Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  June 17, 2018 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT

1:00 pm
customers. puc and pg&e have continued to disagree about the scope of those requirements. as you are likely aware, the parties litigated these disputes at firk in 2016. we continue to wait for that ruling. acknowledgment of our long shared history in san francisco -- i've been with pg&e for 34 years, most recently in the san francisco division. they've made additions to legacy service. most significant was the agreement to grandfather all city loads prior to 2015 by not requiring the city to own and control infrastructure known as these facilities in order to continue taking wholesale service. pg&e only requires the city to own or control facilities on an ongoing forward basis for major load increases or greenfield facilities.
1:01 pm
again, as we continue to work on a long-term settlement of these disputes we're pleased to say that we've identified a path forward toward reducing many of the projects in 2018 and pg&e pledges to continue to work in good faith and collaborate with the sfpc and create efforts toward a long-term solution. thank you again for inviting us here today. i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> okay. so let me just -- thank you for your presentation. let me start out by saying that you make the statement and you have in several letters to the city that pg&e has an obligation not to provide preferential treatment to any customer. we feel like we're getting preferential treatment. you're treating us differently than other customers by requiring greater levels of
1:02 pm
service and infrastructure than you are other customers. so what we're asking is for you to stopat us differently. we don't want preferential treatment. we want you to follow the law. i want to start with that. ou saw the sde ms. hale presen w originally for the senior housing project, the museum, the mta toilet, balboa pool, before pg&e found out the city was the provider, you had indicated a secondary service was necessary. what caused the change in those projects when you realized that the city was the provider? >> i heard the comment by barbara that once we found out -- we normally know that we're serving a -- when puc applies
1:03 pm
for the service -- i don't want to debate barbara -- >> let's say you knew from the get-go. what caused the change from originally suggesting that secondary service was needed and later changing that requirement to primary service? >> i'm going to defer to john to answer specific questions about a project he may be aware of. you know, i will say generally speaking, we believe we're pretty up t,on if it's 75 kva or greater. if it's a bathroom or below, it's going to be secondary. i do want to say something about secondary and primary. there's a lot of discussion about that. barbara mentioned good faith practice. when we look at what we serve in
1:04 pm
california and outside of california, in most instances that, era served at what we call medium -- they're served at what we call medium voltage. utilities don't interconnect the secondary. that was a legacy with the prior agreement. we respect that. we did that in the grandfathering, but going forward that, shift costs when we provide wholesale service at secondary, there are cost shifts that take place. >> when you're reviewing a project and originally it's under 3,000 kva -- and before your colleague comes up, ms. hale mentioned that you have a pg&e green book that sets this sort of general standard at 3,000 kva that would require primary. why are you now referring to 75
1:05 pm
-- >> that's the procedure green book for retail service whereas our furk, they're separate jurisdictions. >> let me get an answer to that question and i might have more or my colleague will. >> thank you. so in regards to the demarcation point, as barbara alluded to, there have been some growing pains as we've gone through some of these projects. typically any customer whether it au --hetr it's customer or parks and rec. they can go on and apply for service. let's say balboa pool needs electric and gas, it would have to do a retail application io pg&e. so we see a gas application with electric requests. any customer can apply for
1:06 pm
retail service into pg&e. we don't sway them, apply for retail, or apply for -- >> my question is in those five projects that we're talking about right now, why did you originally state that secondary service was necessary and only later require primary service? >> i think it was just an initial entry point on how that application came in, but ultimately it doesn't come down to a technical question. it's what we were talking -- the team was talking about -- it's a policy question. >> so is that typical practice that you tell any customer? whether it's city project or a non-wholesale customer? is it typical when there's an application filed and you answer that a particular level of service is required and then later you change that, requiring
1:07 pm
a much larger infrastructure requirement? i mean, we're talking the about the difference between infrastructure that would take up half of a parking space and high-voltage infrastructure and materials that would take up a one-bedroom apartment. this is ay direrent level of service that's required. is that typical? >> it's not typical, no. >> that your first assessment would change so radically? >> it's not typical. >> it is the typical treatment we've been receiving, san francisco has been receiving. what we're asking is you don't treat us differently, don't treat uspreferentially, that you treat us the same as other customers. >> yeah, i think i will just go back to the conversation. as customers come through, we don't guide them one way or the other. >> no, but you make an initial assessment. >> we do, absolutely. >> and in all of these cases,
1:08 pm
which would seem appropriate for an mta single-stall bathroom, that you would require a secondary. in that egregious case, which i think you can admit was egregious -- >> i would like to clarify the bathroomn. >> sure. >> when that one initially came through, it was at the start or the transition from 2015. we we trying to find the new world, what that looks like. is discussion and the confusion, asking for power for the restroomfacili the, discussion -- the disagreement came from was where we were going to place the meter pedestal. where were we going to meet for
1:09 pm
facility, whether we wanted to put it near the property line because pg&e wasn't willing to run our distribution farther into the facility, which we would have that discussion with any particular customer. >> so you're saying puc was incorrect, that you weren't requiring primary service for the bathroom? >> i think that was just a misunderstanding. it was really where the meter location was going to end up at this transition. >> i'm looking at ms. hale's face. it looks like that was not the impression. >> so what about the -- >> as respective utilities, how we interconnect with that?
