Skip to main content

tv   BOS Full Board of Supervisors  SFGTV  June 23, 2020 2:00pm-6:01pm PDT

2:00 pm
>> president yee: we're going to get started now. okay. good afternoon. echo, so maybe some people can mute. good afternoon, welcome to the board of supervisors regular
2:01 pm
meeting. madame clerk, would you please call the roll? >> thank you, mr. president. supervisor fewer present. han haney? we'll return. mandelman present. mar present. peskin present. preston we'll return. ronen present. safai. stefani present. walton present.
2:02 pm
yee present. haney present. safai okay. i received a message that supervisor preston is having trouble signing in. so we will make a note of that, mr. president. and the minute on which he arrives. >> president yee: thank you, madame clerk. please place your right hand over your heart. recite the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. thank you very much. on behalf of the board, i would
2:03 pm
like to acknowledge the staff at sfgovtv. who records each of the meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. madame clerk, are there any communications? >> yes, mr. president. the minutes reflect that due to the covid-19 pandemic, members of the board of supervisors will participate remotely through video conference to the same extent as physically present. the covid-19 has made the urgent need for public access even more acute. the board of supervisors believes it is essential that all members of our various communities are provided options by which they can petition the board, access the board information and be able to fully participate remotely in these meetings to gain access to today's meeting, if you do not have the internet or without smart phone, you are able to
2:04 pm
submit your written correspondence on any subject matter, address your envelope to the san francisco board of supervisors city hall. if you have a smart phone and wish to use it, to listen to these proceedings, dial (415) 655-0001. and when prompted enter the meeting i.d., which is 1451982013. you'll press pound twice. you'll have joined the meeting and you're able to listen to the meeting in progress. this information is scrolling across your television and the internet. and we'll just let folks know that the access code or the meeting i.d. number, it helps us identify the meeting you want to link to. there are two special orders at 3:00 p.m., public hearing, items 30 through 33, the certification
2:05 pm
of the conditional uses authorization for proposed project and items 44 through 47 on the appeal of conditional use authorization of 44 street. public comment when be taken when those specific items are called. on items under the subject matter, you'll be able to provide comment and we'll call the telephone number and again identify the access code of the meeting i.d. at the time. we would like to announce there are three individuals standing by who would like to introduce themselves to the public. they are able to provide information. if you are providing a public comment, they can provide your comment in language. let's start with -- to introduce herself and we'll go to the next and then the last.
2:06 pm
>> thank you, madame clerk. [speaking foreign language] thank you so much, madame clerk. >> clerk: thank you very much. next. >> [speaking foreign language]
2:07 pm
2:08 pm
thank you, madame clerk. >> clerk: and last. >> [speaking foreign language]
2:09 pm
>> clerk: just want to indicate that supervisor safai and preston are noted present and so, mr. president, all members are present, thank you for allowing me to make that communication. >> president yee: just a reminder for the supervisors to mute your microphones when you are not speaking to avoid audio feedback. i understand that we are -- okay, thank you. colleagues, we are approving the minutes from may 12, 2020, regular board meeting. are there any changes for these meeting minutes?
2:10 pm
okay, seeing none. can i have a motion to approve the minutes as presented? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> president yee: second safai. then without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment has been presented. madame clerk, let's go to the consent agenda, call items 1 through 6 together. >> clerk: in order to approve those minutes, after public comment, we shall take a roll call vote. >> president yee: oh, yes. >> clerk: on the minutes, peskin aye. preston aye. ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye. walton aye.
2:11 pm
yee aye. fewer aye. haney aye. mandelman aye. mar? supervisor mar, you might be on mute? okay. thank you. there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: once again, without objection the minutes will be approved after public comment is presented. madame clerk, let's go to the consent agenda, please call items 1 through 6 together. >> >> clerk: items 1 through 6 are items considered to be routine. >> president yee: would anyone
2:12 pm
like to sever any items from the consent agenda? please call the roll on items 1 through 6? >> clerk: peskin aye. preston aye. ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye. walton aye. yee aye. fewer aye. haney aye. mandelman aye. mar aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: the ordinance passes unanimously. let's go to item number 7.
2:13 pm
>> item 7 is an ordinance to authorize settlement of the lawsuit filed on may 18, 2017, by brian saou against the city for approximately $50,000 alleging personal injury on a city street. >> president yee: madame clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: last week, mr. president, supervisor mar declared disassociation for the record, we'll make that same note on this as well with permission, supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you. >> clerk: on item 7, peskin aye. ronen aye.
2:14 pm
stefani aye. walton aye. yee aye. fewer aye. haney aye. mandelman aye. mar aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: without objection, ordinance is passed unanimously. let's go to the next item, item 8. >> a amendment to amend the charter to require that members of boards, commissions and advisory bodies be residents of the city and of legal voting age, replacing the requirement that members of boards, commissions and advisory bodies be united states citizens and registered voters at an election to be held on november 3, 2020. >> president yee: okay.
2:15 pm
supervisor walton, would you like to say anything? >> supervisor walton: thank you, supervisors, president yee. this is, of course, a pivotal time for us in history to remove the barrier of allowing our undocumented immigrants a voice at the table. as you know, they are a major fabric of our city. they have been fighting and organizing in our communities for years. they're part of our economy. their families and children attend our schools and they have been participating in leadership in our city for a very long time. this will codify and make sure that we eliminate barriers to allowing our undocumented immigrants to serve on our commission, our special committees here in san francisco. after today's vote, this will go to the ballot and we will begin
2:16 pm
to get to a point where we are really and truly about equity here in san francisco. so i'm excited for your leadership along with me on making sure that we allow our undocumented immigrants to serve on commissions here in san francisco. this is long overdue. this is commonsense policy. this amendment will make it real and it will make it something that we can be proud of here in san francisco. so, i am excited to have unanimous support from all of my colleagues here on the board of supervisors and, again, want to thank you, president yee and your office and my office for their great work working with community and, of course, last but definitely not least, sara sousa and gabriel for their help to get this charter amendment on the ballot and move it forward so we can get true equity here
2:17 pm
in san francisco. thank you. >> president yee: thank you, supervisor walton. i'm going to echo everything you stated and also express my, again, appreciation for really the bold leadership of sarah sosa and all the advocates who have been supporting this issue. this is long overdue as you mentioned. and really a stain on our city's charter. i am hopeful that san franciscans will vote and undo this wrong that is in our charter amendment by lifting this discriminatory restriction wherein so many of our qualified residents are unable to serve on advisory bodies. all san francisco residents should have an ability to serve our public. and to provide meaningful input. we often complain that our
2:18 pm
policy bodies are not diverse enough or representative of the needs of our city. these are also seats that are vacant at times because we cannot find the right individuals to serve in these capacities. yet we have populations that are completely barred from serving despite the different perspectives and experiences that could -- could and would add value to the bodies that are supposed to represent them. we must hold ourselves to a higher standard in order to achieve more equitable outcomes. it is important we remove barriers for people to engage. i am proud that we have so many opportunities for everyday residents to get involved and to give back. this -- our democracy and the integrity of the public services. colleagues, thank you for all
2:19 pm
your supports. san francisco voters, the matter is in your hands now. let's stand by -- let's all stand by our -- our ideals. madame clerk, can you call the roll? >> clerk: peskin aye. preston aye. ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye. walton aye. yee aye. fewer aye. haney aye. mandelman aye. mar aye. there are 11 ayes.
2:20 pm
>> president yee: okay. without objection, charter amendment is submitted to november 3, 2020 ballot unanimously. new business. call items 9 and 10 together please. >> clerk: items 9 and 10 are two resolutions that authorize the sfo or the san francisco international airport, item 9 to approve the fifmodification fore s.r.o. courtyard, three connector project with p.g.h. wong and partners j.v. to increase the contract, or not to exceed $17.2 million for services arched to make the appropriate findings. item 10 approves the s.f.o. international terminal duty free and luxury lease between d.f.s.
2:21 pm
group lp and the city for adjustment of base rent under the lease for lease year one ending on december 31, 2020. >> clerk: pleaon items 9 and 10 peskin aye. preston aye. ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye. yee aye. fewer aye. haney aye. mandelman aye. mar aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: without objection, the resolutions are
2:22 pm
adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call the next item. item 11 is resolution to authorize and approve the lease of telecommunications facilities on a portion of the roof on 260 golden gate avenue with new singular wireless for a 10-year term and annual rent of 93,000 or the base rent of 8,000 with a 4% annual adjustment thereafter and two five-year options to extend with tenant responsible for all services and utilities. >> president yee: thank you. don't forget, colleagues, if you're not speaking, go ahead and mute your microphone. we're getting feedback. madame clerk, can you call the roll on item 11? >> clerk: on item 11 peskin aye. preston aye. ronen aye.
2:23 pm
safai aye. stefani aye. walton aye. yee aye. fewer aye. haney aye. mandelman aye. mar aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call items 12 through 14 together. >> clerk: items 12 through 14 pertain to different aspects of the healthy san francisco program. we have resolutions between the health authority and the department of public health. for item 12 administrator services for a total amount not to exceed $35.3 million. for item 13, agreement for
2:24 pm
fiscal administration of private provider services for a total amount not to exceed $25 million. and for item 14, approving an agreement for third party administrator services for the san francisco city option program for a total amount not to exceed $49 million and for all three agreements to a five year term through june 30, 2025. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. i'm wondering if there is anyone here from d.p.h. who might be able to answer questions i have? i had requested that someone be here. >> hi -- >> president yee: who? >> this is michele rugle from the department of public health and also alice is on the line as well. >> president yee: go ahead and ask your question, supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, president yee.
2:25 pm
hi, good afternoon. i had requested that you be here today because i have heard from several workers in the medical profession that when they had -- patients that are undocumented -- [inaudible] -- over and over again, their patients have never heard -- >> president yee: excuse me. supervisor, i'm sorry. somebody -- i can hear somebody speaking in the background. please mute your mics. >> supervisor ronen: that they had never heard of the healthy san francisco program. they didn't know they were eligible. and just had never heard about it. so i'm wondering what kind of outreach and education and recruitment you've been doing for those individuals that are eligible for healthy san francisco?
