>> good afternoon and welcome to the june 7th, 2022, regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors.

madam clerk, please call the roll. (roll call) >> thank you. the san francisco board of supervisors acknowledges we are on the unseeded homeland of the original inhabitants of the san

francisco peninsula. as indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, they have never lost nor forgotten their abilities as care takers of this place as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first people. please stand to recite the pledge of allegiance.

>> i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgov tv. we have michael who records the meetings and makes the transcripts available to the public online. madam clerk, do we have communications this afternoon? >> this welcomes the general public to join us in person in the board's legislative chamber room 250 to listen and advise the board in person. additionally this meeting is aired live on sfgov tv's award winning channel 26 or computer livestream of the meeting once

the remote caller queue is closed, it won't be reopened, even if individuals call in after the queue is closed. if you choose to use remote, call in early from a quiet location, make sure your television or computer is turned down and the board will be able to hear your comments. once you put yourself in the speaker's queue. throughout the meeting, the telephone number is on your screen. it is 415-655-0001. when you hear the system prompt, enter the id, 2485 196 2818 listen for when you have been

unmuted. agenda content agenda, item 50 on item 51 to be called no earlier than 3:00 p.m. and the board will hear general public comment on item 90, you may speak to the minutes after public comment which will be approved for the april 26th, '22 board meeting and special joint board meeting and april 25th special meeting of the land use and transportation committee. items 92-94 are the items on the adoption without committee reference calendar. you may speak to the closed sessions that the board will hear later in the afternoon. you may speak to general matters that are not on today's agenda but within the board's

jurisdiction with an important exception, you may not speak to -- you may not advocate for or against any electoral matters or candidate races on the ballot. as you know, today is election day. if you don't move off the subject, we'll move to the next speaker. the board will also accept your written comments.

we will have interpreters for the 3:00 p.m. session. we have a clerk if you have problems, a live person will answer the phone. members and public, that concludes my communication. >> thank you so much madam clerk. before we get started, colleagues, just a reminder to please mute your microphones when you are not speaking. we are now at approval of our minutes. colleagues, today we are approving the meeting minutes from april 26th, 2022, regular board meeting and the joint special board meeting minutes and april 25th, 2022, special meeting minutes at the land use and transportation committee meeting which constituted a quorum of the board of supervisors. i don't see anyone on the roster. madam clerk -- we will

entertain a motion to approve the minutes. made by supervisor preston and seconded by supervisor peskin. (roll call vote) there are 10 ayes. the. >> minutes are approved after public comment as presented. please call our regular agenda items 1-13. >> these items are considered to

be routine. if a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. >> thank you madam clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster. supervisor safai? i don't see anyone, so we'll take these items in the same call and without objections, they're passed on first reading and finally passed unanimously. please call item 14. >> item 14, ordinance to amend the code to require the city to acquire at least 20 additional dwelling units for use as transitional housing for homeless transitional age use in the haight-ashbury neighborhood and to require homelessness and supportive housing to submit progress reports to the board and affirm the ceqa

determination and make appropriate findings. >> i don't see anyone in the roster. we take this item same house same call and passed on first reading. madam clerk, item 15. >> item 15 is a resolution to approve the first amendment to the mountain tunnel improvement project agreement between public utilities and mcmillen jacobs associates to increase the contract by 7.7 million and contract duration by three years for a new amount of $28.7 million through february 2029. >> thank you madam clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster. same house, same call. without objection, this is adopted unanimously. please call item 16. >> retroactive, this is a san

francisco public utilities commission to accept and expand american rescue plan act funds of 2021 and administered by the state water resources control board and california community services department for 17.3 million to assist eligible accounts in the rears due to the pandemic. >> please call the roll for item 16. (roll call vote)

there are 11 ayes. >> without objection, it is adopted unanimously. please call item 17. >> item 17 is retroactive approval of the fiscal year 2021-22 home-arp or investment partnership american rescue plan program for the office of the mayor to expand the home-arp program grant for approximately 18.7 million. >> thank you madam clerk. i do not see anyone on the roster. we'll take this item, same house, same call and without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 18. >> item 18, a resolution to approve the third contract modification with dignity health doing business as st. mary's

medical center for management and operation of the sfo medical clinic with two year term extension now through june 30th, 2024, and $1.6 million increase and new not to exceed amount of 11 million. >> thank you madam clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster for this item. we'll take item 18, same house, same call and without objection, it is adopted. please call item 19. >> item 19, a resolution to approve the first contract amendment to the agreement between community forward sf and department of public health for substance use disorder and mental health services to increase by approximately 3.5 million for a new amount of 13.1 million through june 30th, 2023, and to enter into amendments or modifications to

the contract if necessary. >> i do not see anyone on the roster. we'll take this item same house same call without objection, adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 20. >> item 20 is a resolution to approve an amendment between the city and nonprofit self help for the elderly to administer the congregate nutrition services for older adults program with grant increase of 1.2 million and new total amount of approximately 10.6 million with no change to the grant term through june 30th, 2025. >> thank you madam clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster. we'll take this item same house, same call without objection, it is adopted unanimously. please call item 21. >> item 21 is a resolution to approve the second contract

amendment between the tide center and department of hsh to provide supportive housing, property management services at six delivering innovation in supportive housing buildings to extend the term of the contract for two years for a new term through june 30th, 2026, to increase the amount by 23.9 million for a new total amount of 53.4 million and delegate authority to the director to modify or amend the contract if necessary as stated. >> thank you. seeing no one on the roster, we'll take it same house same call without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. please call item 22. >> item 22 a resolution to approve the first amendment to the grant agreement between the tenderloin housing clinic and hsh for stewardship, property management and supportive

services in permanent supportive housing to extend the term of the grant by four months for total through june 30th, 2024, increase the agreement amount for a new total approximately of 132.9 million and delegate authority to hsh, modify or amend the grant if necessary as stated. >> thank you madam clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we'll take it same house, same call without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. please call item 23. >> resolution to authorize the department of public health to accept expanded grant increase from the centers of disease control and prevention to participate in a program, san francisco department of public health climate and health program actions to reduce the disproportionate impacts of

climate change in the amount of approximately 86,000 with a new total of 300,000 through august 31st, 2022. >> thank you madam clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster. we'll take this item same house same call without objection adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 24. >> item 24 is a resolution to retroactively authorize the department of public health to accept and expand a monetary gift from epic systems corporation to help low income and at risk populations for the term through december 21st, 2022. >> thank you madam clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we'll take it same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call items

25-28 together. >> items 25-28 comprise four resolutions that approve various programs and authorizes the marion behalf of the city to apply for, accept and expend block grants from the united states department of housing and urban development. item 25 approves the housing opportunities for persons with aids program for 7 million and to expand approximately 3 million in program income and reprogrammed funds or combined total of 10 million through june 30th, 2027. item 26 approves the community development block program for 18.2 million to expand estimated program income and reprogram funds in the amount of 5.9 million for total of approximately 24.2 million through the date when all the

funds are gone. item 27, approves the home investment partnership program for 5.5 million and program income in the amount of 2 million for a combined total of approximately 7.6 million through june 30th, 2027, and for item 28, the emergency solutions grant program for 1.6 million for unspecified term starting july 1st, 2022. >> thank you. seeing no one on the roster, we'll take this item same house same call without objection. >> thank you mr. president. >> these resolutions are adopted unanimously. please call item number 29. >> item 29 is a resolution to approve the first amendment to the grant agreement between brilliant corners and hsh, department of homelessness and supportive housing for the

subsidy pool program to increase the grant agreement for a new total of 40.2 million to extend the agreement term by 24 months for a new total term through june 30th, 2024, and delegate authority to hsh to enter into amendments or modifications to the first amendment as stated if necessary. >> supervisor preston. >> thank you president walton. and i just wanted through the president to hear from hsh on one issue. thank you to the budget committee for their work on this. i don't have concerns with the substance of the contract and what it is for. but as i have raised previously in this body, i am concerned with the original contract was for $9.9 million, just under the threshold that would have brought that before the board for review and wanted to hear

from the relevant department as to why -- why the initial amount was 9.9 million, whether it was anticipated at that time that the contract would be for over 10 million and interested in getting that information. >> thank you supervisor preston. i do see we have emily cowen representing the department of homelessness and supportive housing. emily, did you hear the question? >> good afternoon supervisors. yes, through the president of the board, i did hear the question. i will need to consult the contract's team on this, but i believe that this was the initial pilot amount and we started this contract under the -- under our pilot model. we're not sure we would expand it and then through additional funding from our city our home

and desire to invest in this model, we have added 200 more slots of flexible housing subsidy pool to this contract that now brings it over the threshold to come to the department. if you want to come back to me in five minutes, i can get information about the initial cost of the contract, but i know it was launched as a pilot. >> thank you. i have no problem with the idea of smaller contract and then expanding when it is successful and it seems like a great program. i have an issue with setting contract amounts just below the $10 million, precluding it from coming in front of the board.

i would like that additional information if we could come back to it and get it before voting on it. >> we'll come back to item 29. and emily, please give us or the clerk a signal when you are available. >> thank you. >> thank you. madam clerk, please call item 30. >> item 30. ordinance to amend the administrative code for existing surcharges on permitting fees, licensing fees and renewal fees issued by the planning department, department of building inspection, public works, public health that may be appealed to the board of appeals and may determine ceqa determination. >> please call the roll on item 30. (roll call vote)

>> thank you. madam clerk, call item 31. >> resolution to authorize the san francisco public library to accept and expand up to an approximate $1 million gift from the friends of the san francisco public library for direct support for a variety of public programming and services in fiscal year 2022-2023. >> thank you madam clerk. supervisor safai.

>> thank you mr. speaker. madam clerk, please add me as a co-sponsor to the item. >> noted. thank you. >> seeing no one else on the roster, we can take this item same house same call without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. please call item number 32. >> item 32, resolution to authorize the port commission to accept and expend a grant in fiscal year 2022-23 and approximately 27.3 million in 2023-24 for a total amount of approximately 100.7 million that may be offered from the california state lands commission for any lawful purpose and enter into one or more grant agreements with the state of california state lands commission for 58.2 million. >> thank you so much madam

clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster. we'll take this item same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 33. >> item 33, ordinance to aappropriate approximately 1.6 million of cleanpower sf revenue and 2.1 million for public utilities commission grant funds, total of approximately 3.7 million for the disadvantaged communities green tariff programs for fiscal year 2022-23. >> thank you. seeing no one on the roster, take it same house same call and without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. please call items 34-39 together. >> items 34-39, six ordinances

that pertain to the san francisco public utilities commission, appropriating 211 million of cap-and-trade revenue and power and revenue water bonds and capital improvement program for fiscal year 2022-23 and places 140.9 million of power bonds and approximately 67 million of the water bonds by project on controllers reserves for the stated projects. item 35 authorizes the issuance and sale of 141 million in tax exempt or taxable power revenue bonds and other forms of debt for various projects to authorize the issuance of bonds. 36 for issuance and sale in waste water bonds and other debt

for capital projects to authorize the issuance of waste water bonds and retirement of waste water enterprise commercial paper. item 37, proceeds from revenue bonds, state loan funds or state grant funds and waste water revenue and capacity fees for the waste water capital improvement program in 2022 and 2023 and places 704.2 million on controller reserve per project for related expenditures for the projects. item 38, the issuance and sale of 141.4 million in taxable water revenue bonds and other forms of debt to finance the cost of various water capital projects and refunding bonds and retirement of outstanding water enterprise commercial paper and item 39, a total of

122.4 million for proceeds of state revenue or grant funds for the public utilities commission water enterprise capital improvement program and deappropriates and reappropriates water capital programs in fiscal year 22-23 and places approximately 2.5 million on budget and finance committee reserve pending a report to the board on space needs, total project costs and disposition of 1990 and places 96.9 million on bond or fund proceeds on controllers reserve. and ratify previous actions taken for items 35-38 and 34, 37 and 38 as applicable subject to

prior occurrences of the adoption of ceqa. and for items 35, 36 and 38 to declare the intent of the sfpuc to reimburse itself with one or more funds and ratify previous actions taken in connection there with as defined there in. >> thank you madam clerk. supervisor chan. >> thank you president walton. colleagues, these items were amended before they came to you for final approval. i think i just wanted to flag for all of us that when these -- when they come back to us again, especially for the sfpuc for budget, the amendments we made at the committee is really for them to allow them to come back and inform us in terms of rate increase, water rate, sewage

rate increase and i think we collectively as a body should continue to make sure we evaluate and review these rate increases, even though there's nothing significant, there's no significant increase for the upcoming fiscal years but some increases the year after. i look forward to having a robust discussion about how to keep our rate affordable for san francisco. thank you. >> thank you supervisor chan. i don't see anyone else on the roster. we'll take the items same house same call. without objection, these ordinances are passed on first reading unanimously. madam clerk, please call our 2:00 p.m. special order of business. >> we are at the 2:30 p.m. recognition. we have the supervisors.