1:10 pm
>> very simply. is it standard practice for pg&e to tell any customer, give an initial assessment that a certain level of service is needed and later change that. does that happen often? it happens often w our projects in the city of san francisco? >> it seems to happen a lot. >> barbara and i have worked closely on other projects. it's good the hear that issues, when they're raised, they get
1:11 pm
resolved. i think that holds the foundation for the longer term settlement. i think we agree to disagree, and those things are being addressed at furk. i think we're being clear on the 75 space kva upfront. what can happen at times is loads can change from both sf puc customer request -- >> is that 75kva load the same for other customers. >> that's what we use. >> so there's a different load for wholesale customers than there is for non-- >> there are different requirements for utilities versus a retail customer. >> i wonder -- so you require -- so this is not about safety or energy ne. this is about different treatment for wholesale customers than non-wholesale customers. you require bigger, more difficult infrastructure when
1:12 pm
it's wholesale customer than when it's a non-wholesale customer. >> good utility practice for the vast majority, it's very hard to find. whe der w't see that -- >> i'm not asking -- >> we don't interconnect other than primary, medium voltage. we would call 12,000 -- in fact, they're working with us on a connection -- >> i understand that. i just want to get this point clear. i'm talking about your practice, not standard practice. your practice is when it's a wholesale customer, you require primary service when it's 75 kva or above, but for non-wholesale customers, you don't require primary service? is that what i'm hearing? >> if alameda or another utility came to us and said, we want to
1:13 pm
connect to this and it was above 75 kva, we would have the same conversation. >> that's interesting. look, i will turn this over to my colleague, but let me just make comments here for you. we're going to continue to have this conversation. i'm going to ask my colleague to continue. we'll have another conversation, urning the furk to look at the hearing. look at the treatment that's costing us millions of dollars and years and years of delay are not just fun projects that would provide entertainment to san francisco, but to projects that literally could result in the life or death of our residents. we are talking about ambulance centers. we're talking about the police
1:14 pm
academy. we're talking about our public school s thaysm cannot afford to spend millions of dollars because of delays because of your preferential treatment of san francisco or your different treatment of san francisco when we can't afford to pay our schoolteachers enough money, and so they're leaving san francisco so we have a staffing crisis. you caused a delay in the opening of a navigation center. there are people dying on the streets of san francisco every single day. we have a crisis of homelessness that caused the u.n. raptory to come to san francisco and say we have worse conditions in san francisco than in developing countries and you delayed a navigation center from opening on the waterfront that would provide a dignified place for homeless people to be. we're not talking about luxury services here.