2:26 pm
>> good afternoon, supervisor ronen. this is alice with the department of public health. and i'd like to just share with you kind of some of the activities that we are currently doing. prior to covid, we did have more outreach in terms of availability to do presentations that are requested. we still have our website that is -- that contains information around who can enroll, where they can enroll, but since we are not currently doing a lot of in-person outreach, some of the activities that we're currently doing are -- we do have regular -- we continue to have regular monthly meetings with application assisters from the
2:27 pm
various medical homes who participate in healthy san francisco programs. and we had in march, in april, in may as well as in june, letting them know what our current policies are. we've taken some policies to try to ensure folks can continue to be enrolled. in addition to that, our enrollment unit at zuckerberg, san francisco general is still continuing to provide phone appointments because there are not as many clinics or sites that are doing in-person appointments. the enrollment center staff by the san francisco health plan is also doing the phone appointments as well. we've also recently connected with the department of public
2:28 pm
health community hub to let them know about our programs as well as some additional steps that we've taken to really try to help currently enroll participants who may have some challenges with, you know, renewing their applications or paying fees if they have them. so those are some of the current steps that we're doing. we've made ourselves available to the community hub in case that there is a need by commune members or stakeholders who would like to find out more information about our program. so those are our current outreach efforts. previously, we did go out to sites during enrollment fairs and things to try to recruit folks. another thing that we are
2:29 pm
currently in the development is working with the city college of san francisco to do enrollment site on their campuses. it's not live yet, but it is in discussions of implementation. does that answer your question? >> supervisor ronen: thank you, so -- part of why this is a particular concern to me right now is because of the disproportionate amount of individuals in the next community that are testing positive for covid, vis-a-vis their option in the city, in comparison to their population in the city. and you know, it has become apparent in the ucsf study and the follow-up from the testing and into the run-up to the testing, the outreach that the latino task force on covid-19
2:30 pm
did, that many immigrants in the latinx community had not heard of healthy san francisco, don't feel comfortable accessing medical services. and from its heyday, you know, as one of the first universal coverage programs in the country, it feels like the emphasis on making it clear to opportunity members that they're safe and welcome to use the services has declined. i'm just wondering if you have any data over the years, over the past five years let's say, of enrollment in healthy san francisco and how that is compared to -- and whether or not it's declined, et cetera? do you have that information available? >> yes. so within the last year, healthy san francisco's enrollment has stayed fairly consistent at
2:31 pm
around 13, 500. we had at the height over close to 60,000, but the majority of our members were able to get onto insurance and transfer to medi-cal which was great. what we did notice was starting in february we did have a decline. we think of about 400 individuals. we do think that part of that contributing to that decline was the expansion of medi-cal to undocumented young adults. so we did have -- we anticipated that a number of our participants might have been able to transition to full coverage. so that was good. but the other thing we think might have been contributing to that recent decline is because of shelter-in-place many of our
2:32 pm
enrollment sites did have to stop doing in-person enrollment which is the standard methodology that we do for enrolling participants. but the good news is we were able to start back up on the phone, zoom, alternative methodology starting in early april. another action we did take, we automatically extended individuals' enrollment periods by 90 days if they had an anticipated term date between march 17 and june 17. this is very much in line with what medi-cal did. and another thing we did is we paused enrollment for individuals who were not able to pay their participant fee. these are folks who had a little bit of higher income level and had participation fee.
2:33 pm
it's normally, if they didn't pay them, we disenroll them for nonpayment, but we stopped doing that. we also initiated a financial assistance program for those who may have hardships and we provided that information with english, spanish, chinese so that our participants could call and ask for that. and we are seeing a bounceback between april and in may. and may, our enrollment number was 13,300, so we are fairly stable within around similar ranges as previously -- we did have a lower point in april, but we have been able to see some increased enrollment. and the last thing is, you know, even though we are able to offer
2:34 pm
phone appointments, they tend to do take a little longer as folks are learning the newer process. so our capacity for enrolling folks is not as high as what we used to have when we had, you know, folks coming in. >> supervisor ronen: okay. well, i would encourage -- and i'm going to work on setting up a meeting with you and the latino task force on covid-19, because i think we've learned a lot through that project. as i said, we're just seeing so many numbers of the community that are eligible and are not signed up. that's what the doctors and nurses are telling me as well that i've been talking to in community clinics and at general. so we are reaching -- we aren't reaching enough of the population and i want to make sure we do that. one last question and i won't belabor this anymore, but if i
2:35 pm
can set up a follow-up meeting with you, i think that would be helpful. are you at all using spanish radio to advertise? >> i don't believe we are currently doing active media outreach in terms of advertising that way currently in either english or spanish. >> supervisor ronen: i'm hoping that we can then do that again, because now is the time we're going to have to do additional outreach and focus on the latinx community given the unbelievable statistics in terms of their positivity rates for covid-19. so i'll follow up with you, but i appreciate you being here today and answering my question. thank you. >> thank you. >> president yee: thank you, alice. and i also support the
2:36 pm
department not only in spanish radio, but chinese radio or any bilingual way you do this. okay. i think -- we are taking roll call on this. madame clerk? >> clerk: on item 12 through 14, supervisor peskin aye. preston aye. ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye. walton aye. yee aye. fewer aye. haney aye. mandelman aye. mar aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, the
2:37 pm
resolutions are adopted unanimously. madame clerk, why don't we just call number 15, item 15 next. >> clerk: item 15 is a resolution to retroactively authorize the department of public health to accept and extend a monetary gift in the amount of $105,000 from the epic charitable fund for the support of federally qualified health centers and the role as a safety net provider for the period of february 28, 2020 through february 27, 2021. >> president yee: i believe there is somebody from the department of public health that is on the line. eric i believe? yes, i see him. the department is to make amendments on this that was not presented to us earlier. so, eric, would you like to go ahead and highlight what the amendments are?
2:38 pm
>> i'd be happy to, mr. president. and supervisors. we are here today to bring forward retroactive accept and expend. epic systems has this philanthropic arm. we are in receipt of a gift in $105,000. we retroactive because we received it the gift late in last calendar year. and as with so many of my other colleagues, we have been quite involved, as i still am today,
2:39 pm
in the operation center for covid-19. so things got a little bit behind and we'll do better in the future. the point of clarification i would like to make, the language in the second half of the legislation references that the funds are related to federally qualified health centers. and that is actually related to a grant that epic systems allows federal health organizations that operate federally health centers to apply for annually, which we do. and we will be in receipt of unrestricted grant from epic for that, but it is, indeed, separate from this gift that is before you today. and i'm happy to take your questions. >> president yee: well, are there amendments that we need to make on this? i understand that we have to
2:40 pm
re -- cross out some wording and add some wording? are you aware of that? >> i am aware. i can happily read those out here, if that's helpful. i know that -- let me see. sorry, was that a yes? >> president yee: that would be helpful. my colleagues, so they have it in front of them, you need to communicate that. >> i will do that. so the expanded title will read as follows in the amended version, resolution retroactive authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend a monetary gift in the amount of $105,000 from the epic charitable fund to help low-income and at risk population for the period of february 28, 2020 through february 27, 2021. and on, i believe, what is page
2:41 pm
1, line 9-10, the language would read, whereas the epic charitable fund has donated to the san francisco department of public health in the amount of $105,000 for the department's role as a safety net provider. >> president yee: okay. just for quick clarification. i could read -- what was after the title was to help low-income and -- population and what was deleted was for the support of federally qualified health centers. as well as a safety net provider. and in the other amendment you wanted to make, was to add the wording to page 1, lines 9 and 10. add the wording after $105,000, for the department's role as a
2:42 pm
safety net provider. and deleting the other part in which this -- deleting the wording of the federally whatever. okay? >> that's correct. >> president yee: okay. so any questions about the amendments? seeing none, can i have a motion to move the amendments? >> supervisor mandelman: so moved. >> president yee: seconded by? >> supervisor fewer: seconded. >> president yee: madame clerk, can i have roll call on the amendment? >> clerk: on the amendment to item 15, supervisor mandelman, fewer and peskin aye. preston aye. ronen aye. safai aye.
2:43 pm
stefani aye. walton aye. yee aye. fewer aye. haney aye. mandelman aye. mar aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay, so the motion to amend passes unanimously. deputy city attorney pearson, are you there? are the amendments substantive enough so we have to continue the item, or can we vote on this as amended? >> deputy city attorney ann pearson. my understanding is that the amendments would accept a grant for an entirely different purpose than the one that was originally noted. that the resolution was drafted to accept a different grant and this gift is for an entirely
2:44 pm
different purpose, so the amendments would be substantive. >> president yee: thank you very much. can i have a motion to continue this item as amended? >> supervisor fewer:le continued. >> supervisor mandelman: seconded. >> president yee: do we need to have a roll call on this continuance? right, let's have roll call on the continuance of this item to our next meeting, with i is when? -- which is when? >> june 30th. >> president yee: june 30th as amended. go ahead. >> clerk: peskin aye. preston aye. ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye. walton aye.
2:45 pm
yee aye. fewer aye. haney aye. mandelman aye. mar aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. so this will be continued to our meeting on june 30th. madame clerk, go ahead and call items 16, 17 together. >> clerk: items 16 and 17, two resolutions. item 16, authorizes the department of public health to accept and expend a monetary gift in the amount of $79,000 from the friends of the laguna honda to the hospital gift fund to purchase equipment, materials, supplies and services for residents. and item 17 resolution to retroactively authorize the department of public health to
2:46 pm
accept and expend a $1 million grant from california department of health for participation in a program entitled covid-19 crisis response for the period of march 5, 2020 through march 15, 2021. >> president yee: i'm sorry. madame clerk, please call roll on these two items? >> clerk: on items 16 and 17, supervisor peskin aye. preston aye. ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye. walton aye. yee aye. fewer aye.
2:47 pm
haney aye. mandelman aye. mar aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay, without objection, the resolutions are adopted unanimously. madame clerk, next item 18. >> item 18, resolution to authorize the mayor's office of housing and community development to expend soma community stabilization fund dollars in the amount of $100,000 for the coordination of the strategic assessment of the soma community stabilization fund's performance. >> president yee: okay. go ahead, madame clerk, call the roll. on item 18 peskin aye. preston aye. ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye.
2:48 pm
walton aye. yee aye. fewer aye. haney aye. mandelman aye. mar aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, let's go and call items 19 through 21 together. >> 19 through 21 comprise the interim budget for fiscal year 2020-21 and 2021-22. item 19 is the proposed interim budget and appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and estimated expenditures for the departments of the city and county june 1. item 20 is the proposed interim
2:49 pm
annual salary ordinance for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2021 and 2022. creating, establishing the positions, including therein all positions, appointments or continuation of appointments fixing the work schedules there of and authorizing appointments. item 21 is the resolution to approve the fiscal year 2020-2021 proposed interim budget of the office of community investment and infrastructure, operating as the successor agency to the san francisco redevelopment agency. >> president yee: okay. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president yee. i have some questions on -- it's on item 19, the proposed interim budget.
2:50 pm
i don't know if anyone from the controller's office is on. is there someone from the controller's office available? >> president yee: yes. >> supervisor preston: thank you. i'm trying to clarify and make sure. i have a couple of questions. specifically my understanding is that there are few areas where this budget by di verges and those are the ones highlighted on the wage increases, no hourly increases under the m.c.o. for the ihff workers and no costs of doing business increases for non-profit workers, but separate from that, it's simply moves
2:51 pm
forward on an interim basis with the same budget previously approved last year for the coming year. do i have that right? >> yes, supervisor, that is correct. a couple of kind of clarifications on the finer points. number one, the budget and finance committee made an amendment to the interim budget proposed by the mayor to restore the m.c.o. increase for ihss workers, so that change is in front of you and was not refl t reflected in the initial b.l.a. report. the other that occurs, other than those noted, are a handful of other technical changes that my office process given changes in certain benefit -- employ benefit calculations. for example, the social security cap and those sorts of things,
2:52 pm
certainly not policy changes. >> got it, thank you for that clarification. i wanted to ask you about specific budget items relating to police. because, frankly, in reviewing this, one thing that stood out for me at a time when obviously the mayor and others are -- i think we are all or most of us calling for reductions in funding for police as part of the de-fund police movement and discussion and redirection of those resources. and yet in this budget, if i'm reading it right, understandably on an interim basis, we're moving forward with a pretty -- or being asked to approve a pretty significant increase to the police budget along the lines of -- if the numbers are right -- over 6% with a change from last year to the coming year of a $43 million increase.