>> thank you so much. colleagues, today we have several special accommodations and we're going to start with supervisor mar who will be honoring the vikings soccer club with the united irish cultural center. >> thank you president walton. colleagues, i'm very excited to be able to present this special accommodation to an amazing organization, vikings soccer club, which just celebrated a very important milestone and want to invite the club president and these amazing youth athletes to come up. the soccer club is the oldest continuously running soccer club in san francisco, founded in 1922, mostly by european immigrants who brought their love of soccer to their new home. over the years, vikings soccer has changed with the times,

adding teams for girls and women. the addition of micro soccer for young children under the age of six and scholarship fund to help with the costs of equipment to make sure it remains at the forefront of equity and inclusion of youth sports in the city. soccer is an inclusive sport and the club seeks to expand access to this beautiful game for everyone. this year in 2022, sf vikings is 100 years-old and has various soccer and soccer related programs for ages two and up. they now have more than 60 coaches and each have taught, shown and shared their love of soccer to thousands of kids in the san francisco area. they aim to keep the numbers growing and reach out to partners in the community and around the globe. this past weekend, i had the great honor of attending the

centennial party at the united irish cultural center and it was such a wonderful celebration of community building and generations of youth athletics and deep passion for soccer on the west side in our city. so the event also raised money and awareness for the viking soccer scholarship fund that provides financial service to underserved who want to play soccer and we heard some of them speak at the event and it was powerful. it is a measure of the vikings commitment to diversity and inclusion so no one will be denied the opportunity for financial reasons. i thank all of the youth and children in vikings soccer and the coaches and the volunteer parents and alumni who really sustained this amazing organization, which is very much a part of the culture of the west side of san francisco and

with many of their practices at the beach l.a. soccer fields and west sunset fields. thank you. you guys are welcome to make remarks if you would like in the microphone. >> i would like to thank the board of supervisors for their support providing athletic fileds, continuing to improve the state of our park system. it is wonderful for me, i started volunteering when my son was four and he's 31 now. the changes that have happened in these last 25 years are incredible. i played as a child at the beach fields when they were grass.

we didn't have the problem of overuse that turned them into the less than ideal situation, then rectified with your support and bond issues to the beautiful site that it is today. thank you for your support of the youth and their parks and we're very grateful. thank you. (applause) >> congratulations and thank you supervisor mar. now, now, supervisor mandelman. >> thank you president walton.

today it is my honor to offer accommodation to peg stevenson of our controller's office. (applause) they like you, peg. peg has been with the controller's office since 1997 and since 2004, served as the director of the city performance unit. this friday, peg is stepping away from 25 years of city service and moving on to her next adventures but i wanted to take a moment to acknowledge her contributions. peg's passion for activism and shaping policy predates her city tenure, a masters in public

policy and did activism with greenpeace and 25 years ago, deciding to give her talents to local government in san francisco. she started her tenure in city hall as the budget manager. she led that team for three years working closely with all of the city actors, supporting san francisco spending plans, building the relationships and city know how to help make future initiatives successful. in 2000, she became director of a new unit, the city projects group which grew into the city's performance unit.

in the essential role, peg has helped lead a revolution in the use of data for decision making. city agencies can measure with data and focus time and attention on important service delivery challenges rather than arguing or guessing about the numbers. one example we know peg is particularly proud, her team's work with stakeholders on multiple task forces and working groups, including the 2017 process that produced 2045 report and follow up project of muni reliability in 2019. most recently, peg played an important leadership role at the

covid command, policy discussions and supporting the leadership in many ways via the policy group. that included identifying and participating in the development of brand new processes stood up at the convention center and elsewhere. everyone in her group worked in disaster response. with direction from peg and ongoing support, her team played essential roles in testing and vaccines, housing, food supply, schools, public data reporting and economic recovery and more. her humor and constant presence has helped the policy group and her team doing the longest work encountered. san francisco has the lowest death rate in the nation and peg's contribution literally saved lives. i have had the good fortunate in my time on this board to work with the city performance office and witnessed peg's leadership and i know others on the board

have had more of the benefit of that leadership. we're all going to miss you a lot. perhaps most lasting benefit of peg's 25 years of service, the scores of talented people she helped to bring into public service. they took a job with us, learned how the city worked, the challenges and opportunities and had a chance to express ideas and become more skilled and get excited about public service. most have stayed or taken another job within the city. the fact that so many smart passionate people got their start in city performance is a river of pride. last but not least, in her personal time, peg, the tennis player and advocate participated in the year's long process to expand the golden gate park tennis center. not afraid to jump into a public process, peg participated in early design and fundraising to

make the tennis center a new reality ensuring affordable access for residents to the sport she loves. and community listening and compromise, ask her about pickleball. thank you for your service and now it's your turn to share remarks with us. >> thank you supervisor mandelman. i'm truly honored and touched and really surprised until i got the call from your staff person last friday. thank you so much for this honor. it really means a lot to me. i did have a few things i wanted to share, figuring i may not get another chance. just first about the work place, and supervisor mandelman said, ed harrington hired me in 1997

and asked for a three month commitment at the time to get through the budget. if anyone told me i would be here 25 years later, i would have laughed at them. but i found the city and controller's office to be a wonderful work place. full of every kind of professional and intellectual and emotional and personal challenge you can imagine, it has been endlessly satisfying and interesting for me and that's kept me here. i want people to see what the city government is and bring their talents and be at the table and make services better. so many of them have and many are here. many of my staff people today. if you work in city projects, stand up. (applause)

i have direct experience of working with people in almost every city agency. they are drivers and laborers and cops and lawyers and managers and crafts people and counselors and health workers and without exception, i have found people who are dedicated to the work they do. they want to serve the community. they were innovators with capital i or makers with capital m long time before that was a thing. and i have learned so much from them and i appreciate them so much. we have done a lot of work with the police department over the years. you know, it's been such a pleasure working with people at every level of every city agency. being part of something important, i mean, as supervisor mandelman referred to, the team work that the city can put together when it has a mind to

is amazing. i was part of the hanging chad crew during those years of the elections. in every operation, large and small, you know, local government is what makes an impact and if people have the necessities of a decent life. i have always felt i was part of something important here. and then lastly, just the climate of experimentation, it is partly my group, board of supervisors is like that too. people remember dr. cats and he

used to say san francisco was always the experiment and never the control. as a scientist, he found that frustrating. he was only partly joking though, right? the way i look at that, i have thought about that over the years and watching us struggle with the hard things. san francisco is always struggling with the hardest political and social challenges of our time and we just keep at it. we disagree or we fail or both. but people keep trying to solve it. i want to thank everyone i have worked with and for making that possible. thank you. (applause)

>> congratulations and well deserved. now we'll have supervisor stefani. >> thank you president walton.

i want to honor members of the san francisco police and fire department for their response of twin babies on may 21st. it is one of those stories as a mother especially, when you read, all you can say is wait, what? what just happened, what did they do? when the initial 911 call came in to dispatch, the family to be didn't know their exact location and their mother was in very active labor. sfpd officers searched for the family and captain jack hart located the family and directed others to the location. when fire department personnel arrived, they discovered the mother had delivered baby number one. medic unit number 64 and rescue

captain unit number 1 transferred the mother and placed her in the ambulance. firefighter paramedic, brad, took care of baby one and paramedic with the mother. once inside the ambulance, the mother felt the urge to push again. what paramedics, firefighters, emts and police officers thought was the delivery of the placenta was in fact baby two. this is the very scary part, it all sounds scary to me, delivering in the breach position with feet presenting first. breach deliveries if you don't know, they can be difficult and lead to complications so the ems crew initiated lights and sirens to the hospital. after a few contractions, they were able to successfully assist

the mother delivering baby two just before arriving at the hospital. under perfect circumstances in a medical environment, breach delivery, i think the whole delivery thing but breach is high risk and often ends in emergency surgery for the mother. through remarkable timing, luck and pure professionalism from our first responders, these babies were delivered safely. going above the call of duty, they drove the family's car to the hospital so the father could be with their new family and donated money so the family wouldn't have to worry about fuel or food when they left the hospital. i truly believe that -- i see it time and time again, that this is a city that takes care of each other. i'm so proud and grateful to our first responders who demonstrated the very best of san francisco that night. in recognition of their incredible team work, i'm honoring san francisco police

department captains and officers and fire rescue captain, firefighter paramedics, firefighters and paramedics. here to represent them today and accept on their behalf chief scott. thank you all so much. (applause) >> thank you. i'm the assistant deputy chief of ems for the fire department. on behalf of the fire department and the chief, thank you for this honor. i mean every day i think you all

know our people do the best they can do under very difficult circumstances. the last few years even more challenging and they always rise to the occasion. this particular incident shows how we work together and can be successful together and have a happy outcome. this is not something that is unusual, this is the norm and so, i just would like this opportunity to say thank you to our partners in the police department to be able to work with them the way we do. this particular call was, you know, as supervisor stefani said, childbirth calls are not that common in san francisco and when they happen, they're either a little or a lot stressful. usually a lot stressful. you don't know really what is going to happen and you have to know what you're doing and be prepared. that's what happened in this

case. everybody was able to work in concert to help the family get what they needed in terms of a delivery. the breach birth is particularly difficult, so i do want to say thank you to all of you who supported our efforts to get more people because one of the results of that, this paramedic who did the delivery of the breached baby and as a result of your funding, we hired him. (applause) ent when we go home after business hours and captain hart not only

is he diligent, he didn't just stop -- we had a location and didn't really know where the family was and he kept searching until he located them. with the assistance of the officers, this is what the san francisco police department and san francisco fire department are made of. i can't say it better than what was said but working together to protect the city is really the thrill of our lives and this is what we do. i know sometimes we don't always get it right and we're not always perfect, but our heart is there and our spirit is there and to bring two lives into this world, there's no greater honor. so my hat's off to all of the members who helped to bring these two babies into the world and thank you for honoring them and our respective departments. thank you. (applause)

>> thank you and congratulations to each of you. it takes a village to deliver a child or two and we appreciate your hard work and commitment and dedication. thank you again supervisor stefani. (applause) madam clerk, as they exit, let's go back to item 29. i have heard from emily. >> yes, item 29, the grant agreement amendment for brilliant corners flexible housing subsidy pool not to exceed 41 million. >> emily, i believe there was a question around the original

amount of the agreement. >> yes, thank you president walton. through the president to supervisor preston, to respond more to your question about why we entered into the original contract at the original amount, i just want to give a little bit of additional context. so this original contract was entered into in early 2021 during the pandemic and the purpose of the initial flexible housing subsidy vouchers included were to rehouse sick guests coming out of the hotel. at this time, we thought fema funds were ending and we had expedited plan to rehouse the thousands of guests staying at our hotels. the flex subsidy pool vouchers in the original agreement were a key part of the strategy. the original contract budget as

you might be able to see in the materials in the file, was about $8.9 million. we maxed out our authority in the contingency in case we needed to add more vouchers the get more people out of the hotels and into permanent housing when we were moving in a very expedited way to rehouse guests. as you may recall, this was right after the initial round of prop c dollars were released by the board in december 2020 and we were under pressure from this board and home committee and whole community to get these dollars on to the street as quickly as possible in order to rehouse guests that we were under the impression we were going to have to close the hotels. at that time, we were told the fema reimbursement dollars were coming to an end right away. we're not trying to skirt the board authority. if so, we wouldn't bring it

back. we would try a different way. this is entering into the contract amount we did, the way hsh did was part of the pandemic response, was really critical to getting the vouchers out as rapidly as possible. happy to take any other questions but that is the context behind the original grant. the program has been successful and we look forward to expanding it. >> thank you. supervisor preston. >> thank you. i think we all certainly understand the need to act quickly on these kind of items, but if you could just clarify -- i would like to know whether it is the position of hsh, this original $9.9 million contract, that was the contract amount because of the substance of the contract or the contract amount because you didn't want to cross $10 million and have to deal with board review at that time.

>> the original budgeted part is part of that $9.9 million contract which was actually under 9, it was 8.6 i think. it was part of what was budgeted under the contract and the remainder was contingency. it's not our practice to skirt board approval in any way. but as we were really rushing to get this program out, what we wanted to do was maximize our authority in case we needed to expand the number of vouchers and we wanted to give ourselves the ability to do that as quickly as possible. we knew we would be return together the board if the program was successful and we were able to get people out. really wanting to obviously bringing it back now to ad funds, add vouchers and years of operation to the project but it is not our policy to try to get

close to 10 but not past the threshold. >> through the president, i don't know if it's a policy or not, i just want to say -- this is not unique to hsh. i think i have raised this with dph and others. what you're basically saying, you had a contract for a certain amount and built in as much -- you knew you were going to expand it and built in as much as you could without bringing it before the board which makes no sense because the contingency was future anyway. you could have put in everything you intended to use later and brought it before the board. i guess -- i do want -- having raised this now on and off as it has come up for probably about a year with different departments. have the practices changed at all for hsh? if you have a contract like when it is close, do you try to stay under $10 million?

or is the $10 million threshold irrelevant to your contracting. you do your contract with what you think it is going to be, if it is over it comes before the board and if under, it doesn't. >> we are aware of the threshold and time pressures, especially during the covid response of getting resources on the street. we know the board process adds time, but that said, i'm before you every week with contracts. we are not trying to avoid come together the board for authorization. and, you know, we want to abide by the rules and we want to abide by the guardrails set by the code and this body. we definitely look to do that. if the contract is going to be above 10 million, we're going to come to you as we regularly do. >> and finally, any internal policy changes that will make this less likely in the future of contracts just below the

$10 million threshold? >> none that i'm aware of yet but that is something we can discuss. if the threshold changes, our practice would change. >> thank you. i just -- i want to reiterate, i think it's a problem. this is a perfect example. this clearly was intended to be more than a $10 million contract and contingencies were limited to try to move it forward without board review. there are ways to move things quickly with board review and ways to seek as supervisor peskin has drilled into many times, retroactive approvals and so forth. there's plenty of ways to do it and still have it reviewed by the board. and i think, you know, this is the kind of contract, when these come to us, we are reluctant to

do these things. we want to do subsidies for housing and don't want to get in the way of that work. but there are policy issues with each and every one of these. there are questions i would have with these kind of contracts and things is that get asked in budget. we provide on site sro's and this model brilliant corners has, we're giving money to private landlords and subsidizing off site permanent supportive housing model. there's real policy issues wrapped up in how much we commit to these things and they should come to the board when at the time of contracting they will exceed $10 million. >> thank you. supervisor peskin. >> i think supervisor preston covered it. and by the way, it's not just hsh and there were good

responses but i think this is an opportunity and i'll do it in the same way the other day i spoke to retroactivity for the benefit of the newest supervisor, there are departments that play that game of going to 9.9 million. the reality is, the contract should be in the amount that the service or whatever is being contracted for is worth. it shouldn't be a way of making the board ultimately have to agree after the fact when they have undertaken a program for three years at 9.9 million and then say we need a huge expansion. you always look at those when they happen to be 9.9 and $0.99 and say come on guys, what was the thing worth and supervisor preston has a good argument with don't load it with the

contingency. i think this is just a point to all of the departments, 53 whatever of them that were aware and watching and don't do that as a practice. it is legal but it's not cool. >> thank you. madam clerk, please call the roll on item 29. (roll call vote) >> without objection, this resolution passes unanimously. let's go to our 3:00 p.m.

special order items 50 and 51. >> items 50 and 51 comprise the board as a committee as the whole on may 3rd 2022 contained in file number -- item 50 is public hearing to consider the resolution, subject matter of item 51, resolution of intention to modify district plan for dog patch to combine capital and finding the proposed modifications will not result in new or increased. >> colleagues, today we're holding a hearing on a resolution to modify the

management district plan for the dog patch and northwest green benefit district. this is a small modification that simply combines the capital and maintenance budget categories so the district has greater flexibility to allocate funds. the proposed modifications do not alter the approved boundary maps and do not result in new assessments on any parcels and do not materially change the special benefits that the gbd provides to the assessed parcels. this has been confirmed by the assessment engineer as well. planning has made the determination that this matter is not defined as a ceqa project, both our office and dog patch and communities are in support of the change. i ask you all for your support today as well. i believe we do have public works here to give a brief

presentation. >> i'm with public works. you are probably wondering why public works is talking about a benefit district and change to the management plan. that's a good question. what the office of economic workforce and development does, public works does for the pdg. i think it solves a pinch point related to community driven capital projects. i can use a really good example and probably happened with each of your districts where community will come together, come to public works and basically develop a piece of public works property. it has a lot of support at first but overtime, the support

dwindles and then becomes a question of who is going to maintain the site. what we do is step in, it's an entity that actually is responsible for the maintenance of the site. it allows the gbd to spend their capital and maintenance budget to the best of their ability and allocate funding as it sees fit to better serve the people of the gbd. it is important president walton eluded to it, it doesn't raise the rate taxed to the folks in the gbd. it was crafted with the guidance of the city attorney's office. i'm joined by the executive director and members of the gbd. if you have questions, we're here to answer them.