1:15 pm
we're talking about critical infrastructure that impacts the life, the safety, and the well-being of san francisco citizens, and i think it is not only outrageous but i would even say criminal that you are treating the city of san francisco differently than you treat other customers. for what reasons, i don't know. perhaps you don't like our community choice aggregation program and that we're a competitor, but it has got to stop. i'm glad you've begun the process of coming up with these loose agreements with our mayor to move forward with some of these critical affordable housing projects, but we have many more to come. we expect to see that you treat the city of san francisco equally -- in your words, you use preferential treatment. >> thank you, supervisor ronen for your comments. i just want to reiterate pg&e equally feels it's important to
1:16 pm
get these critical loads hooked up. we'll continue to provide power and gas to city sfuc which is why the pg&e team is encouraging and supportive on the interim agreement and searching for a long-term. >> i want to start by thanking the representatives from pg&e for coming here today. i also want to kind of acknowledge the shift i've seen over last couple of decades at the puc as the puc is getting. you've stood up for the utility, but it's getting more vocal, and rightfully so. look, pg&e is headquartered in san francisco. it's part of northern california's legacy. i don't want to go back to the battle days when i first started
1:17 pm
out at supervisor. it was pitch warfare between the city, particularly the board of supervisors and we were repeatedly at the ballot. millions of dollars were spent by pg&e indefending public power fights and what have you. we actually reached accommodation. i want to send a message to the leadership of the utility that i don't want to be put in a position of going back to those days. i'm nonexpert on the fpa. i'm not an expert on tariffs. i'm not an expert on the inter-- agreement. you can work it out. you should do it expeditiously. it should be things ms. hale and you get in a room and figure out
1:18 pm
in a mature way in that i don't have to spend money on teresa mueller to litigate countless furk cases and what have you. this is the ominous threat, if you will. prop a was not designed for us to -- we did not con template den con template -- -- we have the ability toat revenue bonds, and we could build that infrastructure. it's not where i want to go, but i don't want to be put in a position to have to start that conversation. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. pg&e shares the guarded optimism to work better together. supervisor ronen, we have to
1:19 pm
work together to serve the city. my sons live here. i work here. we love this city. thank you for all your direct feedback. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for bringing this hearing. it's long overdue. >> thank you. >> i'm now going to open up the hearing for public comment. each member of the public will have two minutes to speak. i will call some names on the speakers card, but if you didn't fill out a speaker card, feel free to line up on this side of the room to speak. peer cohen, tim dunn, danielle potter. >> good morning, supervisors.
1:20 pm
just for the record, we're a coalition essentially of san francisco's housing developer and community. we're 25 members in all. over years, our member organizations have built thousands of affordable housing units in san francisco. we have a portfolio of 35,000 affordable housing units that this city, public agency, and nonprofit providers have built. we're active. we're in a crisis time where we need more affordable housing, but the reality is that each individual project has now kind of come into the crosshairs and this grind, we're asking for relief. encouraged by conversations we've had with puc management, all the way from the director to some of their program staff that they're going to have dedicated staffing, if you will, kind of
1:21 pm
an ombudsman role as well as helping our projects not go back and forth. do they need dual-design project. tell us what's happening. get us on the path. we're frustrated that the pg&e requirements are costing money, time, and space. let me give you an example. unfortunately, carolyn had to leave. the project at 2060 fulsome street. if they were required to do the primary service on site, they would lose one of two things, either their nonprofit community space, a community organizing -- or losing the open space courtyard for a good samaritan to have a child care on site. you could fit a two bedroom unit
1:22 pm
in 800 square feet. we look for relief. we have other members here to speak as well. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is tim dunn with mercy housing. mercy housing owns and operates abou0 properties in san francisco, all serving households under 50% of median income. made reference earlier to jfk pow tower. that's one of our properties. i don't have data on hand as to how much that particular process cost the project or the time delay, but i'm certainly happy to get that information for you. i know it included a lot of loss resources. i thank you for bringing that up today. i also wanted to mention we're in the process of developing a
1:23 pm
property for the homeless on 24th street. it's right on 24th street on the retail corridor it very appropriately is being designed for retail. if we were required to have this type of primary infrastructure, that would be very much in jeopardy. it would deaden the retail space. would lose income for the property. just be a very inappropriate use of that very limited space. thank you very much. >> good morning, supervisors. not an affordable housing developer currently. just wanted to comment on this
1:24 pm
topic. i'm very concerned about city infrastructure, as you both know. i believe that the issue here, as i understand it, is abo intervening facilities. i heard a couple of references to that. i agree with you, supervisor, that pg&e and frankly any utility should not treat the city differently and frankly should not treat customers differently just based on their customer class but should look at the load and the safety requirements. so i believe that these intervening facilities should be minimal, proportional, and reasonable, given the load and the risk to the grid, to the network, to other customers. if that were the case, then i think we would see less requirements for these smaller facilities. i'm not saying more requirements for larger facilities, but it
1:25 pm
makes sense to me that at zuckerburg general hospital, we would have greater protection because the load and risks are greater than a muni operator restroom and everything in between should be proportional to that load and risk. just two other brief points. i think this is another example of where the city's capital planning committee and staff could be involved where there's a city project to connect the right resources. so i wanted to mention brian strong and heather green and their staff and just finally to pg&e, i actually need to speak to mike reardon about a separate issue. so if they can arrange for him to contact me. i was at the meeting previously that led to charter section 99.18.