2:53 pm
and i'm just wondering if you can translate -- i know this is not for the full year period, so just translating like, what increase -- am i correct there is increase in the police budget, and what increase is that? what is the amount of that for the interim period here we're looking at? >> supervisor, give me one second to flip to the page in the budget i believe you are looking at. >> supervisor preston: i believe it's 176 or something.
2:54 pm
>> supervisor, you're correct. the 2021 budget that is in front of you grows from the previous year's budget by approximately $43 million. the entirety of that increase is in wages and benefits. and so the vast majority of that increase -- which again would reflect -- this would be the budget that the board of supervisors approved last year -- the majority of that would be mandatory increases to certain wage benefits, such as pension contributions, social security contributions and others. and then probably most meaningfully, it would reflect closed labor contracts the city has with all of our employee groups. so that is really the driver of
2:55 pm
what you see there. i think the important thing to note here is while the numbers in front of you reflect a full 12-month value, the purpose of the interim funding is to maintain it for the 3-month period. the majority of that increase and the choices that will be in front of the board of supervisors shortly will remain for nine months out of that year. >> supervisor preston: yeah. i think -- i guess what i'm trying to understand here is whether the -- whether the increases authorize increased expenditures in this interim period or whether that is a figure that is for the entire year and may or may not reflect increased police spending in the interim period before the new budget is passed? >> for the most part, you're
2:56 pm
talking about a continuity of current spending levels during the interim period. there is control features in the interim budget that prevent certain types of new expenditures from occurring. so for example, any new positions added in the second year of the budget cannot be filled during the interim period. no spending on equipment is permitted during the interim period. no spending on capital during the interim period. so our office freezes given those provisions that are in front of you. larger portions of discretionary funding during this period until the the board adopts a final budget. >> supervisor preston: i see. but on just looking specifically at positions, so another thing that struck me here, is that the -- for the upcoming year, we're talking about a total of
2:57 pm
413 increased staffing positions according to the document. of those, police are 173. so in other words, by my calculation, 42% of the approved staff position increases in this budget are for police. and so i -- and i'm trying to understand again, similar to what you were just talking about, looking at the three-month period here, the interim period versus the year, does that authorize any -- if we, you know, vote for and approve this, does it authorize any of those positions to come online in this interim period? or would this just be if this stayed in effect? >> yeah, so the position growth you're seeing there in what is now the coming year was reflects the hiring plans in positions that the board of supervisors
2:58 pm
approved last year as the second year of the two-year budget. it's now the first. any new positions authorized by the board of supervisors in the interim budget, though, would remain frozen by my office until the board of supervisors replaces this interim budget with a final budget for the year. so any new positions would remain unfreezed during this period. >> supervisor preston: got it. so none of those 173 new positions in the police department would be filled during this interim period? >> no new positions throughout the entire city would be filled during the interim period. there is a process by which the board of supervisors can request and then approve what we call interim exceptions, which is an authorization to fill a new position during the interim period. no such requests were made by the mayor. and, therefore, no such requests are before the board of supervisors with this interim budget. >> supervisor preston: okay.
2:59 pm
just a couple other process questions. when does this have to be approved? is this by july 1? >> we need this approved by a week from today to pay bills the day after, so, yes, we have no authority to continue making payments until -- as of july 1st. >> supervisor preston: just one final question through the president to the deputy city attorney pearson, my understanding is that there is some guidance regarding the vote threshold that is required on this as to whether a unanimous vote is required or not. i was hoping that you could -- fill us in. [please stand by]
3:00 pm
3:01 pm
>> i'll just finish up with a brief comment and it sounds like peskin may want to follow-up on the legal issues raised. i just want to say and obviously i am mindful of the fact that some of these commitments, you know, cannot be necessarily changed or undone on a dime and that some of these things, you know, are in place. i also, i've just got to say that the cognitive dissidence in reviewing this budget between the very impressive and bold statement, i think, this city is making about redistricting police funds and then the large increases without any comment on what people were thinking a year ago. when these were adopted and to have those before us awhenwe has
3:02 pm
for non-profit workers and we're asking city workers to hold off on pay increases and defunding police, it's just, i will say this aspect of the budget, albeit on an interim basis is one that i find troubleing and bankly i'm trying to digest the best way forward or annal ice ae best way forward. i understand we have a vote today and then potentially a vote next week on it as well. >> thank you. >> supervisor yee: so supervisor walton was asking ahead of you so i'll let him go first. >> thank you so much, president yee. is will also someone from the mayor's office representing? >> yes, this is sophia from the mayor's office. >> so, the first thing and i
3:03 pm
want to thank supervisor preston for his questions and comments. it's real concerning for me and this was the controller statement is the maintaining the current services for some departments concerns me. we are one going through a process right now specific to certain city departments that have already been identified that we want to redirect resources. even spending at the current level goes against what we have stated as our principals towards moving forward with the budget and secondly, with the mayor's call for department reductions, what i'm trying to understand is how can we spend at the status quo knowing that there have been reductions called for the mayor's office that would effect typically july and august and september. so, i'm trying to understand it.
3:04 pm
>> ms. kitler. >> thank you, president yee. through the president, and i would like if you you could if it is the will of this body we might want to bring in the budget director to answer that question but in general, you know, i think that the thinking on this is as we reduce and look for reductions in the police budget and as we are looking for where to redirect it to, it needs to soft all of you, members of community and that is not something that we should or could do on the very compressed timeline of this interim budget. we understand there's a present
3:05 pm
dissidence between we are saying what we want to do in the long-term and medium and short term over the next budget cycle. being able to maintain current service levels and that have been committed by the majority of this body last year. so i mean, i think that there's -- i understand that tension and i think our thinking is really that that's profit needs to be community process and it's typically done through the budget system and i understand the interim budget is long sore it feels weight' and i do think that all of those considerations need to be made through the budget consideration process that you guys will be holding in august. >> there's a series of input sessions set up over the next couple of weeks to provide input
3:06 pm
to about redistricting resources but it's not just one city department and if they are proposed this in fact kind of erases that budget reduction that's any department may have had to have because we're allowing them to spend at least four a couple of months. the second thing i want to make and point i want to make which is also concerning to me is that there are specific city department that's is been very discriminatory in their funding allocations and if we approve this budget at the same levels, it encourages their behavior and allows them to continue to systemically approach funding and approach how they deal with communities the same. i just want to make sure that we understand that is in fact what we're doing as we take a vote on
3:07 pm
this. >> any response? >> no. i appreciate that point through the president. again, i think that the appropriate place for those conversations is through the adoption of the full year budget. the interim budgets we think of it as a continuing on forward what we've been doing for the past few months inadequate as that may have been across the departments, this is a stop gap measure. >> i just want to be clear we're at the same level of this past physicalyear wfiscal year thereo reductions to any department budget or no changes and shifts
3:08 pm
as we move forward. >> supervisor yee: we went through -- i get your point, supervisor walton, but i also remember we went through a process where it was -- the mayor was asking for a rebalance of the current budget and i was asked to look at cuts upwards of 10% or whatever ask there were other spending things that stop including so i thought if that's the case, wouldn't the rebalance budget that we have now reflect and continue for the three months in terms of spending the allocation for the budget that we're moving forward is higher
3:09 pm
and the spending is capped many of that's a point of clarification. >> certainly, mr. president. the rebalancing exercise you are referring to relates not to the coming fiscal year starting on july 1st but the fiscal year we're ending in a week. so it's the rebalancing of a 250 million-dollar shortfall in the current fiscal year. none of the proposals ultimately adopted by the mayor's office is part of that rebalancing plan. we're on going in nature. if there were a on going production it would continue into the budget year but the entirety of the proposals move by the mayor and the current year one time in nature. one time reductions to appropriation. they do not effect appropriations effective
3:10 pm
july first. to your question, the other thing i note is of course the continuity of certain services in this three-month period that will need to be superseded by the board's final action on the adopted budget if for no other reason there's a $1.5 billion shortfall during this two-year period that is not yet balanced in from i what is in front of yd choices will be required. the mayor has asked departments to submit proposals to her. she owes this body a budget in five weeks and those choices and the board will have the month of august and september to review those. i didn't want to leave anyone with a feeling this con innu tee of service budget during this three-month period would continue to be on that or
3:11 pm
frankly could continue to be on that given the city's financial conditions. >> supervisor yee: supervisor peskin. >> i wanted to follow-u follow-h the city attorney. is this advice that i wasn't around in 1990 and i wasn't around in 1960 and i don't remember this advice. is this only to the interim budget because i voted against budgets before. >> so from 1969 and 1990 was not limited to the interim budget. it was approved to the approval and the 1990 opinion was a public opinion from deputy city attorney that i'm happy to share with you. it's been a while. the language of the charter has changed since then. the language he interpreted then is largely the same and that it
3:12 pm
is still mandatory in nature. the board is required to adopt a budget by a specific date. but given the time that hazy lapsed, we'd like to have a chance to take a fresh look at this and we'll do that this week. >> a couple of years ago, i voted against a budget because it was balanced, predicated on a tax passing in a november election and i voted against the budget and no one said i couldn't do that. >> ok. deputy city attorney, could you look into that in terms of consistency. yes, happy to do that. any other questions? all right.
3:13 pm
we are looking at 19-21. i guess can we -- >> just real quick, is it possible for us to remove item 19 and vote on 20 and 21? >> i move we vote on 20 and 21 and take 19 separately. >> we'll take number 19 separately. >> yes. >> president yee. before we take 19, i just wanted to follow-up through the president with deputy city attorney at pearson with the two votes, to the extent that a unanimous vote is required.