>> thank you so much. before we go to a vote on this resolution, we do have to have public comment. madam clerk. >> at this time, the board of supervisors welcomes testimony on the resolution of intention to modify the management district plan for the dog patch and northwest green benefit district. sir, are you here to address the board on this matter? after we take members from the chamber, we'll take members of the public on the remote system. you can dial 415-655-0001 and when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting id, 2485 196 2818. press pound twice.

you will hear the discussion but your line will be muted and in the listening queue. once connected, press star 3 and you're ready to provide your comment, the system will indicate you have raised your hand. listen carefully for you have been unmuted and that is your queue. as you heard earlier, we do have interpreters who have joined us from the office of city engagement. i will ask each interpreter to introduce themselves and language how to connect to the remote system and service they are providing in language. we'll start with chinese, filipino and spanish. welcome.

>> thank you. all right, sir, you are in line to address the board on this matter. you will have two minutes to address the board. >> are you on the subject of the green benefit district. >> yes, we are. >> that's what i want to talk about. >> you're welcome to lift the

microphone so it is closer and you can stand up. >> yes. i looked on the document here we all got in the mail, it lists the various good things that the green benefit district does like planting trees and plants and such things. but there's a very important thing that was left off. that is noise control. the freeway cuts along the west side and it is a perpetual roar. i will tell you why. because on the side away, the west side, there is a sound wall but there is no sound wall on the east side. so, the wall on the west side reflects the sound from the freeway over to the east side and then that makes the noise

twice as loud. there are other reasons relating to the wind that make it extra loud too but i don't have time to explain them now. i wish the green benefit district would use some of its energy to try to get a sound wall on the hillside of the 101 freeway. there's a sound wall all the way from san jose up to santa rosa, but there's a little omission

right there. thank you. >> thank you for your comments to the board. welcome. >> if anybody wishes to speak, line up to my left, your right. >> hi, i'm deborah bridges and a lawyer, i'm married to the man who just spoke, third generation from san francisco, his grandfather came before the jews were murdered in the 1860s. built a hardware store at first and mission destroyed by the 06 fire. the insurance company would not pay on the policy and built a new hardware store. he's been there since 1985. this man wrote two physics

books. thinking physics and relativity visualized, he can explain einstein's theory. i'm just the stupid lawyer married to him. so it's too bad he didn't get a chance to discuss the physics but stupid lawyer that i am, i will say that maybe there's something to do with pollution there, too. and people breathing in the pollution and plants, there's a beautiful garden at the top and we walk up to it and those plants are getting polluted and people are eating them. it's a free garden for the public and children. plants and dogs and cats and babies and kittens, even the rats are getting polluted. so, that's something to consider. i don't know too much about it. him being a physicist, i should keep my mouth shut, i'm just a dumb lawyer. >> thank you for your comments to the board.

welcome sir. >> hello president walton and supervisors. i live at 23rd and india basin shoreline park within dog patch. i would like to ask you to support this resolution as a whole. thank you. >> thank you bruce for your comments to the board. any other members of the public in the chamber who would like to address the board on this issue? seeing none, we're going to go remote system. we have with us this afternoon, joe from the clerk's office. do we have callers in the queue who would like to address the board? >> madam clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. mr. president. >> thank you so much. seeing no more public commenters, public comment is now closed. i don't see any questions or anything from my colleagues. this hearing -- the committee of the whole has been heard and

now filed. madam clerk, we do need to call the roll for item 51. >> item 51. (roll call vote) >> without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. thank you to the gbd for your great work and department of public works. madam clerk, let's go back to

item number 40. >> item 40, the resolution to concur with the controller certification that department services previously approved can be performed by private contractor for a lower cost than similar work performed by city and county employees. for the sfo international airport, security services, information and guest services, parking operations, shuttle bus services, municipal transportation agency, citations and meter collections and security towing cleaning services for the port, security services and public utilities commission services. >> thank you madam clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster. we'll take this item same house, same call and without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 41. >> 41 is a resolution to authorize the port of san

francisco to execute a memorandum of understanding and accept and expand grant from the san francisco parks alliance for 3.25 million for certain components of the park through october 2029. >> supervisor peskin. >> could we also hear this with 42? my questions are related. >> sure. madam clerk, can you call item 42? >> a resolution to authorize the recreation and park department to accept or expand grants valued up to 400,000 for restoration projects in the japanese tea garden project until notice of substantial completion. >> thank you madam clerk. supervisor peskin. >> i'll defer to supervisor chan

on the committee and i'll follow up. >> thank you. supervisor chan. >> thank you president walton. colleagues, these two items and i'm glad we're calling them together, involving specifically with the parks alliance that i have been a lot of questions around. i would like for you to know that i supported these -- both of these items at committee because a couple of -- there's a few reasons. i think first and foremost, the week that we had our hearing was the same week which mayor breed issued the letter on may 16, specifically regarding the basically directing all city departments to pause requests and for department programs and projects until they have more clarification, and on the

compliance of the new ordinance that this board approved. and with that, with that understanding, that both items were introduced to the board, queen cove july 27th, 2021, last year and japanese tea garden on october 5th, 2021. both items were heard at gao committee, our government audit and oversights committee last november i believe. so these items were introduced and heard before the ordinance was approved. with that said, even these two items, as they currently stand would come to exemption under the ordinance and just to be careful and be precise, we have

asked sf port to work with us, work with my office to amend agreements from not to exceed 7 million to the 3.3 million now before you today. specifically because we understand that the funds of 3.3 million has already been raised, again, before the ordinance was approved. so it's with that reason and similarly with the japanese tea garden, those monies were raised before the ordinance was approved as well and the reason why we or i am supporting both moving forward at gao and coming to you today with recommendation. now, however, which i think some of us including supervisor peskin and myself included, still have questions actually around the application or interpretations of the ordinance when it comes to the interested

party. as we know, we have that issue a couple weeks back already with one of the donors to the city and in this case though, it is a little more complicated. it's through parks alliance from different donors and parks alliance themselves, at least from where i stand, i would probably interpret them as interested party. but i defer that to city attorney to make that interpretation given the fact that parks alliance was a former contractor managing conservetory of flowers and recipient of at least now $250,000 from the ferris wheel contract and various other contracts with the city departments like recreation and park department. i leave that interpretation to the city attorney moving

forward. >> thank you president walton, colleagues. let me -- this has been kicking around for a long time and let me be clear why it has been kicking around for a long time. 2021 was quite some time ago, i think as supervisor chan said, the first item was introduced almost exactly a year ago and the second item in october of 2021. why has it been sitting at the board all this time? the answer is because of two things. let's be clear about it. thing number one is because after being arrested by the federal bureau of investigation, it came out that the parks alliance was the holder of a fund of almost a million

dollars. we all had questions about the parks alliance. when the questions started to be asked and supervisor chan in particular asked questions, the parks alliance wrote a letter to supervisor chan basically saying they were going to weaponize and not give money to a park in district one because of the position that supervisor chan was taking. that is why it has been sitting around for a year. in the interim, we passed the legislation on the ballot today and later today at roll call, i will introduce and thank you supervisor safai for your help in guidance, legislation to clarify things that have led to questions whether or not they were manufactured or legitimate in recent times and we'll clarify those. we have been waiting on the

ethics commission to clarify those. having said that, in the first instance as it relates to crane cove, it would appear to me that as it exists now in law does not apply because the parks alliance would not be an interested party as it relates to the board of san francisco. in the second instance as it relates to as supervisor chan correctly stated and as we'll all remember, we were here when we ended the contract for the conservetory of flowers and replaced that with the garden, it would appear to me that the parks alliance has indeed held a contract with the city and county within the last 12 months and then the matter of the ferris wheel, a contract or licence of sorts. it is as to the second one i have questions for council, which is how does this not run

afoul of doing business with somebody that we have granted a contract to. >> deputy city attorney? >> so whether the acceptance of a gift runs afoul of the payment legislation depends on a number of things. first, the question if somebody is an interested party but there has to be a request that has to be made. i think there are lucky circumstances where a donor just comes to the city and would like to make a donation. when they do that, there's no -- the department needs to decide whether the payment legislation is implicated. our office defers to them because at least in the first instance, they know the facts and know what enter actions they've had or haven't had with the donor and know if there's been a request or not and know

if they have a contract, a permit, all of this. so to the extent that you're wondering whether this is a behested payment, maybe direct it to the parks department in the first instance to explain their determination. >> thank you to deputy city attorney pearson. i understand the answer, which is a behest has to be done at the request of the city official who has that inherent conflict because of the contract. it is true, i have experienced and i imagine others have, where a third party will come and say out of the goodness of their heart, they want to make a donation to the library or whatever and nobody asks them to do it. the kind of behavior that the legislation that we passed was going after was city official grants contract and then city official says hey, either before

or after the contract was granted, please donate to this or that charity. that was the issue. that was the kind of behavior we were trying to stamp out. but if in this instance, the parks alliance not was the holder of a contract granted by the city, came out of the goodness of their heart and said we want to make a contribution and it was not done at anybody's behest i would like to know that from the department. is somebody here from the recreation department to answer that. >> we do have representatives. >> hi. can you hear and see me? >> we can hear you but i can't see you, but we can hear you.

>> hi. so was there a specific question you are directing to me or to beverly with rec park? >> i believe to paraphrase, the question is was any one of these gifts in item 41 or 42 on behest of the department. >> 42. 41 would be the port. >> did you catch that abigail? >> yes, thank you. to my understanding it was not a behest but it is my understanding that the department is supposed to work with the city attorney's office to confirm the understanding of the behested payment legislation. >> i do see beverly, was there anything you wanted to add? >> hi supervisors. we're happy to continue conferring with our city attorney. i understand -- the letter from

the mayor's office did come out. we're happy to reconnect with the city attorney. i don't know if they're on the call to help provide more understanding. abigail has worked the most with regards the the project. >> i think we got the legal device. did rec and park ask, solicit the payment or affirmatively come from the parks alliance without being solicited, that's the question. >> beverly? abigail? >> so, the friends of the japanese tea garden are fiscally sponsored by the san francisco parks alliance. they came to us asking to get

involved with the tea garden and to work on different projects with the main project being a renovation. so when this happened, the behested payment legislation was not in effect but nonetheless, it is my understanding it is not considered a behest. we did not specifically ask them for a specific amount of money for a project. >> perfect, that was the answer i was hoping to hear. thank you very much. >> supervisor ronen. >> yes, thank you. you know, this came up not on this particular item or maybe it was this particular item, i'm looking at supervisor mar who asked the question -- no, it was not this item. it was a different item that came to budget and finance. these questions are so fact intensive and involves so many different people with the department that i just think we need protocol.

i don't think that the supervisors should be responsible for confirming every item that we vote on has met the requirements of the behested payment legislation. we spend hours and hours in budget committee as it is going over these items and if we had to call everyone and be responsible for confirming for every item we vote on that no one in the department made the request or that, you know, no one had a conflict with that -- i'm not taking that on. i'm just saying that publicly as the chair of the budget committee, i expect that the items that come to our committee have been vetted by the department and by the city attorney prior to coming to committee and meet the requirements of the behested payment legislation. i want to put that out clearly. this legislation has been a nightmare. what we have heard from different departments on this

legislation from different city attorneys on this legislation, what we're hearing from the mayor, in terms of what is possible. this is -- this legislation has turned so much of my work, you know, on its head. and i am just declaring right here and right now, i'm not going to do the investigative work for every item that comes before the budget committee that it meets behested and i don't think we should have to do that as a board. >> i actually agree with you 100% but our department heads have to be clear and understand what our legislation states as they work with city attorneys rather than having their own interpretations and scaring the living daylights out of several organizations and saying summer programming is not going to happen because of a whim or something they got some information they received that was not from our city attorney.

i 100% agree with you. it's not our job to make that determination. but to your point, what you're asking department heads to do, they have to know and understand the legislation that quite frankly is not that difficult from my standpoint and city attorney, for all of us interprets what is and what is not appropriate as what our legislation states. that's not what happened in some of these cases. without objection, these resolutions are adopted unanimously. madam clerk, item 43. >> item 43 is a resolution to approve the settlement of the unlitigated claims filed by zoom video communications inc for the

city's release of 6 million in outstanding user tax liabilities and interest and fees for tax periods january 1st, 2014, through april 30th, 2021, and payment to the city of approximately 6.2 million in additional telephone users tax for said term, the claims involve refund of telephone user taxes. >> thank you madam clerk. we'll take this item same as same call and this resolution is adopted unanimously. please call item 44. >> a resolution to initiate a landmark designation for the intersection of turk and taylor street within the transgender cultural district. >> thank you madam clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster.

we'll take this item same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. please call item 45. >> item 45, a resolution to approve the specific projects to be funded by fiscal year 2022-23 road maintenance and rehabilitation account funds as established by california senate bill number one, the road repair and accountability act of 2017. >> thank you. supervisor safai. >> please add me as a co-sponsor. >> thank you. i don't see anyone else. we'll take this item same house same call. without objection, it is adopted unanimously. please call item number 46. >> 46 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to require the police department for a community policing plan at each district police station coordinating foot and bike

patrol and input and require the public posting of the plan in an annual update. >> thank you. supervisor safai. >> please add me as a co-sponsor. >> thank you. this is passed on first reading unanimously. please call item 47. >> an ordinance to amend the administrative code to require the department of hsh to submit to the board and mayor a plan to implement a program to provide unsheltered persons in san francisco with access to shelter and permanent supportive housing, including a cost estimate of implementation requiring hsh to fully implement the place for all program and require hsh to implement a system to allow individuals experiencing homelessness to register for shelter by telephone and determine the ceqa determination.

supervisor safai. >> please add me as a co-sponsor and just to clarify, i think we said that in committee and somehow it didn't make it into the record. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor peskin. >> is there somebody here from hsh? i'm fine with the legislation but isn't this what hsh does, isn't this what you're supposed to do, to have a plan to end homelessness in san francisco. are we just telling you how to do your job or what is this in your estimation. >> through the president of the board, you know, this ordinance does specify what should be in

the plan. hsh is engaged in the strategic planning process right now. that planning process, we have only done it once before, but in the past did not and would not have likely focused on how many shelter beds are needed without this ordinance. we have been largely focusing on the determining the right balance between investments in prevention, shelter and permanent housing. this ordinance would call on us to determine how many additional shelter beds we would need to offer a shelter bed to everyone experiencing unsheltered homelessness in san francisco. it gives us a narrower or a more specific direction for our strategic planning and more specifically for our data modelling, which we are eager to bring back to the board around the end of the year when it will be completed. >> thank you.

that's helpful. do you characterize this as a collaborative process between yourself and that sponsoring supervisor, not yourself but hsh -- >> yes. >> as it relates the a plan you were undertaking anyway but gives more guidance for what is included in the plan, does that sound about right? >> yes, this has been a collaborative process as supervisor mandelman and his staff have been very open to working with us, particularly around interested in including housing to really focus on the flow of the system, ensuring people are moving not just into shelter off the street but into housing. we appreciate his collaboration. >> i'm voting for a plan, sounds good. >> thank you. supervisor ronen. >> did you want to speak first as the author?