1:26 pm
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. i'm here on behalf of the tenderloin development. weurre cly have over 1,100 units of affordable housing in predevelopment, all 100% affordable, and some of these units will provide supportive housing for homeless families and individuals. we need to be all hands on deck on producing more housing, but it's just as important that we do so cost effectively. we think it's terrific what puc is doing. we're encountering difficulties in connecting power to our affordable housing projects.
1:27 pm
as you were made aware today, the primary equipment that's being required can take up to 800 square feet. this equipment is estimated to cost over $500,000 and is so large that we are looking at getting rid of leasable commercial space in several of our projects. the budgets of our projects are really tight. every delay and cost makes a big difference. it's upsetting that this equipment is being required when there's no engineering or operational reason for it being required. essentially, our affordable housing projects are being expected to install and pay for power substations within the building to accommodate the switch which is far more than these projeave been required to do so in the past. we urge pg&e to work with the sfpuc, the city, and with developers to assure we receive power via secondary power equipment that, we do not need to install costly primary
1:28 pm
equipment and that there are not delays tour projects. thank you very much. >> thank you so much. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. i wanted to give the opportunity to general manager harlin kelly to make any closing remarks that you would like to. >> i know that we had a lot of challenges. it's actually very complex. i think we're the only utilities that is embedded throughout the pg&e region. i mean, we have city hall one block. we have a police station on another block. the treatment of treating us like another utility is hard because we're not taking the power and distributing to whole
1:29 pm
areas. we're embedded in their service territory. so that's why we feel grandfathering is really applying to us. we have a difference of opinion. you know, although i don't agree, i respect their opinion. we're going to furk and all this. the way they operationalize their opinion is costing our city family money and time. we're fighting to have secondary service, but that being said, i think what i really want to focus on is a path forward and really try to work together around work with all the city family where we can actually meet these timelines and budgets. i just really am very encouraged that pg&e is here today. they are willing to sit down and
1:30 pm
roll up their sleeves and work with us. again, i think hopefully at the next hearing we can tell the stories together that we're meeting timelines and on budget. thank you very much for this hearing. >> thank you so much. i appreciate that positive hope for us moving forward. again, the way i would put it is pg&e has said to us many times that you can't treat us preferentially to other customers. i would say that all we're asking for is equal treatment. you're treating us differently, perhaps biasly. all we're asking for is equal treatment. do myagues have anything else? >> i do not. let us continue this to the call of the chair and may we hear good news from the respective
1:31 pm
parties at the next meeting. >> motion to continue this to the call of the chair passes unanimously. >> are there any other agenda items? >> there are two other. good afternoon everyone. the meeting will come to order after a long recess. welcome back to the special order of the june 13, 2018 meeting of the public services committee. i am vice chair who will be chairing the meeting today. to my left is supervisor peskin. john care rolf is the clerk. i would like to thank jennifer and tom for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk do you have any
1:32 pm
announcements? >> please silence phones. items acted today will appear on the june 19th agenda unless otherwise stated. >> please call item number three. >> resolution urging the serve and department of public health to evaluate vendor alignment with good food purchasing standards. >> supervisor fewer. >> i am pleased this is being heard to conduct a baseline assess meant in alignment with good food purchasing. we have represents from the department of public health to answer questions. the san francisco general hospital. my office heard today from the
1:33 pm
san francisco sheriff they are not able to be here. they do not have concerns about the resolution. it is following months of discussion between my office, the sheriff's department as well as office of contract administration and the department of environment to explore what good food purchasing policy could look like for san francisco hospital and jails. i was proud to author the policy for the unified school district in 2016 which is actively implemented. this has been adopted by the public institutions across the country. it focuses on developing standards for food procurement in animal welfare, nutrition, work force. environmental sustainabilities and the economy. it is four key departments in san francisco specifically the jails through the jail department and hospitals through
1:34 pm
the department of public health. city and county spends millions of dollars every year on food procurement a good food the dollars are spent to pachot ensure good working conditions for food workers we are supporting the agriculture and engaged in food production. the resolution would be the first step toward adoption of good food purchasing policy to explore how our current vendors are in or out of alignment on the good food purchasing standards. thank you to the co-sponsors for the support. with that i would like to bring up the executiv the executive te overview of the good food purchasing program.