3:14 pm
would that be required of first and second reading. to the vote it is required yes it would which is why i urge the board today to follow our past advice with we revise that advice you will have a second opportunity to vote on the ordinance next week. >> ok. thank you. so, i just want to state before we vote, i will be voting for this today. based on the advice to be received without after we get guidance ratherring whether we need it three th through the pr,
3:15 pm
we have an index of votes required on various matters the budget annual to adopt is six votes now the interim budget is not the annual budget but certainly, if the annual budget is six votes and historically it can approve for the 20 years i worked here, it has been six votes, certainly the worry about it would pass and we have a president for many years to stand on. i think you are wreck. i remember -- this may -- i'm just going through seven years of voting for the budget and. >> not sure where that leaves us
3:16 pm
whether the city attorney pearson can provide it. it's an important issue and i realize there may be gray area but for those of us who may be uncomfortable with any aspect of this, it's to a you man muss vote required that's one thing and if it isn't, i think i certainly would want to know. i don't know how we get clarity on that. including perhaps putting it over until the later in the meeting if there's something we can consult to get that answer if if we don't have that now. >> deputy city attorney, anne pearson, this question came up just before the board meeting and and there are many in our office who were surprised and you are to learn that is this advice had been given and memorialized for many decades. it came as a surprise to many deputies within the office and yet we have given this advice
3:17 pm
starting in 1969 and again in 1990 and as recently as as 2007. even if it came as a surprise we would like to take the time to take a fresh look at it before abandoning it. and i can explain the rationed all is helpful and the rational at the time has an opportunity through the budget to influence the budget and when it comes to the board, the board has a duty under the charter and that duty spoken in mandatory terms and shall enact the ordinance, shall. the opinion from 1990 and 1969 say given the mandatory nature of that duty and the essential roles of the budget in the city,
3:18 pm
then the board needs to take that action unanimously and part of the thinking there was driven by the complexity of what would happen if the board is required to approve the budget, you take a vote, you have one no vote, you have two no votes, what happens after the fifth. so i think it took into consideration all those things. now, since the most recent public vote, the language the charter has changed, we will take a fresh look at that so i can relate to you what our historical advice has been and we will look at and and we're not going to find out and my suggestion is supervisor walton i want to make a suggestion first and i'll get to you. just for us to wait until next
3:19 pm
week and not go forward that's my suggestion. supervisor. >> i will abide by a suggestion and unanimous and and if i did have that there. >> >> that's what we're all after. we want clarity on that. logically and supervisor. >> thank you. i'm so sorry, if you already answered this question, deputy pearson. i went to the rest room and i'm not sure if i missed this. did you say that we always have to vote unanimously on the budget? sorry, i know it sounds like that's what you said so let me ask you this. when that didn't happen in the past, because i know that's not
3:20 pm
always been the case, are you saying those budgets are inva invalidated. we have decades and in 1969 and many of those aren't familiar and and we did so today immediately before the board meeting so in. >> i heard all that. with everything in me i challenge that interpretation. do not think that it's accurate and feels so and which is my
3:21 pm
prerogative. it weakens the power of each individual board member in our role as representatives of our district. it's never been the way in my 10 years on the board as a legislative error member oer me. this is the first time i've heard this. and many other in the past have voted against the budget and and that interpretation is so narrow and you go back to the negotiating table and that's what happens at the state level and everywhere. >> if we have to pass a budget. i understand that's the requirement but to ask 11 people
3:22 pm
to agree on it in order to pass it, it slides in the face of every other law that we vote on and i think it's absurd. >> supervisor yee: there's a lot of us that agree with what you just said. we raised it and you didn't hear it. that in past budget votes, it has not been unanimous but it was through the budget process >> i know peskin -- >> i just said. that was for the annual budget and i'm not trying to defend anybody i'm just saying what deputy and pearson anne pearson was saying she was referring to
3:23 pm
this interim and in the past, which hasn't happened since 1990 and they needed everybody to vote yes on it so we want a clarification whether it still stands for the interim budget and different people have voted against this here. >> i see. this is only for the inner um im budget. >> the city attorney said it was for all budgets. when i asked her. >> supervisor yee: i hate to say it but she's wrong. [laughter] >> what i'm saying is the public memo, the memo our office issued
3:24 pm
in 1999 gave that advice as to the regular budget not just the interim budget and again, i have relayed that and we are going to look at this week and i look forward to the board member today. >> supervisor yee: supervisor fewer. >> thank you, president yee. i recall i was the only no vote on the mta budget a year ago and i just wanted to weigh in and say to my colleagues, i appreciate all the questions and i am comfortable voting on the interim budget and i did make amendments to the interim and
3:25 pm
the question resinates with me and that you know, i am looking forward to taking all of these issues up in depth during the big budget process and i also encourage you to come that the committee meetings to actually ask these questions and help us guide this budget process. for those of us on the budget committee before know the big changes actually can be made right at the big budget so i encourage you to bring this to committee for discussions and i understand i'm hearing your concerns and also, that you know i think budget process is going to be very robust and i include you and invite you to join in on this. >> supervisor yee: supervisor peskin, are you still wanting to be up? >> i will vote for the interim budget. a number of years ago, we got advice from the city attorney
3:26 pm
that in arbitration it came before the board, we had to vote in the affirmative. it was the deep class for the municipal attorney's association and i think i was the only person who voted against it and i just said hey, it's our calender and if it's on the calender, as far as i'm concerned, i can vote yes or no and one thing that i do believe is we cannot abstain. if it's on the calender and you don't like it, vote no. that's all i have to say. >> ok. >> madam clerk, can i take the roll? >> clerk: on item 19 -- [roll call]
3:27 pm
>> supervisor yee: so, this item passes with lots of belts. unanimously. [laughter] let's see. let's take item number 20 and 21 and roll call on 20 and 21.
3:28 pm
>> clerk: on items 20 and 21 -- [roll call] >> there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor yee: items pass on the first reading. >> yes. >> >> supervisor yee: why don't we
3:29 pm
go to our 3:00 special order and items 30-33. 30-33. items 30-33 comprise special order at 3:00 p.m. for a public hearing of persons interested in the certification of conditional use authorization planning code 12-1 and 303 for proposed project at 95mordoff street for the subdivision of an existing lot with a single family dwelling unit into a new lot sub standards lots within the rh-1 the residential house one voting district and the 40x height and bulk district. item 31 is the motion to approve
3:30 pm
the decision of the planning commission to approve the conditional use authorization for the project and item 32 is the conditional disapproval of the department's decision and item 33 the motion to district the preparation upon it. >> supervisor yee: colleagues, this conditional use was last continued from the june 16th, 2020 board meeting and i understand the parties wish with supervisor mannedel do you have any remarks? >> well, i do have remarks. so, the prize before us is a -- i don't think the appeals would not be and i think the project before today is a large 7400
3:31 pm
square foot lot at the corner of nordoff street and in glen park and it includes one single family year in the year 1900 and one impressive redwood tree in 2015 by mr. john cough man. he triggered a conditional use from the planning condition because two of the resulting losses would be substandard in size. the project received commission approval in december of last year for the subdivision as well as plan to renovate the existing home at 95nordoff within the existing footprint and architect actual style and plans for two new family home and two lots along nordoff street and the third lot vacant without any building plans submitted. so that is the subdivision and the project that are before us today on appeal. the appeal ant the neighbor to
3:32 pm
the project sa has raised two sets and the first relied to the health and maintenance of the redwood tree in the backyard is the existing 95 nor and i believe you all have a map of these properties in your inbox i think and protection as a significant tree. under the approved subdivision the tree would be in the year regard of the existing home but right along the property line from the newly recrated lot. because the new lot with no current plans proposed, the other neighbors have sought assurances the development would be limited to this area and the
3:33 pm
plan before us approved the construction of two 35-foot tall single-family homes on the new lots down from 69nordhoff with an existing home of 30 feet in height to the existing home at 95 nordhoff as approved. the height and scale of these homes are out of character with the existing neighborhood. so that's the project and the issue. my office has been in communication with both parties since the appeal was scheduled in february. as you all recall the item was continued indefinitely at our march 24th hearing during the shelter in place order and now that we have the capacity for virtual appearing hearings we're returning to the matter. through this time we worked with both parties to try to resolve neighborhood concerns and allow the project to move forward with modifications and commitments. i am pleased to report that the parties have reached an
3:34 pm
agreement and our action will be to incorporate the terms is to incorporate the terms of that settlement as conditions of approval for the subdivision and development. we're going to hear from the applicant from the appellant and the project sponsor and i want to summarize the conditions to which they have agreed in a settlement agreement. first, development on lot number two at 95 nordhoff street for preservation of these distinct homes. second, developments on lots 3 and number 4 designated as 91 and 89 nordhoff street including the three foot setback from the south property line of lot number 4 adjacent to the existing home at 69 nordhoff. they shall be limited to 33 feet
3:35 pm
in height as measured pursuant to the applicable provisions san francisco planning code. lot number one shall also be subject to a 33-foot height limit and construction on this lot shall use pilings and no slab foundation and the front should be setback 12 photo from the property line in order to protect the root structure of the coast redwood tree. so, colleagues, following hearings from the project sponsor and appellant i will move to table this appeal up and hold the planning commission's approval subject to the conditions i just outlined and agreed to by the parties. i'm confident these conditions will allow for renovations of existing home, construction of three new housing units at heights and massing and keeping with the neighborhood character and th protection of the tree on
3:36 pm
the sitement this is a project necessary to achieve our housing policy goals and more compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods than the project was approved that is beneficial to the health and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and it's inform tee with all provisions of the planning code, general plan and zone for the site. i want to thank both as well as mr. project sponsor for their time and effort in reaching this agreement today and i want to thank jacob in my office for his tireless diplomacy and many meetings with the parties. with that, i will conclude so that the a pel apartment and apt sponsor can make remarks and then i will have motions to make after they have spoken. >> thank you, very much. sorry if this is -- i have to
3:37 pm
juggle this around a little bit and i need madam clerk to walk me through it since my script indicates it doesn't seem to indicate what i'm supposed to be doing here. >> clerk: ok. >> supervisor yee: madam clerk, i should have talked about the process and can you actually tell me what the process as good evening and so this is a conditional use appeal. there is a particular standard mr. president that i don't have in my notes but we'll allow deputy city attorney anne pearson to state what that standard would be. while the members would generally consider this to you however given that the parties are going to present their
3:38 pm
continue and it might just settle that issue. as far as what your timeframe is going to be, you are going to appellants 10 minutes total and would have been in suppose sort of the two minutes and the planning department would have 10 minutes and project sponsor 10 minutes and public comment and opposition to the appeal would be two minutes and then rebuttal by the appellants would be three minutes. if those timeframes are not necessary through the president to supervisor mandelman, and the parties would like to just come up and state their case and one and the other, we can take public comment for the appeal and for the project and we would be able to come back in and do four things. table item 31 which would require six votes, amend item number 32 to impose conditions that would be six votes to amend
3:39 pm
the item. approve item 32 and that would be eight votes and approve item 33 that would be so if that sounds fun to you mr. president and and i'll walk you through that. >> that sounds perfect. >> >> although i am hoping and anticipating the parties will not meet the full time. >> i want to bring up both the appellant and the sponsor back-to-back and go ahead and make a statement. >> thank you, very much, supervisors. i appreciate the opportunity to come today. i will be brief. i just wanted thank supervisor mandelman and a staff member jacob for a lot of patience. this process has gone for six
3:40 pm
years. we've been working with the developer to come up with a reasonable solution for development and we really appreciate his ability to work with us to come up with the solution that we believe the neighborhood will benefit from ultimately, well more of the city will benefit ultimately but the. >> i'd like to thank supervisor mandelman and mr. dance for working with us to finally resolve this and i think it was really helpful to have the supervisors' office involved and it helped move things along quickly. i think that mr. gans and the applicant will stipulat stipulat it to rest and he could allow
3:41 pm
you all to vote on the matter? >> ok. thank you, joe. i don't believe we need city planning to present anything and do we need to take public comments on this? >> yes, mr. president. >> ok, let's go to public comment. >> ok. >> operations. >> do we have anyone waiting in the queue to make public comment? >> i have four callers in the cue at the moment. i will. >> teach speaker will be allowed two minutes to provide their public comments. >> welcome, caller. >> public comment and for the end of and it's the end of the other comments and i call back
3:42 pm
and to it again. >> yes, we want to hear from you but not on this particular item. we're taking public comment on items 31 through -- 30-33. this is the conditional use authorization for the nordhoff street project. welcome, caller. >> we can hear you. are you calling on the 95 nordhoff conditional use appeal. >> yes. >> you have two minutes, sir. welcome.
