ethics are referred to. among the many provisions, the ethical journalist treats sources, members of the public, and officials as human beings. the code further states that
journalists should avoid stereotyping in their reporting, and to name just one example, the marina times has repeatedly degraded unhoused populations, making broad claims, suggesting they are categorically drug addicted, sexual predators, child molesters. much of it was really gross, and i want to say, you know, if you replace the homeless or unhoused people with any other groups -- immigrants, members of the lgbtq community, jewish people, i believe we'd have some opposition to using funds for this kind of outlet. the level of personal threats, attacks, and stereotyping and personal misinformation about the marina times, i find that deeply concerns. but the board's really ill
equipped to remove this funding from this source today, in my opinion, and our office intends to seek guidance from the city attorney and leaders in the journalism profession as to how to best proceed regarding future city contracts. lastly, i'm grateful those of you who joined in dividing this file and granted some space to have some additional conversations and thinking about this item. i think by having that time, we were able to uncover, really, the shortcomings of our framework under prop j, and we're looking forward to moving and clarification those criteria. >> president yee: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes, thank you, president yee. i want to associate myself with the statements of my colleague,
supervisor ronen. i want to thank the several journalists who reached out to me and the really great conversations i've had over the last week, talking about, really, a dilemma of our time, which is how do you work to protect the public from the spread of disinformation on social media, you know, that we're seeing, you know, all over the place, including here at san francisco, while at the same time protecting and not infringing upon the right to free speech. it's a dilemma. it's not easy. it's -- you know, both are so clearly important to protecting democracy in a free society, and making sure that there are checks and balances of government and -- and industry and all of society. but at the same time, what we're seeing, you know, on a
national level but also here locally is a really targeted campaigns that are spreading disinformation purposefully towards a particular end, and that is causing a lot of problems in our society. so i will be voting today to continue the funding for the marina times and looking at how to tackle these -- these problems in the future and in a responsible way that doesn't chill the rights of journalists and free speech. thank you so much. >> president yee: okay. so no one else on the roster? madam clerk, please call the
>> president yee: okay. without objection, the resolution is adopted. madam clerk, let's go to item number 13. >> clerk: item 13 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to require notification to prequalified contractors and written documentation of contractor selection from prequalified lists, and written documentation of contractor selection for work assigned under as-needed public works professional services contracts, and to require the controller to audit such selection documentation. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, please call roll. >> clerk: on item 13 -- [roll call]
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. so without objection, the item is finally passed. madam clerk, let's go to item 14. >> clerk: item 14 was originally referred without recommendation from the public safety and neighborhood services committee. it's an ordinance amending the health code to prohibit smoking inside all private dwelling units in multiunit housing complexes containing three or more units and all common areas, remove the exception for child care facilities located in private homes, except
smoking of medicinal cannabis and adult use cannabis, require the department of public health to initiate a public information campaign to raise awareness of the smoking prediction, require d.p.h. to initiate the information of penalties, suspend the provision of the health code, and affirm the planning department's determination under the ceqa findings. >> president yee: thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. president. with regard to item 12, wherein i said last week that i changed my mind on the spot, and with regard to this item, in the intervening week, i've changed my mind again, and it's been quite difficult, and president yee, you know, as i tried to articulate earlier, that i
respect you a lot, and when you first asked me to cosponsor it, i read it and could not cosponsor it. ultimately, last week, based on the exemption of cannabis, both for it, but in the intervening week have been contacted by many people. many of them elderly, long-term rent controlled residents in my district who feel like and, indeed, the legislation could criminalize their -- not criminalize, but end up in fines for their behavior, wherein there's no history of complaints by adjoining tenants, and i think the unintended consequences may outweigh the benefits. i also think that there may be ways to fix this.
and last week, i voted against our colleague, supervisor preston's request to send it to committee. but i feel that the unintended impacts to cause more harm to long-term tenants in my district and other districts, and so i -- i really appreciate the intent, and president yee, the reason i voted for it with the exception last week was because of my profound respect for you, but i realize that that is really not the way that i should be comporting myself as to voting behavior. and i do want to address the harm of secondhand smoke in multiunit residential buildings, but i think there are better ways to address this, and so colleagues, i would like to make a motion to
send this matter back to committee and roll up our sleeves and see if we can try to address some of those issues. >> president yee: thank you. is there a second? >> supervisor preston: second, preston. >> president yee: okay. >> so what -- supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes. i just wanted to ask through the president to supervisor peskin, supervisor peskin, do you think it would be possible to duplicate the file so that you could continue to work on protections for tenants and that we move forward with actually addressing the issue of smoke and secondhand smoke in apartment buildings? that you want to duplicate the file and actually add more protections in for tenants so
that they understand that -- i actually think that secondhand smoke in apartment buildings is a very real issue. i've heard from many tenants just in my district about the secondhand smoke that is permeating through their hallways and apartment buildings every single day. and i've walked into apartment buildings myself where the smell of cigarette smoke is so strong in the hallways, it's almost like somebody is smoking in front of you. to give some protections in the short-term, and allow you to work with your colleagues, as president yee and i will be gone, to actually revise and refine further protections for tenants, i was wondering if you might consider that. >> supervisor peskin: so through the president to supervisor fewer, anybody can duplicate a file, but i don't think i would support moving
one file forward and sending the other file back to committee. i don't think that i would support that, and look, through the president, to supervisor fewer, we share a number of things in common, including the fact that we are both small landlords, and indeed, landlords have, as a matter of contract, the ability to prohibit smoking, whether it's cannabis or cigarettes or anything else as a matter of contract. indeed, i think that -- well, i know that i do that, and you may or may not do that, as well. but we may have long-term tenants that we inherited that don't have that in their contract. but you -- i am profoundly aware of the fact that, structurally, there's a huge amount of tve