1:35 pm
>> good afternoon. thank you for your leadership on this important topic. i will provide a brief over viewed on the program. each year public schools spend millions of dollars. they recognize the important role the food purchase can have in improving the food system it is not always clear where it is coming from or under what conditions the food is produced. this offers the tools, framework and support to ensure the dollars are invested in good jobs, high welfare standards for farm animals, regional producers and protects health of communities. the good food purchasing program works with institutions to create more transparency in
1:36 pm
supply chain and empower institutions with better information and leverage their buying power to drive change in the market. the program was adopted in los angeles first and by the city of la in 2012. in 2016 under the leadership of the school board member the san francisco unified school district became the first institution outside of los angeles to adopt the program. that really created the tipping point. after the san francisco adoption we saw adoptions by chicago public schools, city of chicago, cook county, oakland school district. right now we are working with 28 public institutions across 13 city in the country leveraging about $880 million in institutional buying power. this past may we launched a good food purchasing initiative with the city of new york with the department of education and
1:37 pm
health and hospitalizations corporation, which i think will provide a great peer network and opportunity to engage and really work through what the program looks like in the hospitals. i will briefly talk through impacts. los angeles unified school district has accomplished quite a bit in a short period of time. in a few years we saw 28% meat reduction that led to significant carbon and water savings. they redirected purchasing better meat a correct for $70 million for chicken with no antibiotics over a five year period and created 150 jobs in the supply chain. 220 new job in the supply chain then the policy also helped to improve the lives and working conditions of 440 truck drivers and warehouse workers in the
1:38 pm
supply chain of the district. we have been working with oakland unified school district since 2014. the national leader in values based procurement. they received four stars in our program last summer, and not only what we have witnessed is not only does oakland unified school district values bas purchasing benefit students and economy and environments all without increasing costs less meat and better meat. the partners at friends of earth found student participation and satisfaction in the program increased. it is a collective impact initiative. these are national partners to expand the program nationally. many are here today. here in san francisco it should be no surprise that there is a
1:39 pm
huge ground well of support are local and national organizations, several here today. i think back in january there was just a huge out pour everything which was fantastic celebration for good food purchasing at the january hearing. our job at the center is to support institutions in meeting commitments to the five values and example what that looks like is institution approaches us, we collect a lot of data to show how their supply chain align with our standards, then with the support of local coalition, we bring together, we help to set goals and incorporate those metrics to formal policy contracts, r.f.p.s measure progress annually and celebrate successes. this is a picture of the supervisor signing the good food
1:40 pm
purchasing pledge in 2016 before she became a supervisor. we have spent years thinking about and engaging leading experts across the country how to articulate and operationalize what that term means. our standards are the road map to work to cards a better food system. certification for green buildings. the standards set basic minimum in five categories. it scores higher and higher are cross the criteria. this slide provides an overview of the process from the data collection to baselines meant to annual reporting and improv improving progress over one, three, five year period. here in the city of san francisco, the sheriff's
1:41 pm
department and department of public health have taken important steps in moving this ocess forward. in january of 2018, the sheriff's department issued r.f.p. for jail food contract which included in the requirement to work with the sheriff's department and exceptionter -- center to complete baseline assessment within 12 months to meet or exceed the one star good food purchasing level in two through five years. in 2018 the center was invited to participate in the panel to provide technical support to translate the vendor's submissions with how the program works in practice. then with department of public health last july, a
1:42 pm
leadership within the department and since then we have been working with the supervisors' office and department of public healtho rtiate e process. thank you so much for your leadership. i am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> any questions? >> i don't have any questions. thank you to both you and supervisor fewer. there is never enough conversation about how the food we eat impacts climate change. every time we have that conversation it is important. i really appreciate all of the work that you do. >> that is great.