>> i think the fact it has taken two years to make it to the board for a vote, there's something going on here and underlining tension between housing everyone is the solution to our homelessness crisis in san francisco and recognizing we have an unsheltered homelessness crisis that is among the worst in the country. homelessness is a national problem and it is a california-wide problem, but particularly acute in california and san francisco particularly because we have relatively so few exits from the street immediately. although there are many good things about the mayor's budget, there are 70 -- something like 70 additional shelter beds in the coming year's budget. i do think we all need to push mayor and board of supervisors and hsh to emphasize the humane

imperative of giving folks an exit from the street. and also the necessity of doing that if we want to address street conditions. i know from my experience, i know other supervisors have experienced this, we cannot address encampments in the neighborhoods impacted by encampments if we don't have adequate shelter to offer people and i think we need to be focused on that project of having safe exit from the street and as many that can be permanent supportive housing should be, but not make the goal of phs the only goal because i don't think we can keep doing what we have been doing for the past 20 years, i don't think it is going to allow us to address our street conditions. this is a modest step, it's a policy, i do think it is a bit of a change in policy from what the city has been saying and i think it requires some analysis over the next six months of

what it would take to move towards shelter for all. i think hsh is in agreement, we need more shelter, we push them in so many directions to do so many things, i think it is helpful to push them in the direction of trying to have exits from the street. >> thank you supervisor mandelman. supervisor ronen. >> i'm going to vote for this today but i'm voting for it believing that it will do nothing. honestly. the bottom line is, the only allocation for new temporary shelter in the budget is for 70 spots in my district, with its fair share of shelter, where i found the land and begged for the money. only shelter that has only been built in my district is because i found the land and i begged for the money. the bottom line is, the reason i'm doing that against my

constituent's wishes, as they yell at me and say no more in district 9 is because i can't possibly get -- ask our city departments to move people from the streets unless we have a place for them to go. it's not helpful to move them a block or into your district supervisor melgar or yours supervisor preston. i'm not going to do that to the person or my colleagues. if we have to have a place for them to go to ask them to leave the streets, we have to have new places for them to go. there's 70 spots. which by the way, i will insist are for the mission and mission only given the fight i'm going to have to launch against my own constituents to open them. but there's no real commitment. i agree with supervisor mandelman, we're never going to build enough permanent supportive housing in san francisco for the homeless people of the region, they're

not all from san francisco, they're from the region, unless the federal government starts building public housing again in this country. we as a city, even with our $14 billion budget are never going to have enough money to build enough housing for every person in the region, especially as inequality grows and more people lose their housing every day across the country. it's just -- it's not going to happen. and this is not our fault, this is not the mayor's fault, this is not the fault of the office of homelessness and supportive housing. we build records amounts of supportive housing every year. the voters voted for prop c to spend millions more dollars on that housing. we love being the city that provides compassionate responses to homelessness. we want to see people turn their lives around and to do it here in san francisco and we're doing all that.

but my problem is today, it's yesterday, it's the day before. it is the large amount of encampments in the heart of the mission in front of people's homes and small businesses. it is the amount of trash in those areas, it is the amount of human waste in those areas and drug paraphernalia in those areas that is unacceptable. it is unacceptable for the people and residents who are housed in the neighborhood and those who live without dignity on the streets. and we can't wait to permanently house every one of those people to do something bit. i can't tell you how much time myself but mostly from my office spends working with the city who does everything in his power every day working from early in the morning until late at night

treating people with so much love and humanity because that's who he is and his career working with people experiencing homelessness for decades but if he doesn't have a place to send people, there's nothing he can do. so they bang their heads on a wall every day trying to respond to the constituents complaining about what is happening in front of their homes and businesses. it is a nightmare and it is a nightmare we're dealing with daily. we begged for our 70 million for our 70 new cabins next to the elementary school. that will go over well with the parents. we're getting ready to deal with that this year. we have no other choices. we can have a report that we're all going to shove on to our wall saying we need 10,000 shelter beds or 5,000 -- if we're literally only funding 70 a year, it is useless. every time we have gotten

hundreds of e-mails, please support supervisor mandelman's plan shelter for all and i'm like i'll vote for it, but we will literally do nothing if we don't locate spaces and fund temporary spaces for people to be, it's not going to happen. i don't know the solution but we have to come up with something or point the finger where it should be pointed, not that we'll get anywhere with it, at the feds and say you can't do this to cities all over california and especially the west coast where the weather is a little better and we have a raging homeless crisis on our streets. you've got to get us the resources and get in the business of building public and social housing again. we'll do our best in the interim, we are doing our best. supervisor preston has been

fighting to build more social housing but we're never going to meet the need. we can't do that as one city in the state of california. we can't meet the need of the state and country when it comes to homelessness. so, you know, thank you for the work on this and thank you for the collaboration between -- thank you to all the people working on this from the city. all the complaints, it's not because they're not trying and working crazy hours every single day. there's not enough resources and not enough land in our dense little city. there's my rant for the day. sorry i went on so long but i literally deal with this on a daily basis and he's ready to

pull his hair out because he doesn't know what to say anymore to people. >> supervisor chan. >> now that we're on this trend of kind of expressing ourselves and about this issue. i mean, i'm -- i'm grateful that i had the opportunity sitting on public safety committee and just having those conversations already and participating in the conversation. looking at this legislation too and thinking -- referencing of what supervisor peskin has said, we're voting on asking basically our department to have a plan and do their job and that's what this really is. but, i mean, i think with supervisor melgar's amendments and suggestions and subsequently there were more at the committee, we give a pretty good parameter and i think there are

some from supervisor safai, too, about the triage center, sure, we give them a pretty good parameters and good directions about what the plan should look like and what it should include, but i also agree with supervisor ronen that, you know, this is really a regional issue and has to have a regional approach. if we can do that as a region, and as a state, combatting the pandemic in a lock-step approach in the early days, we all can recall, in the early days, the nine counties were in lockstep and shared agreement of approaching the pandemic. i don't understand why we cannot treat homelessness as a public health crisis it is to continue to actually call for that type of collaboration in a regional approach. that is the reality. we know that homeless individuals when they lose home elsewhere and come to san

francisco and sometimes vice versa. it's why during the pandemic, we have decreased but increased in neighboring counties. that's a reality we know that homeless population has been consistent in bay area, not just in san francisco or how it fluctuates. we need to have a consistent approach. i will be supporting this reluctantly as well. again, i am in a space where we have prop-c. the voters voted for it. let's see if it works. we'll see where we are heading in the result. but i have to say, i have to admit, it has been hard, it has been a hard hit area. we see, you know, more and more

rv's and it is challenging. we see more and more individuals, whatever reasons that can be -- maybe they are, they are roaming all around in district one. they really are. they're not concentrated in one area but we are seeing increase of more and more homeless individuals in the district. i'm sure colleagues, your districts are probably for some of you far worse than what we're experiencing. so that is real and i think we actually need to do better than what we are discussing today with item 47 with this plan, it has to be better. so thank you. >> thank you supervisor chan. supervisor melgar. >> thank you president walton. i would urge you all colleagues to vote for this legislation. i put a considerable amount of

work into supervisor mandelman's legislation. it's not because i thought it doesn't do anything. i think it's a pretty significant shift in policy. we are asking for a plan to expand the entire continuum. and i think that it is not something that we have done before. so even though some of the amendments, we had a little bit of a disagreement into what -- it eventually ended up in the legislation, i think it marks a shift in what we have been looking and prioritizing in the department. so i do think it was a collaborative process. we collaborated with folks at the coalition on homelessness and at rescue sf and supervisor mandelman's office. and you know, fundamentally,

reflects an expansion of how we look at shelter before we move folks into permanent supportive housing. it includes now not just folks who are sleeping in tents on our streets, which is totally unacceptable as supervisor ronen pointed out, but it now includes folks living in vehicles. and you know, i think we need lots of different types of ways that in all of our different neighborhoods, we provide a way for exiting, living on the street and public right of way. we need shelter beds for youth, we need cabin homes, we need folks places for people to park safely and not be at risk. (please stand by...)

>> supervisor safai: -- to tell us how many affordable units sit vacant on an annual basis. we had to ask for a budget and legislative analyst's report to tell us 305 units are sitting empty in our city. i share your frustration, supervisor ronen, and all of us have a lot of frustration, but for a very long time, and i don't think we're departing from it, this has been a housing first city. we have wanted to aspire to house people first, but the reality is we will never be able to house every single person that needs housing by

ourselves. as you said, supervisor ronen, this is a state issue, a federal issue, but, for the first time in our state's history, we have a governor who hails from the city and county of supervision who has the same level of frustration as we do, and governor newsom is making city and counties produce a real housing element. we are doing the same. they will be required to submit their own plans for the housing crisis. this week, i was in redwood city. just as you pull off of highway 84, and you move off to the right, there is a gigantic sign that says no vehicles allowed,

and you will not be able to sleep in your vehicle anywhere overnight by ordinance. we bear the brunt of that. the vast majority and the fastest increase of people unhoused in our city are living in their vehicle. vast majority of them are in supervisor walton's district, president walton's district, because that is outer parts of the country where there are no parking permit requirements -- in district 11, also in parts of district 7, district 9. we have seen a dramatic increase of people living in vehicles. this plan, i think -- and think, supervisor mandelman, for working on this to make what i think are sensible amendments. we asked for the acknowledgement of safe parking. we ask for the acknowledgement of we are still a -- we want

housing to still be part of the equation if people would be reasonably accepted or to accept a unit, that would decrease the number of shelter beds we need. but ultimately, we need to know at least a reasonable number. we're asking for a reasonable estimate, and then ultimately, at the end of the day, i think that will produce a plan. i know that mental health s.f., for example, i know you spent a lot of time working on that. it's taken an inordinate amount of time, but it wasn't until the tenderloin emergency that we were able to -- declaration that we were able to get an accelerates timeline on hiring -- an accelerated timeline on when we hire mental

health professionals. it takes time to get to the launching part of asking the department to put in their feedback of how we can put people into temporary shelter. we have to acknowledge that many of the individuals that come here that need housing are not san francisco residents. we have to incorporate that snoo a final plan. so i am voting for this today. i urge my colleagues to vote for this, and i -- you have my commitment for this, that this is not just an empty plan; that we will do something on this. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor preston?

. >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. i do want to thank supervisor mandelman for bringing this forward and for his flexibility and work with advocates. i want to thank supervisor melgar for working on this and leaning into some advocates for some amendments that i think really made some important changes to this law. i won't go through them. i think we're familiar, we know what's before us, but i think it's important, and i think there are certain aspects of viewing this work as really additive to our efforts to provide permanent supportive housing, not supplanting those efforts but delivering more shelter. i will be supporting this and appreciate the flexibility in authoring and working together on some of these amendments. just on some of the broader

issues, and obviously, we could spend a lot of time on, you know, converting this discussion into a broader discussion around homelessness in san francisco more comprehensively, but i think i just want to share my perspective that is -- like, we're not even, in my opinion, as a city, despite individual folks working hard. like, we're not even working in a serious way trying to get folks to not have to live unhoused. and i hear a number of colleagues on it, but i'm

concerned sometimes we as a city use that to not do everything we could be doing locally, and as a city with a $14 billion budget, other than, you know, other than maybe some reason folks aren't motivated to move forward and solve this problem, it's not like it's unsolvable. i think we would have to approach this differently than we're approaching it before we reach that conclusion. supervisor safai mentioned we have arms of government, you know, our affordable housing with hundreds of units sitting vacant. we just got a budget from the mayor that virtually zeros out

housing. you know, and then, earlier in this agenda, you know, i've got maybe a slightly different situation where supervisor ronen. i have a community that's begging for these things, that we're not only identifying sites and holding them and showing the funds and raising the funds at the ballot, we can't get the administration to purchase a $5 million building in our district to house people. i mean, the level of this administration to collaboratively working together to tackle the homelessness crisis, not so that housed neighbors don't have to see homeless people on the street, not so that people don't have to step in feces, but just so that people don't die on the streets.

it is ridiculous to think that this city and that this mayor and this administration could not tackle this issue in a more comprehensive way, and she would have the full support of this board working closely to do that. budget issues, things we'll handle in a different crisis.

i don't think i share with supervisor ronen that i don't think that this ordinance, like, transforms everything, but i will say that i do appreciate the effort to try to sound the alarm and do it in a way that's not going to cause more damage, and do it in a way thanks to advocates and the work of others earlier, so i'll be supporting it.

>> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor dorsey? >> thank you, president walton. you know, as a new supervisor, i represent neighborhoods that are on landfill, and one of the biggest fears, nightmares that i have, is that we may have a seismic event in this city, and if we could have buildings red tags, there would be tens of thousands of people that are homeless. there are people in a high-rise building that experienced a flooding incident, and they were all displaced. this isn't something that's akin to homelessness, but if i'm going to fight for people

in luxury high-rises, how could i possibly look an unsheltered person in the eye and say i'm not going to do the same thing for them. this is a leadership issue, and i'm proud to support this. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor dorsey. i want to preface my comments by saying that i respect each and every one of you, and every once in a while, when policies like this come to this body is we don't have shelters in every

neighborhood. so when we say we support this, we have a vehicle triage center, a safe sleep site. we are working hard to do everything we had to tackle homelessness and to make sure that folks are not on the street and have a place to go. in theory, of course we want a safe place for all, but like supervisor ronen said, we have to build housing that people can afford, and like supervisor preston said, there are resources to do that, but they're not prioritized for that. if we use prop i for what it was intended for, we would be able to build our own housing, and we are not going to address the issues of people on the street without us stepping us

as a city with a $14 billion budget and doing more. so this would be legislation in my opinion if we were talking about how we're all going to step up and work together and make sure that there are solutions to get people off the street in every district in san francisco. not just concentrated in district 9, district 3, district 5. that, we have to have a conversation about. we really want to solve this equitably. people keep bringing up all the housing goals that we have as a city. well, we don't build in a whole part of san francisco. there's an entire part of san francisco that we don't build in, and so if we don't build, if we're only going to build in a certain few areas, then we can't get upset and say we don't build housing.

i would love for people to really put their resources, put their energy, put their space behind it. i just want to say that we've got to do better in terms of working together and stepping up across the entire city if we really want to solve this problem, which i think there are solutions to, quite

frankly. and i don't see anyone else on the roster. i do believe we can take this item same house, same call. so without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madam clerk, can you please call item 48. >> clerk: item 48, this is a resolution to urge the california state legislative to pass the following state senate bills: 929, 965, 970, 1035, 1154, 1227, 1238, and 1416, introduced by california senator susan eggman, on legislation modernizing california's behavioral health continuum. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you, president walton, and thank you, supervisor mandelman, for

introducing this and, you know, for really being a thought partner on these issues. i talk to supervisor mandelman probably every week about how to solve mental illness and substance use. i am going to support this, as well, extremely reluctantly, and it's reluctant because -- well, first of all, allies of mine that i'm rarely on the other side of, including aclu, and association on law and poverty. i'm going to support this because i'm out with the fire department or i'm out with the h.o.t. team, and someone is so,

so sick, so gravely disabled. i mean, sores, coughing, sitting in their own feces. i mean, situations where how in a civilized society that we're allowing them to be in?

the way that we interpret them in san francisco are way, way too strict, and they do not allow us to help people that desperately need help, so it's a resolution. resolutions don't have a ton of power, but for the little power that they have, i will be supporting this today. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, colleagues. i want to thank supervisor mandelman and the psns committee for their thoughtful discussion on this item, and, you know, as my staff shared with supervisor mandelman's office, prior to that committee hearing and the reason we asked for it to be sent to committee

is some concerns about this collection of bills, and it's a number of them all in one resolution. most notably, i would say s.b. 1419 and 1227, which would possibly subject people to longer holds. and as supervisor ronen pointed out, both of these bills being opposed by aclu, disability rights california, i believe the western center, as well, a number of other civil rights organizations, and due to concerns that, really, the impact on people's due process rights as well as concerns that the proposed expansion of holds and the definition of gravely

disabled is not an evidence-based solution for the wider problem of mental illness. the wider purpose u as supervisor ronen pointed out, is to address some serious needs, but i think some of these bills overreach, and i think that some of the concerns are pressing enough to go to committee, and i did not view them from the outset as being noncontroversial. i think these --

>> president walton: supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i will be brief. i guess i want to say that i think that these eight bills are extremely thoughtful, and i do want to thank senator eggman who is -- who has a background in mental health in the state senate. until the middle of the last

century, the state was responsible for mental health. there were problems with it, but it was a floor below which californians could not sink, and today, california does not have a floor. senator eggman are trying to establish a floor below which people cannot sink. supervisor ronen and i are working together to make sure that we can get something like that. there is a great need for the state to not only fund mental health but establish some minimal requirements around what californians are entitled to regardless of the situations they find themselves.

i understand the aclu and western center's opposition. they're just wrong. leaving folks to die on the streets because we want to protect their civil liberties strikes me as such a misapplication of civil will he -- liberties. we should be ashamed of ourselves, ashamed of ourselves that we don't have the appropriate facilities. when you really lean into a particular person's story, we find that we can't be -- the

state can't be that parent because of legal impediments, and we need to have the placements, we need to have the facilities, we need to have the board and cares. we need the locked facilities, which we don't have, when we need them, but it strikes me as super reasonable and is the way to go but that's not an excuse for not taking care of them. i recommend an aye vote. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mandelman. i don't see anyone else on the roster. madam clerk, can we do a roll call for item 48? >> clerk: on item 48 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are eight ayes and three noes, with supervisors preston, melgar, and ronen in the dissent. >> president walton: madam clerk, will you please call item 49. >> clerk: item 49 is a motion appointing norman linde, term ending december 1, 2023, to the soma community stabilization fund community advisory committee. >> president walton: i don't see anyone on the roster to speak, so let's have a roll

call, please. >> clerk: on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, this motion is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call items 52 through 83 together. >> clerk: items 52, and i'll just state this, mr. president, items 52 through 85 were considered by the government audit and oversight committee at a regular meeting on thursday, june 2, 2022, and were sent as committee reports. the president has asked that i read items 52 through 83.

these are ordinances that adopt and implement various memorandum of undering, m.o.u.'s between the city and county to be effective july 1, 2022 through june 30, 2024. for item 52, this is with the building inspectors association. for item 53 is between the city and the crafts coalition. item 54 is with the deputy probation officers association. item 55 is with the san francisco deputy sheriffs association. 56 is with the district attorney investigators' association, and item 57 is between the city and the

international brotherhood of electricity workers, local 6. item 58 adopts and implements the collective -- m.o.u. between the city and county and the international federation of professional and technical engineers. item 5 is with the laborers international union. item 60 is with the machinists union. item 61 is with the municipal attorneys association. item 62 is with the municipal executives association. item 63 is with the operating engineers local union number three. item 64 is with the operating engineers local union number three supervising probation officers. item 65 is with the city workers united painters.

item 66 is with the san francisco sheriffs managers and supervisors association. item 67 is the ordinance adopting skpimp willmenting the collective bargaining agreement between the city and service employees international union, local 1021. item 68 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the m.o.u. between the city and the international union of operating engineers stationary engineers, local 39. item 69 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the m.o.u. between the city and the teamsters, local 856. item 70 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the m.o.u. between the city and

teamsters local 856, supervising registered nurses. item 71 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the m.o.u. between the city and transport workers union of america. item 72 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the transport workers union of america, local 250 a, automotive service workers 7410. item 74 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the transport workers union of america, local 250-a, multiunit. item 74 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the m.o.u. between the city and the united association of journey men and apprentices of the plumbing and pipe fitting industry, local 38.

item 75 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the collective bargaining agreement between the city and union of american physicians and dentists, unit 17. item 76 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the union of american physicians and dentists, unit 18. item 77 is an ordinancing fixing compensation for persons employed by the city whose compensation is subject to the provisions of 18 a-8.409 of the charter. item 78 is an ordinance adapting and implementing the fourth amendment to the 2018-2023 m.o.u. between the city and the san francisco firefighters union local 798, unit 2.

item 79 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the third amendment to the 2018-2023 m.o.u. between the city and the san francisco firefighters union, local 798, unit 1. item 80 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the second amendment to the 2018-2023 m.o.u. between the city and the san francisco police officers association. item 81 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the second amendment to the 2018-2023 m.o.u. between the city and the municipal executives' association police. item 82 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the second amendment to the 2018-2023 m.o.u. between the city and the municipal executives' association fire item 83 is an ordinance

adopting and implementing the letter of agreement between the city and the committee of interns and residents. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, do we wish to sever any items? supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: 80 and 81, please. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you. before i begin, i would like to say that my partner is a party to one of the m.o.u.s being considered today. i have confirmed with the city attorney's office that i have no legal conflict in acting in any item related to this union. however, i did want to disclose that this impacts my family member, so i just wanted to

include that on the record and be transparent. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you. supervisor chan is making me feel that i should disclose that my husband is a member of the attorney's union, but i don't have a conflict, is that correct? i see deputy city attorney pearson nodding. >> there is no conflict, but we would recommend that you disclose those relationships. >> president walton: thank you very much. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: just want to disclose my spouse is part of the municipal attorneys association for the record. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai, and to the public, my wife is a member of

seiu number 1021, and i want to make sure that i have no conflict. deputy city attorney pearson? >> ms. pearson: deputy city attorney ann pearson. it's based on state law, which prevents certain types of state law from being conflicts. i don't know more about your situation, but it sounds similar to the facts that supervisor chan presented to us. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you. my daughter is an employee of the water department. >> president walton: thank you. madam clerk, can we vote on all

items except 80 and 81? >> clerk: yes. on items 52 through 83 except 80 and 81 -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, these items are passed unanimously. madam clerk, please call 80. >> clerk: item 80 is an ordinance adopting and

implementing the second amendment to the 2018-2023 m.o.u. between the city and county of san francisco and the san francisco police officers association, to restore effective june 30, 2022, a deferred 1% base wage increase originally due on july 1, 2020. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: i would ask that we call 80 and 81 together. >> president walton: madam clerk, would you please call item 81. >> clerk: item 81 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the second amendment to the 2018-2023 m.o.u. between the city and the municipal executives' association police, to restore effective june 30, 2022, a deferred 1% base wage increase originally due on july 1, 2020. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you. i want to say thank you to

director eisen and her staff in getting such broad consensus on so many items, bringing it before us. the only exception, from my point of view, these that came without recommendation, 80 and 81, the police amendments to the m.o.u.s, and colleagues, the last time that the police officers association m.o.u. came before this body, i expressed concern that the city was giving up our power to negotiate on any reforms either directly or by side letters, and nothing has changed since those concerns came up.

i want to be clear, i'm not speaking today to argue that workers should not get a fair wage for the work that they're doing. it really is not about that, and i have no problem making sure that our city employees, any of them, are getting a fair and equitable contract. but i think in the city, the m.o.u. is one of the few things that we have to make a change and transform policing. the other actual that which have is the budget process, so we'll obviously be dealing with that in the upcoming weeks, but as an entity, the san francisco police department has a history of delaying much needed reforms and obstructing much needed reforms, including the 270 recommendations from the d.o.j. that we've had hearing after

hearing on, and the p.o.a., i think i would generously say, a heavy hand of drawing out the process of even implementing the reforms that have been implemented to date. despite the events of the last two years of collective self-reflecting on policing in our society, i don't see anything changing any time soon. i think over the last year, police departments become tress transparent over the transcriptions of their radio communications. we've seen officers engaging in what seems like work stopping. the department attempted to unilaterally withdraw from its

m.o.u. that unilaterally allowed investigation of officers, and the deputy continues to stop, search, and use force at disproportionately alarming rates. the p.o.a. has spoke out already before he's been introduced. so instead of trying to negotiate to make sure that the p.o.a. is being cooperative in these proposed reforms, the

proposals would amend the current m.o.u. to give the p.o.a. -- and it's not just the deferred wage in the title, it would give them generous base wage raises and benefits. you will not find in any other m.o.u. before us, none of the other m.o.u.s have anything even close to what is being given in this m.o.u., and that's without any attempt to ensure that reform efforts won't stall due to p.o.a. interference, so i see this, if it is approved, as really a missed opportunity against to show that we're serious about addressing the harms of racist outcomes from policing in our city that persist and have not gotten better. i'm not comfortable supporting

these items, so i will not voting no on both item 80 and 81. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. just to add my two cents, my support of these items are about the fact that i'm okay with the retention of qualified officers who care about community, and i am okay with increasing the salary of new trained officers. i think that is important, but by no means does this give a reflection that i'm giving support for items as we go through the budget process that don't match the data or the record of sfpd when it comes to addressing reforms and when it comes to hiring, but i think this vote right here is bigger than the p.o.a., which everybody clearly knows that i'm not fond of, but this is

something that i will be supporting. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. president. i think that one of the things that you said was really important. you can be committed to justice reform and be just as committed to supporting a fully funded police department. i don't think there's any question in the city right now that we have some shortages. talk to any of your captains. ask them about their staffing issues. ask them about their retention issues. as the president of the retiermt board, i can tell you that we have seen a significant number of police officers retire in larger numbers than there have been in any other years. we are losing officers in the city. the purpose of this proposal today is about performance pay

and retention pay, and i think that is a thoughtful proposal. i am supportive of that proposal, and i am just as deeply supportive of justice reform and continuing to address many of the issues that supervisor preston brought up as it relates to traffic enforcement, as it relates to disproportionate enforcement when it comes to communities of color, and i think we can all agree that it is something that we need to continue to do better on, but that does not in any way address the issue of retaining officers in the city, recruiting officers in the city, and ensuring that we have proper staffing because we have issues of, i would say, brazen crime that has happened in the last couple of years. the statistics bear that out. talk to the average citizen of san francisco that it bears out. we need to do better, and this is a step in the right direction.

>> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai? supervisor dorsey? >> thank you. so as you may know, i served until recently on the command staff of the police department. i worked for the chief of police and management, and i know it's probably well known that the police officers association has some issues sometimes with the chief of police and management also, but i'm going to be supportive of this. one of them is we have a national police staffing crisis that in many ways is a generational perfect storm. you may recall during the 1992 presidential races, president clinton, then candidate clinton, talked about hiring 100,000 police officers and getting them on the street, and

president clinton did that. there are a generational cohort that are coming up on retirement age. many of them are at retirement age, and san francisco, like many of them, are going to be facing a disproportionate number of them retiring. we are going to -- we don't want to be losing those officers at a time when we are already close to 25% understaffed. the other generational if he nom unanimous that's going on is there is a generation of folks who really aren't choosing public safety careers, and in my former role on the command staff, about a month, 1.5 months ago, i hosted cbs

news national. the reporter asked every member of our police academy how many people in your family or friends pressured you to not choose this profession, and every single hand went up. i will say as unimpressive as the numbers are, the caliber of people that are choosing policing is incredibly impressive, but we really need more. i think this m.o.u. does that, assesses our position competitively and responds to that. the other thing i want to mention is i didn't have the opportunity, obviously, to serve with norman yee, former president norman yee, but i really admired and appreciated

the leadership he brought to the issue of police staffing in san francisco which goes back to, i mean, since i was here back in the 90s. this was a number, an arbitrary charter that had been in our records for a number of years, and i was really impressed that president yee brought some real thoughtfulness to how we were going to look at police staffing, how many full-duty police officers we should have. not just based on residential population, which for a city like san francisco, is never really going to give us anything accurate. san francisco in 2019 had 26 million visitors. that's roughly the population of the state of texas coming to visit. that was the cornerstone of our economy. even as we're struggling to come back, i think we had, i want to say 15 million visitors in 2021.

that's more than the state of michigan coming to visit. we have to police all of those visitors, as well, so i appreciation the fact that for the first time in a generation, we really do have our arms around how much police staffing we should have, and i'm grateful to president yee for that. the next thing is while the police officers association, while they are entitled to have their opinion on things, they have not been an impediment to reform. when i was interviewing to come back to the city, one of the reasons why i sought out to work in the san francisco police department, under chief bill scott, i saw a changemaker

who was doing something really remarkable. san francisco had our own version of george floyd in 2015-2016. i was in this building when hundreds of people were chanting for chief of police to be fired, and it did happen that there was -- that, you know, a mayor decided that it was time for a change in the department, and that it was time to lead reform. i was honored to be a part of that for a couple of years, and the murder of george floyd did something extraordinary in this country, for 18,000 police department to look for leadership. a police department that has done things on bias and use of force reform, recruitment, and retention, that they need to be doing, and it has been remarkable to see how many police departments are looking

at san francisco's police department to be able to do that. i was lucky enough to be a part of this city when we were leading change on marriage reform, and i think we're leading change on police reform, so i'm going to be supporting this, and i would urge my colleagues to, as well. thanks. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor dorsey. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you, president walton. first, i wanted to associate my comments with those of president walton's. i will be supporting these two m.o.u.s for two reasons. the first one is i think that, as supervisor safai stated, we are really understaffed in many of the precincts around the city. in my district, the taraval

precinct has been understaffed for quite sometime, and that's -- it has both suffered instability in leadership and also a severe shortage of officers, and there's just a plain challenge of, you know, filling three shifts 24 hours a day, and what we don't talk about is the stress that that puts on those officers that do remain in that precinct, and i worry that folks who are tired, who have worked back-to-back for weeks on end with overtime, with being called to union square or wherever it is they get called to, not in the best frame of mind to make good decisions. judgment that involve life and death sometimes or use of force when you are tired and

stressed, it's not the best conditions, so i worry about that quite a bit. i want us to have adequate staffing levels. but the second thing that i want to put out there -- i, too, am a fan of chief scott, and i hope that i get what i need in this upcoming budget cycle, and that is that i want us to recruit in this budget cycle, and we will only be able to do that if the culture of the department is inviting to this generation with the assumptions that we have about racial and gender equality that this generation now has, having grownup in, you know, an age of, you know, digital connectedness where you can see what's happening around the country. so, you know, bonuses are fine, you know, i think, but i think that's what's more telling is

whether people want to come, whether they can standup to their friends and family and say yeah, i'm doing something good for the world, and that can only happen if we not just implement the reforms but evidence it with our numbers, and i'm not sure we can do that quite yet. but i do want us to get to the place where we're recruiting city kids to be in these positions, kids who have deep knowledge of communities, who have relationship in these communities, who can be part of bringing peace to the community, not, you know, just force. and so in order to do that, i do want to see a plan. i have been, you know, discussing this with nicolle jones, who is in charge of these things now, and i am a big fan. but i want to see recruitment that may not giving them not

just what they want but also what our communities want. i want chinese speakers and mandarin speakers and people that can bring peace to communities and have the cultural and linguistic expertise to be able to provide these services to san francisco, so thank you very much, president walton. >> president walton: thank you very much, supervisor melgar. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, supervisor walton. this is not particularly earth shattering, but it is mildly important to me, and it is a distinction that has some import, and that is that there is a difference between a union and a bargaining unit.

the municipal attorneys association, the municipal executives' association, the police officers association, they are unions, but they are not affiliated with the afl/cio. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you, president walton. when i heard mayor breed was including in the budget for police officers a bump at five years and a bump at 15 years, and i asked why that was, they said they cannot compete with the surrounding counties, so i asked them to send me the data with what are their entry level wages. it turns out we are not very

competitive. they are right. starting salaries, san francisco is way behind santa clara, way behind redwood city, way behind san mateo, way behind daly city, substantially behind san jose, alameda, palo alto, fremont, richmond, but these are all counties where their cost of living is much less than san francisco. then at year 15, when there's a bump, san francisco is, again, way behind santa clara, but santa clara is way ahead of us in every single department. that's not surprising, but it is surprising to learn that we're behind san jose, daly

city, fremont, and oakland, and for that reason, i'm supporting these amendments here today. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president walton. yeah, i'm supporting this today, and i just -- we have been talking about police staffing a lot, and i want to understand -- i just want to be clear that i know this is a complex topic and a lot of feelings around it, and people have different experiences with police than i have, and i respect those -- those experienced, those challenges, and i think that sometimes we get into a situation where we talk about these issues in a way that makes others upset, and i don't think that's necessary because i think we are on the same page about how we want to take care of our constituents and how we want to take care of people who visit

here, and how we want to take care of people who are actually employed by the city and county of san francisco. when we look at it, we know we can't meet the demands for service or meet the needs of necessary reforms or staffing. our current staffing levels really are limiting service, and i really think you all see that. it's no secret as we've been talking about it, the police department is struggling to recruit. it's really particular i think to san francisco. we've struggled to recruit and retain officers, and we have a

generation of officers that are in the process of retiring, and we've not been able to recruit enough to replace those who leave. we're losing approximately two officers per week through attrition. applications to our academy have significantly decreased over the past five years, falling by 67% from 2017 to 2021. similarly, in 2017, the department hired 165 officers. in 2021, it hired 41 officers, and in 2022, it has hired 26 officers to date. we do lag behind other cities when it comes to per capita representation. new york has 42 officers for every 10,000 residents. chicago has 44. washington, d.c. has 61. philadelphia has 40. boston has 31, and san francisco would only have 22 if

all the budgeted positions are filled, but we know that they aren't right now, and we are actually closer to 19 police officers per 10,000 residents. as i said, that has real live consequences in terms of demand for service, community policing, and all that we expect our department to do. and another thing that's concerning me is we know policing is a very tough career path. as supervisor dorsey just suggested, people are encouraging family not to go into this line of work for obvious reasons. it's dangerous, and there are a lot of issues as we know. in seattle right now, the police department sexual assault and child abuse unit has been so depleted that they've stopped assigning

detectives to new cases. we cannot let that happen here. we cannot let that happen in san francisco. we know that our force time is stretched with almost 80% of time responding to calls that come in. the san francisco police department cannot properly staff crime prevention efforts and do all that we ask them to do. foot beat patrols are essential in establishing community, establishing relations, and deterring crime. today, we voted to approve a new requirement, supervisor mar's legislation to enhance community policing through foot and bike patrols. it's a great plan and something that we need to do, but that ordinance will never take effect if we're unable to staff the deputy adequately.

more troubling is the response times have also slowed, which means that san franciscans who call 911 are waiting longer for help to arrive. we know that, we hear it. sometimes we hear that they just don't want to come, but the reality is there's not enough of them to respond to these calls. that's what the data shows. in 2016, the department of justice and san francisco police department entered into an agreement to enhance police accountability, eliminate bias, expand community engagement, limit force, and diversify staff. as you know, the d.o.j. made 270 recommendations, and the police department has worked hard to implement most of them, unlike other departments who have worked hard to resist it. as supervisor dorsey said, a lot of these jurisdictions can

learn something from san francisco. we know that serious change requires serious investment, and san francisco will not be able to sustain the reforms that we have made, but we can't continue that progress without on going support to make sure that we are investing in our department so we recruit the best officers that treat our citizens well, that know how to implement the use of force policies that they are taught. i can't imagine anyone not wanting that. for more than two years, now, we have known, we have known now for more than two years that our patrol staffing levels have been inadequate, and we have to change that. supervisor ronen mentioned that, and actually, she had a lot more jurisdictions than i had. 60% bay area jurisdictions

actually play more than san francisco. i have santa clara, berkeley, fremont, daly city, and oakland. adjustments to the bottom steps will help attract new officers. another thing we need to look at is lateral bonuses. good officers that are in other bay area jurisdictions or other jurisdictions elsewhere, lateral bonuses to pull them over should be higher and more competitive than what we see in other jurisdictions, but again, we are not competitive in that department, either, just like we are not competitive in our pay. we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to thousands of citizens in san francisco calling 911, expecting a timely response. we need to ensure we get it. i remain committed to making sure our police agencies are

adequately staffed to meet the challenges before us, and i will be supporting this. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you, president walton. in my opinion, there is a difference between quality of workers and the quantity of workers, and -- and in a coalition of performance evaluation. and what is before us, though, today, i think it's a strategy to retain and obtain more quality police officers, and i do think that that is something that i can stand behind, and very similar to president walton's approach to this is that that's my way of thinking about why i will be supporting today's m.o.u. but i do think it does require

us not today regarding these particular two items, but we should really start thinking about the standards and the strategies or how do we approach police reform to ensure public safety? i don't think they are multiwally exclusive. we can do both, but how do we approach that, and i think that staffing is a conversation in terms of level of staffing what is enough and what is required, what meet the standard of the city? let's also, you know -- because when it comes to staffing, i also want to talk about two parts, you know, between the wages and benefits to attract quality officers versus the level of staffing. let me also be clear that we are both city and county in a

very small -- i mean, by comparison, to some other counties. we actually as a city and county, we have both sheriff department and police department as our law enforcement agency. that is not usual in other counties, so i think that it is time for us -- not for today, but for the long-term to really think about law enforcement's reform i think is not just police form, but law enforcement reform and public safety measures that truly deliver meaningful results because frankly not just in the last two years during pandemic but even long before the pandemic we already facing some of the issues. it was actually the reason why board president nor unanimous yee brought prop e to the voters and determine

independently what is the staffing requirement for the city. but i -- again, i think that is a different conversation than what is before us today, which is simply just straightforward wages and benefits for police officers and, in my opinion, all m.o.u. terms and conditions is a strategy for the city to obtain and retain quality workers and in this case quality police officers. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, president walton. i just wanted to say that i appreciate these discussion about these two m.o.u.s for sfpd personnel, and it seems like these are always the ones that are most complicated when the -- when the full set of labor agreements come before the board, and i -- you know, in the past, we have -- or the last time around, we did look at trying to incorporate police

reform provisions into the m.o.u. or at least get d.h.r. to negotiate around that, and we were not able -- that was not able to happen. i appreciate supervisor preston, for you continuing to push those discussions, but i am going to be supportive of these today just because it's been clear to me as the chair of the public safety and neighborhood services committee and the hearings that we've had on a number of issues that we do have to deal with the staff shortage in the police department. that's really a result of vacancies and the inability of the department to really fill those vacancies, and i, along with supervisor melgar and others, attended the last police academy graduates at scottish rite temple, and i think there were only 13, 14

graduates, so i think what's included in the m.o.u. are things that i support in order for us to at least fill the vacant positions that are now over 200 in the police department. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. i just want to say that the premise of this m.o.u. as is clear from the discussion here is not that these increases and this very generous package with no commitment to reforms or anything back, it's not that this is needed for fairness or equity. it's not that the police are underpaid compared to other folks in the city. i mean, i think it would be hard to make that argument. we don't have them in front of us, but the number between, say, a starting salary for a teacher versus police officer, i think it's pretty clear that the police starting point is -- is pretty generous, and then, they're getting more under this

m.o.u. than any of the other m.o.u.s before us. but so i don't think the premise is that looking at city jobs as a matter of fairness or equity. the premise that i'm hearing is the argument that we need to be offering this kind of package more and more in order to keep and retain officers and in order to attract officers from other areas that -- from other areas with generous packages. i think this is the second cycle that i've been on the board for this. unfortunately, the message from d.h.r. and the board and the mayor is that we are not going to use the leverage of contract negotiations around m.o.u.s to extract concessions around things like reform. so we didn't do it last time, we're not doing it this time.

it sounds like other colleagues -- and again, there's a budget process, and we can address a lot of these issues in the budget process. i just think we have to be very careful where we are. it sounds like there's been a decision as a city when it comes to negotiating with police around salary and contract matters that we are not -- that we are going to base the analysis -- and i want to caution against basing the analysis on this assumption around that we as a community and as a city are understaffed and underpoliced. i think that a lot of people experience that differently in a lot of parts of san francisco. and the understaffing narrative, while i understand that that's pumped out there on

a daily basis. i hope -- basis, i hope that we can take a deeper look at some of these things. we have more police per capita than a lot of large cities in california. if you look at the cjcj report, it goes into great detail how we're spending and our staffing levels and results. i don't think it is a matter of fact, i think it is a matter of opinion and spin right now to constantly be talking about this constant understaffing and the solution to be massive increases in staffing. i don't think that's the direction we should be going. i think we should be looking at the data, and most importantly, we should not be accepting the framing of this of police who have an interest as parties to this contract around the staffing needs. the idea that we're going to check in with the captains, all

due respect to the captains, i've worked closely with the captains in my district, but i'm not just going to take their words around staffing in their department as gospel. we have to look at the objective data. i would urge folks to look at the cjcj report, and i would hope as we go into the budget process not accepting this idea that we need to be just giving a blank check again and again in order to get to what is -- somehow fill who is perpetually framed every cycle as this severe understaffing. and i also, last point, want to say that none of this ever gets updated with all we're doing, with all of work that we're doing. we don't even look at the fact that we as a city came together

in 2020 to push for nonpolice responses in crises situations. i'll be voting no, and i thank you for your time. appreciate it. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. i wanted to speak to a point that in 2020 there were a series of conversations between the city as it related to police reform in the context of salary negotiations between then head of the p.o.a. tony montoya and their attorney, rocky lucia and their representatives. that was done with the

acquiescence of the police department, so i wanted to state that on the record. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, supervisor peskin, for that. i was going to say, the new negotiations are about to start for the police department. basically, this starting next month, is the new round for the negotiations. and my hope is that regardless of whether you support this, that the message we can give, either privately or publicly is that is that kind of discussion needs to occur in the context of reaching the new m.o.u. that's going to then set things in stone for the years to come. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston, and i don't

want to belabor this discussion and turn this into a budget meeting, but it is budget season. just to clarify, i am in no way, shape, or form, saying that the police department does not have enough resources, so i do not want to get that misconstrued into why i'm supporting this. in fact, i think there's a deployment issue with the police department, but by no means am i saying that they don't have enough resources. the captains in my district are highly upset that when things are happening in other parts of san francisco, officers are steadily redeployed from their stations to ge and play security guard in area -- to go and play security guard in areas with less violent crime. these are issues that i do have with captains and police officers. also, i do want to state that there is data out that there states that we are not

understaffed as a police department in san francisco. the deployment strategies that we are used, how we all work together to keep each other safe, those are all real issues, but i am in no way saying that we are understaffed as a police department. i do not want to get that construed with the workers. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, president walton. i don't want to belabor this or talk about this too much more, but i am one of the godparents of the street crisis response teams, the task force, and others. we've talked about this on this board. i think we're seeing good outreach by these teams.