3:43 pm
(inaudible). you might be calling on the wrong items, sir. you might be interested in the next -- >> sorry. >> please call back and we'll hear from you on the next appeal. i will call back again, right. >> very good, thank you. all right. any other callers in the cue operations. >> yes, i'll queue the first call. >> welcome, caller. we're taking public comment on the appeal for 95 nordhoff conditional use authorization. >> i actually called about a different item i was hoping i could speak about it at some point in this meeting, will there be an opportunity? >> yes, thank you for asking. we'll be call comment and first
3:44 pm
we're taking a conditional use for 95 nordhoff street we have further business to take care of and we'll call general comment. >> all right. would that be about an hour from now? >> thank you much. hello, caller. you've called into public comment for the 95 nordhoff street. >> i'm aware of that. yeah. one comment. i think that my only concern was
3:45 pm
that tree, which is beautiful. and yeah, my only comment is that anything can be done to preserve it. just towers above everything else in the neighborhood and it's something that i've noticed for a while. i didn't really know what it was until i notice touchdown on thee agenda. thank you, i like that tree. thank you that's all. >> thank you for your comments. operations. >> one more caller. >> ok, thank you. >> all right, welcome caller, we're taking public comment the conditional use appeal for 95 nordoff street. >> this is mike chen and they are calling in favor of the housing proposal and reject appeal and the motions that would get the housing and thank
3:46 pm
you. >> thank you for your comments. >> operations does that conclude the public callers in the queue? one morement. >> ok. >> all right, caller, welcome. we're taking public comment. >> i got in just in time. can you guys hear me? i just wanted to -- i'm glad the housing will get built. i was looking online on the sfgov website and there's thousand and thousands of pages of documents over six years on this. redwood trees are super important but if we think that housing should be the most important priority we need to reform this process. make it harder for people to file appeals and performance discretionary review. thank you. >> thank you, sir for your comments. >> madam clerk.
3:47 pm
>> that concludes the queue. >> great, thank you. mr. president. >> supervisor yee: thank you, madam clerk. so, at this point, i'd like to -- >> i got the motion. >> before you do the motion i have to close public comment. so, supervisor mandelman, has a motion. go ahead. >> ok. so, i have four. the first i would like to make a motion that we table the motion to approve conditional use authorization for the project at 95 nordhoff street listed add item 31 on our agenda. >> second. >> the motion is to table item
3:48 pm
31. >> clerk: seconded by supervisor peskin. >> the motion to table item number 31. [roll call] >> supervisor yee: a motion to table passes. so, did you already make a motion to amend?
3:49 pm
>> the authorization shown as item 32 to continue 58ly disapprove the conditional use authorization at 95 nordhoff street and approve a conditional use authorization for the same property with all conditions opposed by the planning commission and with the additional conditions listed in the document titled 95 nordhoff street conditions june 23th, 2020 which is submitted for the file and to be incorporated by reference in the motion. >> second. >> supervisor yee: there's a second. can i have a roll call on the amendments. [roll call]
3:50 pm
>> supervisor yee: the motion to amend passes unanimously. i have a motion to approve 13 and approve item number 33. >> so moved. >> is there a second? second. >> ok. madam clerk, please call the roll on these two items.
3:51 pm
supervisor peskin. [roll call] [roll call] there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor yee: without objection, item 32 is approved as amended and item 33 is approved unanimously. madam clerk, let's go to items 34-37. >> items 34-37 comprise the
3:52 pm
public hearing of persons interested in the certification of conditional use authorization issued by the planning commission to demolish a three-storey single family residents and construct a new four-storey mixed use building with three dwelling units and 1,731 square feet ground floor and the neighborhood commercial and and height and both direction and item 35 is the motion to approve the department's decision to approve the conditional use authorization for the project. item 36 is the motion to conditionally disapprove the department's decision subject to the adoption of written findings by the board in support of the determination and item 37 is a motion to district the preparation of findings.
3:53 pm
i believe you are muted, mr. president. >> this conditional use appeal was last continued from the march 24th, board meeting and he made a motion to continue this condition. do you want to have any remarks? >> thank you, president yee. and yes, i would like to make a motion to continue these items. one week to the june 30th board meeting to allow a little more time for meaningful dialogue between parties. it's extremely important to me as well as all of you to do everything we can to facilitate good paid negotiations. >> supervisor yee: are you done?
3:54 pm
>> and i'm not satisfied with the extent of (inaudible) and again, like an additional week to encourage and persuade the parties to continue this important discussion on it. my office consulted with the clerk's office about the continuance and we provided notification about this yesterday to the appellant, the project sponsor, and the planning staff. i really like to acknowledge both the clerk's office for all of his responses to provide accommodations allowing the appellant to participate in today's meeting as well as in the hearings next week if my continuance motion is adopted. the appellant requested accommodations to participate in the remote meeting based on her significant technological constraints and over the past two weeks, mr. ing has gone above and beyond to ensure the appellant is able to participate by providing a public computer for her to use in the clerk's office with social distancing by
3:55 pm
providing and offering to provide technology support during the hearing by earning for a hard copy of appeal presentation by ranging with the sheriff department for the appellant to enter city hall for the hearing and many other important accommodations to remove any barriers that might restrict the appellant's ability to participate in the hearings so thank you again for all of his work in the clerk's office, which is extremely important to ensure that the public has remote meeting especially in important meetings. so, again, i would like to continue the hearing and the related motions and additional weeks. >> supervisor yee: is there a second? >> can there be any discussion from the appellant at juncture. >> i didn't recognize you so hold on.
3:56 pm
is there a second? we're just making a motion right now. >> second. >> so there's been motion to continue so let's have public comment on the continuance of this item. i believe supervisor mar, is there someone that maybe is speaking, mandrin speaking? do you know? >> i'm not sure. >> supervisor yee: we'll figure it out maybe someone will be on the line. madam clerk. >> clerk: before we launch into public comment, i will ask my staff just to make sure that agnes is available if we need interpretation for the public speaker. >> i'm available. >> ok, thank you. >> supervisor yee: ok. >> clerk: do we have any
3:57 pm
speakers in the queue? for this item? >> yes. >> this is the 1420 terrible street. welcome, callers. >> hi, my name is meghan smith and i'm the member of the victoria alliance and i would like to see this building not be demolished. it's from 1907 and it's one of the few older homes left in that neighborhood. that's not on the continuance but that's what i wanted to say. continuing it for a week sounds good. let people talk and thank you all very much for your time. >> next speaker, please. welcome, caller. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> my name is ben lee. i intended the pro application money to raise colonel concerns about the impact of blocking the
3:58 pm
windows next door. when i told them my name he said you must be lonnie lee's son i've known toni tobac for many years don't worry and we'll get it straight end out. when i pressed him about how he address the issue, if he would early the building plans he just said don't worry they would figure it out later. i asked questions provided an e-mail address and i learned the affidavit he submitted was falsified to omit the questions and concerns raised by myself and another meeting attendee as well as his own dismissive responses. it was intentionally done to mislead city planning to believing no one has issues with the project and it can be approved. the sign-in sheet states he was a in attendance and i wasn't. sew put the e-mail address on
3:59 pm
the report but somehow forgot my name and he could have just written toni tobac lee's son but he tried to claim the owner was there himself with no objections to report. supervisor mar, you stressed the importance of addressing public corruption and i commends you for your proposal. this type of unscrupulous developer is exactly the corruption that i envisioned such a public advocate eliminating from our fair city. you would be appalled and livid in your own district. per the affidavit you revoke this and hold them accountable for their unacceptable perjury according to the laws of the state of california as written. thank you. >> if there's any other speakers make sure you speak on the continuance otherwise i will cut
4:00 pm
you off. >> >> next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm a resident of district 2 in san francisco. i would like to say the continuance, you know, it's fine to have another week to work through any kinks but i'm also con nascent especially when building things time is of the essence. if delays can kill projects it makes things harder and this appeal was filed three months ago on march 2nd. one way that stuff and we are now able to move forward in san francisco is because we are in many appeals and it was approved by the commission so i hope this gets today in front of the supervisors as soon as possible. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker.
4:01 pm
>> >> i would like to address this not continuance but it's basically the biggest problem in that area is parking. >> supervisor yee: please talk about the continuance. just stop the time. i want to make sure we're talking about the continuance and -- go ahead. >> is the speaker still online?
4:02 pm
hello caller, are you there? operations, is the caller still there? she just hung up so i'll go to the next caller. the final caller. >> thank you. >> welcome caller. >> hello, my comment on this building is that -- i have two things. i'm neither and including the city of san francisco love to take their sweet time with these things. it's a cute old house between two moder modern buildings and s
4:03 pm
nice on terryville street and take your time. this is the way of destroying the project. i don't care. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. operations, any other individuals in the queue. i know we had a mandrin speaker earlier for the previously and i hope that he was able to check back for this item which was the item he was looking for. >> we have two additional callers. >> welcome, callers. >> hello. my name is patricia from planning associations. i support the continuance and my reason for it is i do not think
4:04 pm
the planning commission is listening to the public and number two, the developer has had a very good record of doing what he was accused of earlier and we need to look at this project and i really want the public from now on, of all districts to be heard and not people from other districts that are just coming in and saying do this and do this and i just want the public to be heard and listen to by the board of supervisors as well of each project. i'm just supporting the other group, the appeal on this principle. and the planning commission is not listening to the public of each neighborhood. so, i support the continuance.
4:05 pm
next speaker, please. hello caller, welcome. >> thank you. i too support the continuance if and only if it does allow for the planning commission to listen more intently to the community. i agree with the previous speaker. i don't think the planning commission is listening to the community and this is been going on for a long time. if delaying this by a week will allow the community to be heard it's a constructive thing. at the end of the day, i too do not want to see this building destroyed and although it's a beautiful building, it's also affordable. and removing it, remove an affordable piece of housing. isn't that what we're trying to
4:06 pm
save. and people live there. that would mean displacing them. it will help to the community and i'm all for it. i'm all for it. madam clerk. there's no one else in the queue. >> mr. president. >> any public comments it's now closed. madam clerk, call the roll to continue the items i believe the
4:07 pm
two pel ants, eileen and evan might have also wanted to speak burning public comment and peter mandel is here but they're in the meeting as participants so of course they didn't have a chance to speak during public comment. >> i'm sorry. i believe he is the project sponsor. we'll be able to allow reopen of public comment and allow the appellant and the project sponsor who are in the meeting at participants to be able for
4:08 pm
public comment. >> sure, you make a motion. is there a second. >> second. >> this is to rescind the vote for both close the public comments. >> madam clerk -- >> the item 34 and supervisor peskin. [roll call]
4:09 pm
>> there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor yee: we're opening up public comment again. so, who is the appellant that wants to speak? could we have her speak then. my name is eileen and i'm the president of sunset park side education and action committee. also known as speak. the appellant for 1420. i'm here to the hall at the board office on the digital
4:10 pm
divide accommodation. i would like to thank the staff for their efforts and the pel has sent an e-mail to the board objecting to the original communication from the clerk back in march said that appeals and indefinitely to the end of the state of emergency. however on june 12th the appellant received and stating the appeal would be and good faith, the appellant is here in city hall to speak to the appeal, however the appellant was unaware that a mask requirement at all times, you can't see i'm wearing a mask. this would effect the quality of the presentation and there's
4:11 pm
been no discussion and agreement with the appellant regarding an individual conditionance many of at the close of business yesterday, the district 4 supervisors aid sent an e-mail stating the supervisor would be proposing a continuance. this was the first notification which the appellant received. besides the presentation today, if it wasn't heard today. the appellant preference would be to continue this item until an inperson board meeting. if that's not a viable option the preference would be a two-week continuance as the next week members of the appellant team are on travel and the appellant is committed to a hearing within the statutory timeframe and thank you. >> thank you. we have a sponsor, i guess. the public comment.