1:43 pm
thank you. now, i would like to acknowledge the represents from the department of public health. my staff has worked closely with them over the past year. any questions for the department of public health? let's open for public comment? we have a couple of speakers here. here comes another card. lina brook, what is your name? i apologize. >> i am lana brook, acting director of food and therogram and long time strain resident. i am excited to take this on. iowa president to thank you for continued leadership and interest in the gppp. we have long worked on critical
1:44 pm
food system challenges related to antibiotics over use to food waste, pesticide over use and supervisor ronen aid climate change. i am excited to see the issues addressed meaningfully within the environmental standard of the good food purchasing policy. more personal level i want to share that i got to visit iowa for the first time in may. i iowa as we may not realize is the home of 5 million people and 22 million factory far pigs. they are grappling with over 700 poll looted watt -- pollutessed wetter ways. it is how unhealthy or food system is for people, animals and the environment. gppp is an antidote to the
1:45 pm
vision of agriculture. it will allow san francisco institutions to put purchasing power toward add man'sment of more -- advancement of a more sustainable food system aligned with community values. the resolution is critical step forward to the framework down the line. i urge you to support the resolution. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the food and agriculture director at spur. i want to thank you for co-sponsoring this resolution. what powerful about the good food purchasing program it brings things under one umbrella. you will hear that today and you heard it in january. from the spur perspective research we highlighted the value to the city and region of
1:46 pm
locally sourced food as well as sustainably grown food and importance of nutrition. what you will hear are other categories covered by this framework, and you have letters from people who couldn't be here today. the good food purchasing framework brings a lot of people under one tent and gets the city to be able to advance multiple values at the same time. there is a lot of power in that. this is step one. it does the baseline assessment. step two once we have a sense from the agencies where we are at, use that to set goals. we will hopefully come back to you looking for an ordinary man's to put in timelines and goals to solidify this. we are following the foot stems of other jurisdictions. i think san francisco can go above and beyond them to be a leader as we are. i hope you support it. thank you for your support.
1:47 pm
i look forward to moving forward with your support. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am the policy director farm forward. i am speaking on behalf of farm forward and society for prevention of cruelty to animals. this is an important first step towards the broader adoption of the policy. we appreciate form for -- farm forward. this addresses one of the most critical food policy issues the environmental and social empackets of factor refarming. for the first time this is a large scale level to address the impacts of factory and industrial farming. thithis is a way to improve conditions and to serve hemathermals to those in san francisco -- healthy meals that are more plant forward and
1:48 pm
sustainable produced animal products. we have been very pleased to be part of the implementation of the policy at the school district. there are a group of people here today looking forward to supporting the policy should it pass. the city and thank you very much. >> two other speakers. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a staff attorney at legal aid formerly known as legal aid society legal law center. we are with the mission of protecting employment of under represented workers. we are particularly interested to see labor standards enforced
1:49 pm
and maintained and improved in the food supply chain where many of our most vulnerable workers have their occupations, particularly in agriculture and daily staffed by immigrant work forced and spanish speaking workers. for example our organization represented two indonesian fishermen in a trafficking lawsuit in 2016. through our work and researching the fishing industry, we discovered a lot of fish that are available and bought locally are coming from exploited and traffic late borbased in hawaii and fishing out of hawaiian waters and in the san francisco waters and were in san francisco when they made escape and were able to find help. we want to encourage the baseline assessment to look at
1:50 pm
labor standards and consider the standards particularly in hidden industry like fishing. we know there is a federal loophole that allows for exploitation outside of the normal labor standards that exist. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon. jen jackson with san francisco department of environment. thank you for bringing this to all of us. i want to express our support on behalf of the department of environment. it dovetails nicely with the work you have done regarding antibiotics use in food animals. last year the board of supervisors passed the ordinance to understand how the antibiotics are used. we have worked with the department of public health and sheriff to understand how the meats they are purchasing is produced and if antibiotics are