it is not leading to a decrease in police service. i think that we've made -- you know, with or without, whether we think we need to be leveraging more out of the p.o.a. at this time, we have made incredible change with how police responses occur in this city, i mean, dramatic. i think it doesn't mean you need more police to do the work that you were doing before. i don't know that the police department is underresourced. i think we're understaffed, and i think that unless we're spending our money on other things besided staffing, i think we are -- besides staffing, i think we are understaffed, and i think the mayor and her staff has proposed a modest increase that would get us back to where we were before the pandemic or a

little bit less. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mandelman. i can guarantee you we have a different definition of what modest is. with that, i believe we are going to call for a roll call vote. can we take items 80 and 81 together, madam clerk? >> clerk: that is correct, mr. president. >> president walton: let's do a roll call vote on items 80 and 81. >> clerk: on items 80 and 81 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are ten ayes and one no, with supervisor preston in the dissent. >> president walton: thank you, by a vote of 10-1, these

ordinances are passed on first reading. madam clerk, it looks like item 84 was not sent as a committee report. >> clerk: that's correct. >> president walton: so can you please call item 85. >> clerk: item 85 is an ordinance amending the environment and health codes to implement state regulations issued under senate bill 1383, 2016, the short-lived climate pollutant reduction law. --. >> president walton: oh, i'm sorry. i didn't know that you were finished when you heard the echo. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: please add me as a cosponsor. >> clerk: noted. >> president walton: madam clerk, please call the roll on item 85. >> clerk: on item 85 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam clerk. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. [gavel]. >> president walton: madam clerk, please call item 86. >> clerk: yes. i will first note that items 86 through 88 were considered by the land use and transportation committee meeting at a regular meeting on monday, june 6, and were all three forwarded as committee reports. item 86 is an ordinance amending the planning code to extend the time from three to six years from the date of a fire for a temporary closure of

a liquor store in the north beach neighborhood commercial district as a result of a fire to not result in an abandonment of such use, and for the relocation of such use to another location in the north beach n.c.d. to not require a new conditional use permit, affirming the planning department's determination and findings. >> president walton: thank you. can we call items 87 and 88? >> clerk: yes. 87 is a resolution renaming hahn street between visitacion avenue and dony dale avenue to mrs. jackson way, with additional post passage directives to public works, the municipal transportation agency, and the county surveyor. and item 88 is a resolution declaring the intention of the board to order the vacation of

a portion of the griffith street and a portion of hudson avenue. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. please add me as a cosponsor. >> clerk: noted. >> president walton: thank you, and i do not see anyone on the roster, we will take these items same house, same call, and without objection, these resolutions are adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 89. >> clerk: supervisor melgar, you're up. submit. thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i spoke to the idea of clarification legislation with regard to the behested payment legislation, and i want to thank supervisors safai, walton, chan, preston, and mar for their cosponsorship. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor

peskin. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you. colleagues, as you know, it's my duty as chair of government audit and oversight committee to propose budget audits for next fiscal year, so these are really important audits. they're crucial to the board's ability to exercise oversight of city departments and funds. last year, the board approved audits of the office of economic and workforce development and the mayor's office of housing and community development. both of those audits will be finalized and released to the public later this year. we're looking forward to those and hope they provide insight into how these major departments use their resources. today, i am introducing and proposing two audits for the coming year. the first is a multidepartment audit to better understand the many street cry says response

teams currently funded and operated within the city to gather information about how they're doing, who they're serving, and what gaps remain. the board's been enthusiastic in its support for these teams, and i think this will help the board highlight what we're doing right and how we can have more efficiency and impact. [please stand by]

>> the placement legislation is very intricate. there's a lot of many different aspects of how this law will be applied. today, one of the things that we did, so we'll be less confusion, there was some confusion around grants and how grants will be accepted. once grants were accepted, the conversation about how that grant moneys will be used. supervisor peskin's office and my office have worked over the last four or five months diligently. i think this is a good first

step. i think everyone would admit that there's additional work that needs to be done. we have programs that were in place that were designed to confer community benefits as it relates to important projects that are done that have dramatic impact on surrounding communities. some of that was undermined in the legislation we did. clarification as it relates to larger contracts that was done through time or money, i think it will have a significant impact on the community. today, we clarify administrative actions, remove that from the conversation similar to someone giving a grant, that money is coming to the city. it will be reasonable to believe that there will be a conversation about how these moneys is utilized. i think, that is a good

clarification point. secondly, after that, when somebody is coming in for ministerial permits, i used this example over and over again in our conversation. the san francisco giants have junior giants. they do t-shirt giveaways. they need to get permits to operate in a particular area, that is over-the-counter, ministerial permit. many entities do over-the-counter permits. there's no administrative procedures, it doesn't rise to the level of a commission or department head review. that should not be included in what will be defined or intended to define an entity of interested party. i think this is a good first step in attempting to clarify. i think it will be disingenuous on our part, to believe that as

complicated and intricate as this legislation is, that there wouldn't be some points of confusion. i think the idea of sending out memos without pure clarification, can be jarring. that exactly what happened a few weeks ago. i want to thank the city attorney's office for immediately engaging with us, and working diligently to answer those questions to get the summer together program back on track. so, i think there will be some starts. there's still lot of angst out in the community, as evidenced by what was seen today. all of our office continues to receive phone calls asking for clarification. supervisor peskin said, let's not lose sight where this conversation began. there were people in position of power that were misusing their influence and position to

extract donations, behested payments otherwise. i think that was part of the attempt today. we don't want to, as some have said, philanthropy in san francisco. this body voted 11-0 to support this legislation. which allow us the opportunity to come back and say we found some different things that need to be improved. there are some points of confusion and there needs to be, as supervisor ronen said and i agree 100%, there needs to be a protocol as it relates to these types of questions. it is not incumbent upon us to be the ones to have to ask these questions. i think it's fair to say, we should assume, by the time a contract gets to us or by the time a grant gets to us, that

the procedures will have been followed. the department will have asked those questions, it's not incumbent upon to be the watchdog of this. we write the laws. we're not the watchdog of the implementation of this. i want to thank supervisor peskin for working with our office on this, and other entities. this is a good first step. it will help to clarify lot of the confusion that's out there as it relates it behested payments. administrator actions will be off the table. as we send it to the ethics commission. we're sending something to the ethics commission for review. currently, they have to agree to what we're proposing. hopefully, these are thoughtful amendments it that the ethics commission will accept, then ultimately, we will be able to proceed with confidence that we're heading in the right direction. thank you. with that, colleagues, the rest i submit.

>> clerk: supervisor stefani, submit, thank you. supervisor walton. >> president walton: i'm introducing a landmark designation for the st. james presbyterian church at 240 leland avenue. at the moment visitation valley currently has no historical landmark designations. this will be the first. in partnership with the visitation valley history project, community members worked on identifying preservation projects and address the neighborhoods underrepresentation in the cities of official inventory of hick buildings. through a month-long campaign to identify the neighborhood's first city landmark designation, residents and community members voted for st. james presbyterian church. st. james presbyterian church was established in 1908, in it first few years of visitation

valley's history as a city neighborhood. originally, in 1906, a group came from the university mound presbyterian church and started a sunday school and visitation valley at the bay shore hall, located at the present visitation valley branch library. on april 26, 1908 the congregation formed with 69 original members. after outgrowing its original building, the congregation commissioned juliet morgan, one of california's most heralded master architects and engineers, to design the current church. design, arts and craft style, the current st. james presbyterian church building was dedicated on march 13, 1923 and will celebrate centennial next year in 2023.

the prominent stain glass window on the church's facade, long-time symbol of the st. james community, depicts the parable of the sower. st. james was the first filipino presbyterian ministry by the presbyterian of san francisco in the late 1980s. through decades of demographic and generational changes and now coming off the covid pandemic of 2020, a small congregation of mostly filipino families continues to this day, persevering as a church just like the group did in 1908. i am also introducing a hearing request by the civil grand jury.

shadow ground water rising with sea level rise and residual hazardous substances could pose very serious risks to san francisco. we have been working with the navy, the environmental protection agency, san francisco department of public health to address the ground water rise. i'm requesting the sfpuc, navy, san francisco department of public health and other agencies to review the civil grand jury report and report back to the board of supervisors on what each agency's response is to the recommendations from the civil grand jury report. the rest i submit.

>> clerk: thank you. mr. president. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you. colleagues, today, i have three items submitting. first is i'm honored to introduce a consider if the landmark designation of lincoln mark, once a burial ground for fraternal society. the historic preservation commission voted to approve a resolution to recommend landmark designation, pursuant to article 10 of the planning code.

as a chinese immigrant this is a deeply personal moment for me to honor the history and sacrifice of chinese immigrants before my own arrival as a first generation immigrant. as we reflect upon the history and stories of the site and structures, we intentionally choose to landmark. it is important to consider how we center racial equity in the role of planning and risk preservation. this landmark will shed light and protect a key piece of the history and contribution of chinese immigrants and many immigrants who contributed to literally building our city. next, last week, supervisor preston and i attended a press conference in support of the resident physicians committee of intern and residents seiu. member, they work at st. mary's

medical center. located right on the border of district 1 and 5. it doesn't matter. we are united together, we stand with them. these members are your front line healthcare workers and primary caregivers of our sick and vulnerable and those in need. they have been facing the same struggles as working people across the bay area. working under high rates of stress, long hours without enough rest and high cost of housing and student debt. they are currently in negotiations for a new contract and to try and address some of the economic and equity needs, despite some limited progress, talks have stalled. in order for medical systems to attract and retain the most skilled and most talented medical professionals, employers like st. mary's and dignity health must be competitive and offer comparable compensations and benefits in the bay area.

please note that st. mary's residents are the lowest paid in san francisco and in east bay. yet, they live in the most expensive cities in california. one of the most expensive cities in the nation. this is critical to the health of our community, because we know that having the best healthcare workers means better patient care. that means better care for our entire community. supporting our workers and having fair compensation that allows all of our essential workers to live and work in san francisco means get the best doctors to care for our communities. that's why i'm introducing this resolution with supervisor preston today to urge st. mary back to negotiation table and to work collaboratively with the resident workers for a fair contract to retain theirist

examining staff as well as continue to attract the best and brightest medical students to san francisco. i'm also introducing a resolution urging the department of alcoholic beverage control to delay implementation of the responsible beverage service training program. this training program was created to promote safer consumption of alcohol drinks by requiring alcohol servers to take up training in the program, which is great. the implementation of the program was delayed due to pandemic. now as small businesses continue to recover from the pandemic, they are faced with coming into compliance with the training program by august 31, 2022. from what we learned, the state

is woefully unprepared to provide outreach that is needed by that deadline. the resolution is urging governor newsom and department of alcoholic beverage control to delay the implementation of the program. right now there's only english and very little spanish training for them. you can imagine, in san francisco, we have such a diverse restaurants and bar business. they really are not prepared for this training to meet the deadline august 31, 2022. if a.b.c., do not delay this, many of our small businesses in

our neighborhoods are going to be penalized. we all know we have a lot of servers that are either monolingual or limited english proficiency. i urge for your support with this resolution today. thank you and rest of i submit. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor dorsey? >> i'm introducing a street ordinance on long standing land. the purpose of the street vacation which is known as an air space vacation is to allow the transbay joint powers authority to convert small portion of notomas street.

i look forward to seeing the next phase of the project move forward. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you madam clerk. i have some legislation i'll submit, a resolution and a couple of in memoriams. the resolution i'm is introducing is urging airline service contractorring operating at the san francisco international airport to uphold living wage laws and maintain airport safety standards.

my office worked on this resolution with seiu, united service workers west which represent service workers across california including more than 7200 workers at our airport. this workforce is made up of predominantly black, brown and immigrant employees. i met with seiu, ibew workers to describe contractors have been failing to protect their workers. as these glee -- employees explained, they are not receiving benefits which they are entitled. workers reported not receiving adequate breaks and being overlooked and not compensated for their time. this is not the first time that board has weighed in to support our airline service workers. in 2020, the board passed an ordinance amending the administrative code to require

employers to offer covered employees a platinum level family health benefit level plan at no cost to the employee. in march 2021, we introduced a resolution urging them to exercise administrative december discretion. whiling the airlines are benefiting from some of the profitable years, airline service employees are experiencing work conditions that undermine the standard that this board sought to protect.

i'm introducing this resolution to allow the board to continue to hold the airline employers accountable to maintain jobs for employees. thank you board. i'm asking that we adjourn in memory of michael meryan. he was a serious and thoughtful advocate for the san francisco queer community and fighting for awareness and justice for people living with hiv-aids. michael was a frontline counselor where he provided counseling to hiv positive san n franciscans with mental health diagnosis. between 2008 and 2010 michael served as a board member of the san francisco lgbt center which

i got to know him and appreciate him. in his role at center and his ongoing volunteer work, michael was instrumental across san francisco. in june 2019, michael was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. he continued to fight and 7 as inspiration to those who knew him. michael was surrounded by he closest end in and family when he died on good friday and ramadan. he's survived by his partner timmy ryan. rest in power. the second in memoriam, i'm asking that we close this meeting board of supervisors in memory of eleanor george burke who died on may 26th each a

two-year of colon cancer. i'm going to ask supervisor stefani to do this. >> supervisor stefani: today supervisor mandelman is asking that we close this meeting of the board of supervisors in memory of eleanor george burke who died on may 26th after two-year battle with colon cancer. born in 1938, she lived in san francisco nearly her entire life. she attended grant school, burke high school, stanford where she met her husband and then san francisco state. eleanor was a great and intimidating teacher. she taught for two years before joining the faculty while also teaching writing class in the

evenings. they became a legend there. her minimal decency test was a write of passage for every junior who have to demonstrate basic rules of correct writing to make it through her english composition class. she gave the world better writers, better thinkers and better people. eleanor and bernie raised three kids of their open. the freshman was supervisor mandelman. he was able to go on to make something of himself. eleanor was a woman of creative obsessions. she loved drawing and water color and found time for these side hobbies. early on, she did pin an ink drawing of houses around the united states but mostly, victorian houses in san francisco which were popular at art galleries and department

stores. she turned her earrings often representing scenes from literature or favorite quotes. she retired from teaching in 1995 and after a yearlong journey around the world, started creating books of her colorful sketches. her first book captured the charm of rushing hill. her second book sketching san francisco's neighborhoods captured scenes she sketched on her ambulations around the city. her son t fred, who lives with his family, convinced her to do a sketch book about that city she loved visiting. her sketch book had three prints. her next sketch book a walker sketch book of san francisco, was a creation of daily journeys, walking every street in the city where she counted 2289. her final book, walking manhattan neighborhoods, is a

compilations of the city where her daughter was born. she spent time taking classes, traveling, reading, baseball and stanford women's basketball. she served on multiple boards. she paid attention to politics and knew who she liked and who she didn't. aaron peskin, her supervisor on rushing hill, were particular favorite. eleanor is survived by burney, her husband of 63 years who just a gem. son, fred burke and daughter-in-law, daughter's wendy and leslie and son-in-law. four beloved grandchildren.