4:12 pm
>> good afternoon, supervisors. the owner of 1420. we're appreciative of supervisor mar's request for a continuance and we are supportive of that conditionance. he understand the appellant is requesting a two-week continuance at this time and we would respond that we would have one week continuance unfortunately to the sponsor is out of town traveling that week and is unavailable. so we would request the one as proposed. >> ok. thank you. i believe now i can close public comment on the continuance. >> president yee, i just wanted to see if evan rosen, who is also one of the appellants might want to speak during public comment because he is here as a participant in this meeting. do you want to speak to the
4:13 pm
public. >> thank you, supervisor mar. i would just echo what eileen beacon said and i would also note that some weeks ago and we received a written e-mail from the clerk's office saying that the appeal and public hearing would be continued after the public emergency ends. just 10 days ago, we got a notice of public hearing and it was very we were ready to go today to move forward. i'm going to be traveling next tuesday and so that is a big problem and particularly considering eileen's technological challenges and everything else. it would be -- i would certainly
4:14 pm
request that we schedule this for a time when everybody is going to be available if this can't move forward today. which we would prefer. we essentially object to the continuance but if we don't have a say and there's going to be a continuance, we would request with it not next week but it's a time when everybody available. >> two of the next caller. you have up two minutes.
4:15 pm
>> we have the windows our abuse and our residents enjoy the beautiful views, natural and on the western side. the quality of the air circulation and 30% of security during the emergency evacuations and when the application meeting was caught back to 1420 the terrible fell and 2018 and i was
4:16 pm
out of the country. my son ben lee, attended the meeting to express our concerns and opposition that their new project would cover up all of western side windows. this would have significant -- in fact our residents living conditions. and the dough crease the value of our property. we have asked that there's completely blocking our windows and they live three feet off the space outside our windows. fancy attendance was that recorded and my name tony lee and it was not included in this sworn statement by the protectors sponsor and it's really serious and allow me infor examples and this official report included our questions,
4:17 pm
concerns, and project sponsor response and the planning was mislead by the project sponsors falsified report and the decision made based on their initial statement should be valued. thank you. thank you, caller. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm a neighbor of 1420 and i don't think we should have a continuance, i think we should deal with this today and if not today, a week is not going to do any good to try to settle it. you have to have more time and that i can this approach in the same way. this has not been handled in a very sane way. there's a problem the way this conditional use authorization
4:18 pm
for 1420 got pushed through the planning commission. and the planning commission did not take in account the neighbors, the sunset park side community, the tenants, the damage to the environment that tearing down a building and filling up a landfill with it and this is a beautiful structure and we got to look at this a little bit closer. the entire approval process was just sloppy with the planning commission. they barely had a quorum to approve the conditional use. they have been minimum number of planners there and that they've approved this. we are here to ask you the san francisco board of supervisors to use your oversight powers and grant the community appeal and save our neighborhood gem and
4:19 pm
save 120. the planning process commission was sloppy and they have it -- they don't take the neighborhoods, what their input it when the process planning commission they did not put letters that we sent into the official record and i know my letter didn't get into the official record as well as other members of the community. they presented opposition from speaking. they limited information that the community required and i sent in my chch for $40 for the black book notice and other callers in the cue. >> we have one final caller?
4:20 pm
welcome caller. >> this is peter mandel. i'm the project sponsor and i at continuance. the good faith that came in last night and i can do next week and in three weeks. i prefer next week to get this done aside from that i am not a developer. i'm a native san francisco living in sunset area all my life and i do not appreciate some of this corruption talk. we've been through all this twice in planning and i like to move forward so i want that continuance and i hope to have it next tuesday. if i'm not, i'm willing to do it
4:21 pm
in three weeks. is there anyone else in the queue. >> supervisor yee: ok. so, public comment is now closed. supervisor mar, you do have a motion that's been seconded and to continue these items to next meeting june 30th. do you want to stick with that motion? can you hear me? >> yes. >> thank you president yee. yeah, i'm sorry to hear that the a pel ability might be unavailable on june 30th. i would like to request approval
4:22 pm
of my motion to continue item 34-37 one week for the reasons stated. we are facing a deadline of two weeks and given the project sponsor is unavailable in two weeks i would like to continue this for one week and i'm hopeful that another representative or individual who has worked closely with this appeal is able to participate represents the panel next week. >> this matter is in the hands of the board so i'm going to ask mr. mandel to remove his camera please. this is on the side. thank you.
4:23 pm
let's have a roll call. >> clerk: the motion to continue items 34-37 to june 30th. supervisor peskin. [roll call] is. >> there are 11 ayes. the motion passes to continue this item to next week
4:24 pm
june 30th. we have to go back to item number 22. >> clerk: item 22 is a resolution to authorization the acceptance and expenditure state grant funds by the san francisco department of public-health for fiscal year 2020 through 2021. on item 22. [roll call]
4:25 pm
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor yee: without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously. let's go to the next item. >> clerk: 23, is an ordinance to amend the health code to authorization overdose prevention programs known as o.p.p. to obtain a permit from the public-health to establish operating standard and fines and pengal tease for violation of local and state laws governing o.p.p.s to establish a process by which o.p.p.s may appeal a fine or permit penalty to approve a city policy to deprioritize enforcement laws prohibiting the possession of illegal drugs against individuals who have accepted referral to an o.p.p. and to amend the business and tax regulations code regarding appeals of certain o.p.p. permit decisions and to affirm the ceqa determination. >> supervisor yee: supervisor
4:26 pm
haney. >> thank you president yee and colleagues, i want to thank mayor breed and thank all of the many organizations and leaders who are part of the safer and side coalition. these groups v been driving this movement over the years and have been on the frontlines where they're outreach efforts to community members most impacted by the drug overdose crisis in our city. this is a -- not a new issue here. this is the board of supervisors and there have been task forces working groups, committee hearings about safe-injection sites and the consensus has been this is something that san francisco must do as soon as we can. it will get drug use off of our
4:27 pm
streets and it will get people into treatment, care and service and most importantly it will save lives. this proposal for overdose prevention programs would extend the harm reduction strategies already in use in san francisco and reduce the health associated with drug use. san francisco has a strong and long history of creating innovative programs for access to syringes to prevent hiv and hip titus c and other infections disease with the use of life saving drug naloxone and expending effective substance use disorder treatment programs such as medication, assisted treatment and this is the next and most critical step forward in that process of preventing overdoses and saving lives. when we're doing today is not a new or radical idea. 100 overdose prevention sites operate in over 65 cities around
4:28 pm
the world and. >> mayor j. arreguin: health thp overdose prevention sites and this has to be a part of a multi pronged comprehensive strategy to stop overdoses of which we have over 300 last year, a massive increase in the number of people and open drug use on our streets and sidewalks and represent and i know many of you represent as well and they save countless. i want to mayor for her leadership for standing strong in her support for this and to senator wiener and continued support and supervisor mandelman
4:29 pm
as well for being a co-sponsor and we must do and step in opening and overdose prevention site in san francisco. >> supervisor yee: let's call the roll. [roll call]
4:30 pm
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor yee: it's passed on first reading. let's go to the next item 24. >> item 24 is a resolution to determine that the transfer of a type 20 beer and wine liquor and license to michael and doing business at 4763 mission street will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city. go a homicide ango ahead and ca. [roll call]
4:31 pm
>> there are 11 ayes. it was adopted unanimously. >> clerk: a charter amendment for the city and county of san francisco and to authorization use aged 15 and 17 to vote in municipal elections at an election to be held on november 33,030th and pursuant to provisions of board rule
4:32 pm
22.7, the question is shall is this charter amendmenting continued one week to allow six days to intervene between the first appearance of a charter amendment and any board order of submission to the electorate. >> supervisor yee: can we continue this item made by mandelman and seconded by -- fewer. i heard i think. to our meeting for june 30th, 2020. could you call roll. [roll call]
4:33 pm
there are 11 aye madam clerk, call 26 and 27 together. >> clerk: ok. have approve appointment redevelopment oversight board for item 26 it's a motion to
4:34 pm
appoint lydia eli for term ending january 24th, 2024. >> supervisor yee: so, madam clerk. go ahead and call the roll for these two items. [roll call]
4:35 pm
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor yee: approved unanimously. let's go to the next item. >> clerk: a motion to approve the marry nomination for appointment of -- to the entertainment commission term ending july 1th, 2023. >> supervisor yee: go ahead and call the roll. [roll call]
4:36 pm
there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor yee: the motion is approved unanimously. let's go to item number 29. >> clerk: the motion to reappoint supervisor sandra lee fewer term ending june 1th, 2022 to the reentry council. >> supervisor yee: different a motiodifferentcan i have amotior fewer. >> so moved. >> seconded by supervisor peskin. ok. so, go ahead and call the roll
4:37 pm
on the excusing of supervisor fewer. >> clerk: [roll call] madam clerk is marked absent. [laughter] touche. on the motion to a excuse supervisor fewer from item 29. [roll call]
4:38 pm
>> clerk: there are 10 ayes. >> supervisor yee: supervisor fewer is ex use used from excusn this item. >> clerk: item 29. supervisor peskin. [roll call]
4:39 pm
>> clerk: there are 10 ayes. >> supervisor yee: the motion is approved and supervisor may reenter. madam clerk, let's go to item number 38. yes. >> clerk: ok. >> supervisor yee: wait. let's go to items 38-41 together. i will first say mr. president that items 38-44 were considered by the government audit committee at a regular meeting on june 18th and looked over as committee reports. item 38 is an ordinance to fix
4:40 pm
compensation for persons 'em pride by the city whose compensation is subject to the provision of charter section and job codes not represented by an employee organization and establishing working schedules and other terms and conditions of employment and methods of payment july 1st, 2020. items 39 is an ordinance to adopt and implement the first amendment to the following 2019-2022 memorandum of understanding. provide a differential over classifications and one time payment to employees in classifications 2496 the imamming supervisor for the mou with the supervisorring probation officers and to include a firearms inspector premium and provide a one-time payment to employees and for
4:41 pm
item 41 the mou local 1021 and miscellaneous to update the night shift to include additional classifications and to provide a one-time payment to employees and specified classifications. for item 42, this is an emergency ordinance to temporarily create a right to reemployment for certain employees laid off due to the covid-19 pandemic is there employer seeks to fill the same position previously held by a laid off worker or a substantially similar position as defined. and items 43 and 44 are two resolutions to authorization the mayor or her des ignore to cast assessment ballots for two separate community districts for item 43 assessment balance in the affirmative for the castro community benefit district with respect to parcels of real property opened by the city that would be subject to assessment
4:42 pm
and item 44 affirmative ballots for the lapped site community benefit district with respect to certain par else of real property and the city subject to assessment within the district. >> supervisor yee: supervisor mar. >> thank you, president yee. i had remarks on item 42 and i don't know if this is an appropriate to make those. >> supervisor yee: it's very appropriate. >> thank you. this ordinance before us today is based on a basic and moral idea. when me reopened businesses should retire not replace their laid off workers. 141,000 san franciscans have filed for unemployment insurance since we declared a state of emergency on february 25th. 38,994 san francisco workers were part of may layoffs. we are in the midst of an unemployment crisis more severe than the great recession.