1:51 pm
used. we are extremely excited the good food purchasing program will help the departments have better environmental profiles for the food they purchase for reducing water consumption and antibiotics use. we are happy to work with the departments as much as we can and to provide information we produced for the antibiotics use ordinance. thank you very much. >> my name is catherine stover i work with food service. i am excited about the resolution. i think that if it is adopted by the department of public health it will be easier to move forward as food service manager at the va hospital and i think
1:52 pm
it goes without saying i am very interested in having the healthiest food available for patients. as food service manager i found it to be an incredible challenge to try to get the best local food that competes with the racte we get with our large my last position was dignity health. i was the food service manager at the hospital. the prices were so low it seems impossible to convince administration to do the right thing. i was volunteering on the human trafficking task force at my local hospital. when we were doing the awareness event i made an informational booth about labor trafficking. i wanted it to be the theme of lemonade stand to highlight agriculture and food service. i found it nearly impossible to figure out where the lemons were
1:53 pm
coming from to see if they were following ethical practices. i am happy you have taken this on. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i am sue chang pollution director at environmental health. we worked with the issues including getting toxic chemicals out of products in homes and offices like furniture. we work with the wide variety of organizations public and private across the country to leverage buying power towards healthier products. we have seen the purchasing power to make significant change and it is what is needed to make
1:54 pm
larger systematic change, so we see this good food purchasing policy in the resolution and taking the first ss a really important first step to moving san francisco towards aligning the values here and all of the great initiatives and work that you are already doing under a larger framework we are excited to support this. thank you. >> any other speakers? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i would be honored to fix my name as co-sponsor before it is sent out of committee. >> that is positive recommendation. without objection this item moves forward to the full board. thank you very much. [applause.] >> thanks to my legislative aid who has been the lead on this.
1:55 pm
thank you. >> mr. clerk, can you please call item four. >> the hearing on the impact of san francisco gang injunction. >> thank you very much, colleagues. today's hearing on gang injunctions in the city and county of san francisco is a long time coming. i want to thank the committee members of the psns for accommodating an afternoon hearing this afternoon which will allow young people to attend and participate. this hearing was originally scheduled for april. we postponed it to allow more time for the city attorney to conduct and complete reviews of each of the four injunctions which they are prepared for an update today. i have long been critical of the use of gang injunctions and concerned about the impact on both joint individuals overwhelming african-american
1:56 pm
latino men and the broader community. i appreciate the city attorney's office working with me to prepare for the hearing over the last several months and reviewing the injunctions. thank you to presenters today and for the public for being here. i called for the hearing in january this year in response to letter spent from the public defender to the city attorney. it calls for end to gang injunctions was discussed at the meeting of the council. they were put into place in san francisco in 200 . 10 -- 2007. there are questions if they should continue to exist and if the gangs are still active. between 2007 and 2011, seven injunctions were obtained by the city attorney's office covering four neighborhoods and may make 140 people all african-american
1:57 pm
and latino men. over 10 years later, in a different san francisco, i have questions about the use and efficacy of the gang injunctions and real concerns about the ongoing negative impact on communities of color and how th injunctions have contributed to racial profiling. the city attorney's office has reviewed each injunction and are here to speak more about the strategy and share updates about the review us conducted. before introducing the first presenter i want to acknowledge from the san francisco police department with a representative of the gang task force. they are here in case of questions. with that i would like to bring up yvonne, chief attorney at the
1:58 pm
attorney's office. >> good afternoon. if i could have a moment to load. i have a powerpoint and i have copies.
1:59 pm
2:00 pm
>> as i said, i am chief of affirmative and cplex litigation with the san francisco city attorney's office. prior to having that position, i was a member for over a decade of the code enforcement team of our office. that is the team of lawyers that do the gang injunction. i am one of the lawyers who worked on the sunnydale gang injunction. my hopes today are to give you information and tube responsive to your questions and concerns. i will give you a brief overview what the gang injunction what a