five nieces and nephews, supervisor mandelman and hundreds of other former students who learned how to write and think from ms. burke. rest in peace, eleanor, your memory is a blessing. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. the rest i submit. >> clerk: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. i like to be added to the in memoriam for eleanor burke. my condolences to mandelman, she was a treasure and delight. i'm very sorry. >> clerk: thank you. mr. president, seeing no other names on the roster, that

concludes the introduction of new business. >> president walton: thank you. i want to extend my condolences to supervisor mandelman and take this in memoriam on behalf of the entire board of supervisors. >> clerk: noted. >> president walton: thank you. we are now at public comment. >> clerk: at this time, the board of supervisors welcomes general public comment. we'll hear from those present in the chamber. if you line up where you are, near the windows there. then we'll hear from those who joined remotely. once the remote system is cycled through the first time. we will not be reopening the queue even if you joined after it's been closed. you must be connected to the remote call in system. the telephone number is

(415)655-0001. when you hear the prompt enter the meeting i.d. which is 2485 196 2818 # #. you will hear the discussion. your line will be muted. you will be in the listening queue. once you're connected, press star 3 and the system will indicate you have raised your hand. please continue to wait listen carefully when the system indicate you have been unmuted. during today's general public comment, you may speak to the meeting minutes presented, regarding existing and possible future claims and demands submitted damage to real and personal property by hotels that operated at shelter-in-place hotels during the covid-19

pandemic. you may speak to items 92-94, these are motions for adoption that did not go to committee. you may also speak to matters that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board of supervisors that are not on the agenda. with the exception of you may not speak in support, nor may you speak against any electoral ballot measures nor any candidate races on the ballot. today is election day. we'll try to have your comments redirected one time. if you do not move off the subject, we'll immediately move on to the next speaker. all the agenda content will have public comment requirement fulfilled. the board will accept comments by u.s. mail. to dr. carlton b. goodlette.

room 400. you might have heard, we were joined by our partners from the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs. i like to ask each interpreter to introduce themselves and give introductions how to connect to the system.

>> clerk: thank you for being with us this afternoon. we are setting the timer for two minutes. let's hear from the first speaker here in the room. welcome. >> good afternoon. i've been in the airline industry for more than 40 years, 33 years in the philippines, 14

years in san francisco. presently, i'm the union rep at san francisco. also i'm on the bargaining team. i work as an agent to ensure people with disability and anyone is able to travel safely.

this has had an immediate impact on our members who have full time work hours and now suddenly, working as part-time. meaning, some of them are working only four hours. come to think about it, your -- [ indiscernible ] >> clerk: thank you for your comments.

next speaker, please. >> thank you, madam clerk. it's a privilege to address the world famous board of supervisors. i want to thank you, madam clerk and the president your leadership for this covid crises. i hope it was possible to shake your hand to say thank you. i want to commend supervisor melgar for that rescue operation next weekend. i'm here today, what we're calling stephanie tuesday, i want to thank the board of supervisors for delivering policy and change not thoughts and prayers when it comes to dealing with gun violence. we've all had enough. you guys have come up with policy and change. i salute you, all of you. sorry. i want to appreciate supervisor

maverick for calling the n.r.a. the phone booth of lobbyist, hardly seen and ancient history. we can end this vicious cycle and live free of gun violence. i agree, also, it does not feel like a free country when we know our -- [ indiscernible ] enough. it is past time for congress to listen to this body of leaders, courageous leaders and copy your policy and change. it's working. with 17 seconds left to go, i want to spend some of that time asking you to support the innocence commission, no matter what happened to the recall

tonight. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you. welcome. please approach the podium. >> hello. my name is tony. i was here to say, in regards to hiring more police officers, one of the biggest problems with people in security positions is that they can't get treatment for diseases that they catch at hospitals. this is ongoing situation. it's been addressed here in our state with sanctuary and what not. the average person going to a hospital that's a police officer, they can't always get treatment for wounds that they have at a standard hospital facility. there are options from fentanyl

and all kind of different things that you can acquire on the street that can keep you alive. these people can't be left to die because the hospital won't give it to them directly. this is something that the state has to be serious about. in the age of the mask, there's no other reality. that's something to think about. there needs to be some sort of substance clearness for people in law enforcement. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> good evening. my name is camille roberts. i am the airport division coordinator with seiu, i'm here to protect airport workers at

s.f.o. i want to thank supervisor mandelman for taking the lead on this resolution and president walton, supervisor mar and preston and chan. since the beginning of the pandemic, our members risked their lives to ensure that the operations of the airport was maintained. low wage of essential workers who are disproportionately workers of color have shouldered the burden. as flights picked back up at the airlines and airlines began to increase profits, their hours are being cut and workload is increasing. this is both unsustainable an harmful. many employees travel across the region from places like vallejo, antioch to san francisco. you cannot feed your payment and pay rent and afford gas on these cut hours. we urge airlines to settle a fair contract and protect full-time hours. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your

comments to the board. welcome. >> hello. i'm jackson west. i have been a resident of san francisco for 18 years. since being released from jail, in march of this year on charges i don't believe will stand, i have experienced extraordinary distribution in the matter of housing. i believe that someone what may not have been a member of the hot team was arranged to intercept me and bring me to the next door shelter at 1001 polk. where on multiple occasions i woke up with contusions to my ribs. during the time i stayed there off and on, i have contracted at the very least, a plate.

i had my wrist broken to prevent me from filling out forms. i have been denied access to phones, my mail and i have been robbed of clothes and other personal items on the site of the shelter. that is just tip of the iceberg. considering the amount of available housing in the city, that everyone who is homeless is not home is a shame and disgrace. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments to the board. are there any members of the public who are here in the chamber who are wishing to speak to the board during general public comment. last chance. all right. let's go to remote system. we have joe adkins working the line. there are six callers listening and three callers in the queue. let's hear from the first

caller. i'm going to stop you for a moment sir. we can barely hear what you can saying. if you can speak closer if your phone. we'll hear you more clearly. >> caller: can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes, we can. i will set your timer for two minutes. >> caller: okay, thank you. what about two and a half minutes? basically, i've been listening to you all. i think, the message i have for you all is to address is issues.

only way you can learn about quality of life issues is by taking a course in needs assessment. if you take a course in needs assessment -- [ indiscernible ] nothing has changed on the streets. nothing has changed with muni. nothing has changed to education, the san francisco public schools. you have a $40 billion budget. incorporate a needs assessment

course. the citizens of this great city can enjoy quality of life issues. right now, we are in a war zone. emergency must be declared. even though some of all are against guns, a time will come when you have to have a gun to defend yourself. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller. >> caller: good afternoon. this is patricia erik. i'm a retired faculty member at city college of san francisco. i live in district 4.

this morning, at the c.t.a. meeting, you approved $850,000 to install bike racks in san francisco. you're using funds that came from it driver vehicle registration. you spend this money on a small minority of people who ride bikes. this is just a continuation of your hostile takeover of the streets of san francisco. your agency, sfmta are ignoring your own climate action plan, which clearly shows that the most expedient plan to clean a air in san francisco is to convert gas-powered vehicles to electric vehicles. according to your climate action plan figures, page 77 of the plan, all your seven strategies to reduce greenhouse gases is converting to evs is 89% effective. well biking and walking is 1%.

electric vehicles are 130% more effective over biking and walking but you do nothing to increase charging stations or offer incentives to encourage the purchase of e.v.s. we are tired of this for elite few, the majority bikers are white males and one in four make over $250,000 a year. at the expense of real needs of working people and senior family and disabled. you have spent millions of dollars on bike lanes, etcetera and not a dime on the vast majority of tax paying residents who should be encouraged to transfer to electric vehicles. as supervisor melgar has stated in her new letter, you are not converting city vehicles to

electric vehicles. >> clerk: thank you for your comment to the board this evening. we have about six listeners in the queue. hand full callers who are ready to make their comment. if you are one of the six in the listening queue, you should press star 3 now. otherwise we'll take this final group to the end. next caller please. >> caller: hi. i just wanted to say that last speaker was accurate in ways that i so rarely hear. i'm so grateful for everything she said. i really missed the sidewalks from my youth when i was a child, tranquil and peaceful and safe they were. you weren't nearly being hit by a scooters. there weren't angry white guys on bicycle who are profane when you don't want to be hit by them

when they trap you in the street. when the lights change. they feel entitled because the city will back them no matter what. they're an industry. i completely understand why it will be difficult to recruit law enforcement, because what laws are being enforced equally among the affluent and the non-affluent. i suspect it will be very scary, currently, to apply for position in law enforcement in san francisco and not really know what the laws are. it's a very dangerous place to be if you're not affluent. i suspect it's very dangerous

for new law enforcement who are trying, initially, to enforce the law. yet, well, the affluent always win. the affluent in san francisco can break the law at will. law enforcement is not encouraged to do paperwork. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. do we have another caller in the queue? >> there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. mr. president? >> president walton: public comment is now closed. for anyone who is calling in virtually. do we have any public commenters

in the chamber? >> clerk: i don't believe so. >> president walton: public comment is closed for everyone. madam clerk, we will come back to our closed session item 91. can you please call our for adoption agenda items 92-94. >> clerk: items were introduced for adoption without committee reference. unanimous vote required for resolution on first reading today. alternatively, a member may require a resolution on first reading to go to committee. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster, let's call the roll for adoption without committee reference. >> clerk: on items 92-94. mar is absent. [roll call vote]

there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. this resolution is adopted and the motions are approved unanimously. madam clerk, let's call our close session item 91. >> clerk: a conference with the city attorney for anticipated litigation. this is a close the session for the board to convene a closed session this evening. june 7, 2022 regarding anticipated litigation which the city may be a plaintiff or defendant, regarding existing and formal future claims and demands submitted for damage to real and personal property by hotels that have operated as

shelter-in-place possibilities during the covid-19 pandemic. this closed session was approved pursuant to a motion 22-09, approve on may 24, 2022. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. members of the public if you still with us, please clear the chamber if you're not here as a participant in closed session. we will also be having deliberations in closed sessions for folks who may be on team. we will return after our deliberations. we are now going to closed session. >> president walton: , we are now back to resume our regular june 7, 2022 board of supervisors meeting. back from closed session.

i like start off by entertaining a motion that the board finds it is in the best interest of the public that the board elect not to disclose its closed session deliberations made by supervisor mandelman, seconded by supervisor dorsey. madam clerk? >> clerk: on the motion not to disclose. [roll call vote]. there are 11 ayes. we will not disclose our closed session deliberation. madam clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items.

>> clerk: we do not. >> president walton: thank you. we are now in memoriam. supervisor peskin does have in memoriam. >> supervisor peskin: it is with great sadness that i like to have the board of supervisors adjourn today for gina moscone. our condolences to her children. >> president walton: thank you. madam clerk, would you present in the memoriam. >> clerk: the meeting will be adjourned on behalf of michael, late ms. eleanor burke.

>> president walton: do we have any more business before us? >> clerk: we have no more business today. >> president walton: it makes no money to respect the individual, it make takes no political deal to respect freedom. it fakes no survey to remove repression. harvey milk, this meeting is adjourned.

>> chinatown battleground is something i have always wanted to do because we have never had the chinese americans in the military. our history goes back all the way to 1861 to afghanistan. the exhibition is two-parts. one is a visual history which is told through the banners. then basically what i wanted to do was make sure that people understood that every one of these objects tell a story. for example, my uncle was one of two chinese american pilots during world war ii. they come planed they were giving baggy men's coveralls to

wear. we have a veteran of the war. now what is notable is that he is the first and only chinese american prisoner of war. we have the met kit. that was the only thing he has for water, rice and soup. he carried for over four and a half years in captivity as prisoner of war. this exhibition is a first base undertaking. also important and i want to take away the big picture that the chinese americans have been involved in united states military since the civil war, over 150 years. we have given service to the country, blood, sweat, tears and

sacrifice for a long time. our story of chinese americans are part of the mainstream. chinese american history is american history that is the take away i want to come off with, especially the younger generation. the tenderloin is home to families, immigrants, seniors, merchants, workers and the housed and unhoused who all deserve a thriving neighborhood to call home. the tenderloin initiative was launched to improve safety, reduce crime, connect people to services and increase investments in the neighborhood. as city and community-based partners, we work daily to make

these changes a reality. we invite you to the tenderloin history, inclusivity make this neighborhood special. >> we're all citizens of san francisco and we deserve food, water, shelter, all of those things that any system would. >> what i find the most fulfilling about being in the tenderloin is that it's really basically a big family here and i love working and living here. >> [speaking foreign language] >> my hopes and dreams for the tenderloin are what any other community organizer would want for their community, safe, clean streets for everyone and

good operating conditions for small businesses. >> everything in the tenderloin is very good. the food is very good. if you go to any restaurant in san francisco, you will feel like oh, wow, the food is great. the people are nice. >> it is a place where it embraces all walks of life and different cultures. so this is the soul of the tenderloin. it's really welcoming. the. >> the tenderloin is so full of color and so full of people. so with all of us being together and making it feel very safe is challenging, but we are working on it and we are getting there. >> hello everyone, i'm san francisco mayor london breed and i am so excited to be here today announced the budget for the city and county ofsan francisco . [applause]