4:43 pm
at a pace and scale that out paces any crisis since the great depression. and unemployment itself a a personal crisis for individuals and their families. besides the near term loss of wages, studies show that workers who lose their jobs have worse health outcomes and reduced life expect ta see with consequences for the children of unemployed parents. and last week, we voted to support a variance with many more businesses expected to reopen in the coming weeks. it's an urgent need to ensure that as we reopen our economy, there is a fair process to bring back workers. the back to work ordinance provides this and will help tens of thousands of the unemployed workers. with the back to work ordinance laid off workers will have the right of first refusal for their
4:44 pm
jobs if or when their former employer reopens and rehires for each job classification. and if the former employee position is not being rehired they can be offered a similar position they're qualified for and it requires employer to provide notice to the city of layoffs maintain records of their laid off workers and provide them with information unavailable resources. covid-19 is a crisis but the cover of a crisis should not be used to treat workers unfairly, replace employees with young are or cheaper alternatives. we know many, perhaps most employers will bring back workers they laid off before considering new applicants. and this ordinance makes this an expectation and requirement for all covered employers. this is about fairness and doing what is right and it's not a new
4:45 pm
idea. the right to recall for laid off workers is enshrined in most collective bargaining agreements. what is new is our conviction is unrepresented workers in weathering this story. it's bold because we must be bold to address our unemployment. this is novel gauz we addressede concerns and based on robust, engagement and feedback from business and labor stakeholders alike, we have exempted small business examines healthcare employers removed the 90 day retention rerequire. and shifted implementation from olse to oewd and misconduct and
4:46 pm
streamline the notification process and authorized the rulemaking. some of these were very difficult necessary decision this is this law it will be better for them and represents a careful balance between protecting vulnerable workers and supporting businesses in row opening. this crisis is not unique to san francisco but we are uniquely positioned to lead in addressing it. this is a labor town and today i ask you to vote like it. i am grateful to all the people in organizations who had a part in shaping this policy who shared their thoughts and their times and their expertise and their feedback with us in this process. i won't name all as there are a dozen but i want to thank the mighty ilwu who have been partners since the beginning. deputy city attorney jenna who have gone above and beyond with late nights, early mornings and
4:47 pm
long weekends to bring this ordinance in these amendments forward. joshua and lisa at the office of economic and workforce development and katie at legal aid at work for their input and partnerships. the chamber of commerce for working with us in a collaborative and good faith process. the chinese association young workers united and the harvey milk and last but not least my co-sponsor supervisor preston, safai, haney, walton and fewer and my legislative aid edward wright who really put in all of the work on bringing this very complicated but important policy forward. i urge you to support this item, thank you. >> supervisor yee: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor stefani. >> thank you, president yee.
4:48 pm
is now the sometime to speak on item 42 since we have yet to vote on items 38-41? would you like me to make my comments now on 42? >> supervisor yee: yes. supervisor mar just made his comments. >> thank you, thank you supervisor mar fort legislation you put forward. we know that just a few months ago, unemployment in san francisco was only 2% and now it's over 12% according to oewd's presentation at gao last week. more than 122,000 san franciscans are out of work and filed for unemploymen unemploym. like all of you, i've heard from many local businesses on the brink of close hog have rightly testified this will delay staffing up for reopening at a time when every hour counts. many of our beloved local restaurants who previously employed part-time workers more
4:49 pm
than one location, hover right around the threshold for this legislation. and they continue to testify that they cannot meet the significant reporting requirements in this proposal. the owners of the pizzeria as well as many others confirmed for me this morning they remain in strong opposition to this legislation because it will jeopardize their ability to reopen at all locations in san francisco and thus losing jobs that come with it. even businesses that are now exempt remain opposed. the owner of boughser books, told me that his survival is the foot traffic generated through vibrant mer much apartment merc. his business will not survive if his neighbors don't survive. if they close their locations, which they will, the beneficiaries will be large, big
4:50 pm
box chain retail who will have the capital to better withstand the recession and absorb these additional compliance costs. the businesses that i heard concerns from are not large corporations. they are locally-owned small business we see love and rely upon. the revenue they generate stays in our community. they employ our residents and the pandemic and recession are hard enough to overcome without the city adding more red tape and the cost associated with complying with this legislation. one final point i'll make, prior to this pandemic, 255,000 workers traveled into the city for work. this legislation would require that our local businesses offer these individuals jobs before they offer them to any of the more than 122,000 newly unemployed san franciscans and our own residents will not benefit from any similar
4:51 pm
programs from neighboring cities and counties. this legislation, in my opinion, will not reduce unemployment, it will not guarantee wages and it puts new restrictions on our small and medium sized businesses at a time when they need more support and more flexibility. so for that reason, i will not be able to support this legislation today. thank you. >> supervisor yee: thank you. i think what i want to do is separate the votes on all these items. so, why don't we go and take roll on items 38-41. madam clerk. >> clerk: on items 38-41. [roll call]
4:52 pm
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor yee: they are passed unanimously. madam clerk, let's take the roll call on item number 42. [roll call]
4:53 pm
>> clerk: there are 10 ayes and one no with supervisor stefani in the dissent. this passed. let's see. madam clerk, we did call item 43 and 44 didn't we? >> clerk: yes, mr. president. >> supervisor yee: go ahead and call the roll on those two items. >> clerk: on items 43 and 44 -- [roll call]
4:54 pm
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor yee: the resolutions are adopted unanimously. >> clerk: item 35 is considered bit lapped use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on monday june 22th and the resolution to authorization the san francisco planning department on bow half of the city to apply for accept and extend a
4:55 pm
$1.5 million and local early action plan grant programs funds from the california department of housing and community development for city wide planning projects and housing approvals and accelerate housing protections and through june 21stment. >> supervisor yee: madam clerk, call the roll. [roll call]
4:56 pm
4:57 pm
4:58 pm
4:59 pm
5:00 pm
5:01 pm
5:02 pm
>> we are declaring june 19t june 19th to be doe cleared juneteenth in the city and county of san francisco and i want to thank all of my colleagues to be cosponsors of this resolution. our juneteenth resolution expresses support for the national movement to make juneteenth a federal holiday and at the same time, make juneteenth an officially recognised day here in san francisco. we need to take time to honor and celebrate juneteenth, not just in the past handful of days but every year moving forward so that we can pay respects to those that have gone before us. and now is the time for san francisco to lead by example and truly embrace the importance of juneteenths as a celebration of freedom that black people deserve. colleagues, we are all in agreement that juneteenth should be a holiday across this nation and i hope this encourages
5:03 pm
federal lawmakers into action to do what needs to be done and make juneteenth a federal holiday. the resolution will specifically provide that the board of supervisors declares that june 19th shall annually be observed as juneteenth in san francisco and that the board of supervisors urges the president and united states congress to designate june 19th as a federal holiday to honor the black community and in recognition of the relentless systems of racism and oppression that impact every aspect of black american lives. ththey will encourage both publc and private to close on june 19th, paid workers, overtime pay on a typical holiday or allow the many workers and students in the city who want to attend juneteenth events to honor juneteenth
5:04 pm
celebrations, to take the day off or leave work or school early with no adverse academic or employment consequences. honoring and celebrating juneteenth is one of the many steps on the road to dis-mantling -- >> supervisor preston, i believe your audio cut out. >> sorry. i'm not sure how much i need to repeat. >> maybe the last sentence and a half or two sentences. >> ok tu. honor juneteenth is one of the many steps to dis-mantling white supremely and making sure black lives matter. a special thanks to my legislative aid preston gil kil.
5:05 pm
i'm introducing a resolution urging state lawmakers to explore new options including a millionaire tax to ensure continued funding for safety net programs. as we all know, the pandemic deeply impacted california's economy showing pandemic-related claims at 4.9 million individuals. the impact on our budget is no, doubt, severe showing an unprecedented deficit. at the same time, struggling residents are relying on social safety net programs and making sure we have the funds we need is paramount. we need to explore measures that require wealthy corporations and individuals to pay more of their fair share. the time is right. recent polling shows that 70% of california voters support a
5:06 pm
so-called millionaire tax, 2% increase on taxable income on the wealthiest people in california or income over $1 million. the projected revenue would be $6 billion annually, to protect community services. i understand this proposal is being considered at the state level and i ask my colleagues to encourage the sacramento delegates to act without delay to pass such legislation. i want to thank john jacobo, bobby lobo for their work on this resolution and state-wide effort and also thank supervisor ronen for her cosponsorship of this resolution. finally, colleagues, i'm pleased to announce today that along with black firefighter's association, we are taking the nexnext steps in renaming willo
5:07 pm
street ilowstreet in sanfrancist black firefighter. we are able to now move forward toward a final vote. our office began outreach during black history month to commemorate and memorialize this civil right's icon and in many ways, colleagues, february could not feel longer ago. during the current moment, a time of immense emotion, pain, struggle, activism and hope, we're honored in my office to commemorate this important street renames. earl gauge, jr. survived by his daughter and numerous family
5:08 pm
members who reside in the bay area. i want to thank the fire department and their president for bringing this forward and working with our office. we're planning a block party to commemorate this when we are able to gather and celebrate in person and in large groups and we'll be inviting the whole board. the rest i submit, thank you. >> thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor ronen. >> submit. >> supervisor safaye. >> thank you, madam clerk. i wanted to make an introduction today, specifically around the hiring and recruitment of our first responders. and in this time and in this era, i think it's extremely important that we put the energy and effort into having a conversation about how our first
5:09 pm
responders, police, fire and sheriffs are doing recruitment, how they're doing hiring practises and what kind of focus and commitment they make to their recruitment teams within their respective departments. both the fire department and the police department have a history of consent decrees and we want to ensure that the gains that have been made over the last 30 years are not lost in this environment. if we're making a commitment to diversity, we want an emphasis in the hearing we're asking for today to be focused specifically on what the plans are, what the current demographics are and what the targeted goals in terms of ensuring we have a real diverse workforce in this climate, in this era. and so we ask that the office of racial equity, with the human right's commission, alone with our hr department is involved in
5:10 pm
this conversation and i introduce this today in conjunction with my colleague, supervisor walton. we've been in conversations already with representative bodies from the fire department and we've heard directly from some of the groups that represent their diverse workforce, including the female representative groups, the lgbt groups, african-american groups, la tea nlatino groups and asians and now more than ever, we want a conversation before we get into the budget conversations, because we don't want to come across our budget conversations in here. we're committed to a diverse workforce. we want to have a robust recruitment to focus on diversity, but we don't have the resources to commit to that. so i appreciate the work that we've done with the different representative bodies and look forward to having this hearing as quickly as possible with both
5:11 pm
the sheriff, fire and police departments to talk about their plans of action, where we are today and how we intend to achieve and sustain a diverse workforce for first responders. the rest i submit. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor stephanie. >> submit. >> thank you. >> supervisor walton. >> thank you so much, madam clerk. i have a few things to introduce, but first, i just wanted to thank supervisor preston on his co-leadership in recognising and working to make sure that we recognise juneteenth as an official holiday here in san francisco. as we all know, the true and complete end to slavery happened on june 19th, 1865 and as slaves in texas found out, they were free years later.
5:12 pm
honoring juneteenth is recognising the ills of slavery and a path towards healing and i want to thank all of my colleagues for signing on and for fighting alongside all of us to make this a recognised holiday here in the city, as well as federal and official holiday across this country. i also want to thank supervisor safaye for introducing a resolution along with an my sponsorship to do everything we can to have a diverse workforce and particularly some of our city departments. as we know, recruitment and pack-line programs are everything for creating equity in our city departments and making resources available in a commitment to these programs and recruitment. it's how we achieve this diversity. colleagues today, i just want to introduce three resolutions. the first resolution that i'm
5:13 pm
introducing along with co-responser soup score dean preston is to support bill 1346, offered by assembly david chu for tenants on rental payment default state of emergency. california has over 17 million renters and san francisco has nearly 600 now renters. over half of the state's renters and over 80% of low-income rentsers are representative burdened. they may over 30% of their income towards rent and have less money to spend on other necessities like food, healthcare, transportation and education. even before the pandemic hit, many people in california were struggling to pay high rents and the pandemic has further exacerbated the situation. and covid-19 has also pushed nearly 6 million people in california into unemployment since march.
5:14 pm
many renters are also at risk of becoming homeless, adding to the rise in unhoused population in the state and wave of mass evictions would be catastrophic for all of us. last week, our board of supervisors passed 200-375, amending the administrative code from evicting tenants for payment of rent. and this is similar to our local law as it extends to prevent a post pandemic wave of mast mass predictions. while 18446 will not provide direct financial aid, it will provide with 15 months to pay back rent, prevent credit or
5:15 pm
default actions against tenants for failure to pay rent during the state of emergency and will disallow the use of unlawful detainer clause. which defined the property. subject to court proceedings in a tenant who cannot pay rent during covid-19. this resolution also urges our support of ab1436 if amended to make clear it does not grant local protections for tenants. the second resolution i'm introducing is to urge the department of children and youth and their families to adopt a policy to require all organizations that receive funding from the department and children's fund to have at least one member between 18 and 24 on board of directors by 2023.
5:16 pm
bcys administered all of san francisco's investment in children, youth and transitional aid through our children's fund and it has prioritized addressing equity and access and opportunities through all of our neighborhoods. this resolution will also urge the department to provide funding to train their community-based organization grantees and their boards to be able to support youth members serving on the board of directors and provide a voice in the direction of the organization that is in support of our youth. and the last and final resolution this afternoon is to declare war on racism, along with my cosponsor supervisor matt hainey. with the recent murder of george floyd, as well as countless other unjustified killings of unarmed black and brown people by police officers and along with countless acts of racism towards our communities of color
5:17 pm
as a whole, this resolution declares wars on racism and calls on the city and county of san francisco to dedicate resources towards combating racism in all its forms, including education, employment, pay practises, housing criminalization and justice reform. this resolution also urges that the city and county of san francisco that all people are created equal and we will keep combating racism at the forefront of our decisions and find ways to promote community education and arenas on the evils of racism and the need to reject racism. we are also encouraging our public and private schools to adopt curriculum and incorporating lessons on racism. (indiscernible). >> i would like to thank professor bill dean from the university of san francisco for working on this resolution with us, as well as cosponsor
5:18 pm
supervisor hainey, safaye and i know we have more, but i appreciate all of us fighting together to make sure we do everything in our power to combat racism in sanfrancisco. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor walton. supervisor yee. >> submit. >> thank you. >> supervisor fewer. >> submit. >> supervisor hainey. >> submit. >> supervisor mandelman. >> submit. >> and supervisor mar. were you providing new introductions? >> i'm sorry, i was having
5:19 pm
connect problems. submit. >> thank you. mr. president, there seems to be no other names on roster and that concludes introductions of new business. >> well, before i close, i forgot to tell you about the 20 items i want to talk about. [ laughter ] >> sorry, folks. madam clerk, let's go to public comments. >> thank you. at this time, the board of supervisors will host remote public comment via teleconference. the board believes it is essential that members of the public are fully able to participate in this meeting. if you are needing assistance, please contact my office at (415)554-5184. each speaker will have up to two minutes to provide public comment. if you join the meeting earlier and you would like to raise your hand to speak to get into the queue, please press star 3. if you are calling in now, our telephone number is displayed on
5:20 pm
the website and scrolling on channel 26. it is 1-415-655-0001 and when prompted, enter the meeting i.d., which is (145)198-2013, press pound twice to join the meeting. and again, if you would like to be added to the speaker queue, press star 3. it's best if your location is quiet. you must listen carefully to hear the system's prompt when it is your turn to comment or you will miss it. each speaker, again, has up to two minutes. there is no electionee ring at these meetings. address the board as a whole. we have three interpreters on standby to announce they're here and let the community know that they are able to provide interpretations in language. we'll begin wit now.
5:21 pm
(speaking foreign language).
5:22 pm
(speaking foreign language) (speaking foreign language)
5:23 pm
>> thank you for your comments, all three of you. we appreciate you being here and assisting us to make sure we're reaching all of our communities. a few more points, if you are not able to attend this meeting or you would like to submit written correspondence, you are able to mi submit it via email. watch your meetings livestreamsd
5:24 pm
and watch channel 26. it is cable casted and there's a broadcasting delay. if you have a smart phone and you have having access or any connection issues, please contact my office at (415)554-5184. and now, mr. president, i believe operations has some individuals in the queue. operations, please. >> operator: i have nine callers in the queue and i'll queue the first caller. >> thank you. welcome caller. >> question: i'm zach. can you hear me? >> yes, we can, thank you. >> question: in recent weeks this board has spoken in favour of black lives most often, that
5:25 pm
one would think gentrification was destroying our city. san francisco has the highest displacement rates out of hurricane katrina. that is a natural disaster. if you're black in san francisco, you're twice as likely to experience disability over all other ethnicities. this board as a role and as a governing legislature body, you have the power. if black lives matter is more than a trendy slogan, we need concrete changes that foster growth and support of the black community instead of racial segregation on to polluted soil. if this board cares about black lives and similar support, then give black business owners subsidies to stay in businesses during hard time. if this board cares about black lives, increase funding for schools like bayview hunter's point and this board cares about black lives --
5:26 pm
(indiscernible). >> create a program to pay for medical expetitionseexpenses. if this board cares about black lives, increase funding for healthy grocery stores instead of liquor store. if this board cares about black lives, support domestic violence centers like women against rape and create domestic violence services so we can heal the cycles of aproduce before policingof aproduce before policing. i will post this on youtube.
5:27 pm
thank you. >> question: in the months i came here responding to the renewal of the poor people's campaign, i've seen 11 pub services concerne11 publicservis seemed to align for the first time since the democratic leaders walk away from the war on poverty. this is raising our fellow citizens out of misery on the national consciousness that it has for awhile. (indiscernible). >> a public health crisis coincided with thousands of tourist rooms and just
5:28 pm
redirecting government operations -- (indiscernible). >> this could be a policy to keeping people unhoused. you know, our leaders, some are blinded by the fact that the homeless industry, which involves managers of the homelessness program consume hundreds of millions of dollars to create conditions that were inconceivable. (indiscernible).
5:29 pm
>> how could we forget the sharecrop expertpers. >> thank you for your comments. >> next speaker, please. each speaker gets up to two minutes to provide comments. welcome, caller. >> question: hello, good afternoon board of supervisors, this is matthew sudder, purchaser of medallion 771. if you for allowing me to speak. last week all of you voted yes
5:30 pm
to defer loan payments. as i'm sure you are well aware of, the federal credit union almost immediately refused to help us. most of us cannot afford to pay our loans and our in a major crisis during this pandemic. the city and the federal government have given the hotel industry over $100 million and we are now asking the city of san francisco to pay our interest for 90 days, nothing towards our principles. last i heard, there was 433 purchasers and i'm sure the number decreased as more and more purchasers are default, the city generating tens of millions off of the medallion sale's program. i must make one important point. after hearing one of the board of supervisors speaking adamantly at last week's meeting, that san francisco must help small businesses immediately to keep economic
5:31 pm
growth alive in san francisco for the up and coming future. i want to bring awareness to you, we do not qualify for ppe lopes because we are sole proprietors and we cannot afford to have drivers. if you want to help small businesses, pay our interest for three months and he when you coe up with a resolution, you must put us up at the forefront because we generated millions and millions of dollars for san francisco during the recession. i'm pleading, please help us now as we helped san francisco in her time of need. foui can only hope you do not forget about the cab drivers who transport visitors here for work or for vacation and most importantly, our elderly and handicap citizens of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> question: welcome to the
5:32 pm
next caller. >> i'm francisco lacosta. i've said this before and so have others. it would be nice to have public comment somewhere after you do your preliminary rituals. we have to wait and wait and hear to your deliberations and then, after a couple of hours, you give us two minutes. as you have heard from some of the public commenters, there's a lot of things happening in san francisco that people are not playing attention. the segment of the population that are most suffering are our
5:33 pm
elders, you know. nobody is there to give them the required help whether it's public transportation, nutrition or even to have people visit them and it's very stressful because this is going on on the fourth month and they're already non-chalant. some of you intend to do harm and that will come to haunt you
5:34 pm
all. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comment, sir. welcome, caller. you have up to two minutes to tell us what's on your mind. >> question: hello. i'm calling today as covid-19 cases are spiking in the bay area to bring attention to a severe oversight with impending consequences of a tragic nature should those governing fail to immediately intervene. as the topic of homelessness and moratorium on evictions gets mentioned in the news on almost a daily basis, what apparently t to the general public is that those protections extended to those at risk of eviction are not extending whatsoever to tenants already scheduled to move out before the covid lockdown. denied the time required to
5:35 pm
relocate, the terms of a move-out agreement cannot be observed. in the absence of most options and methods of acquiring a new home in the shadow of covid-19's paralysis of the city's functions. the most devastating and dire impact falls disproportunately upon the elderly and disabled who, according to -- oh, who are the bulk of move-out agreements which is scheduled to commence with the opening of the courts june 19th, which promises a nightmare scenario coinciding with the longest, hottest days of the year as defenseless elders won't last long with competing dangers of heat stroke, targets of crime, depair, covid-19 and bodies not strong enough to observe the fit law. landlords are currently this week commencing this process,
5:36 pm
culminating, removing elders from their home possibly as soon as next week and emergency and emergency moratorium must be made to stop this. please appeal to london breed. please provide hotels or force the landlords to allow elders and disabl disabled to maintainr homes as covid-19 spikes. >> thank you, caller. each member are welcome to provide public comment up to two minutes. next caller, please. >> question: good afternoon. i'm jean barish. i would like to speak in support of supervisor peskin's resolution to protect the priceless euros painted by
5:37 pm
bernard zachheim. as a former research scientist at ucsf who was always inspired whenever i passed these, it would be heartbreaking if they were destroyed. bernard was the foremost artist during the depression, creating many great works throughout the city. he was also an advocate for social justice, sanding up for many important issues during difficult times. they must be preserved for historical, aesthetic reasons. thank you. >> four your commentsthank you . next speaker, please. welcome, caller. >> question: i'm here to speak about -- well, i have a few things, especially some things that were brought up by previous callers. first of all, the idea that
5:38 pm
public comment is at the end of the meeting, no, people have a right to speak in front of the board so that the board can think about what they're saying, not just go home and call it a day. no, even the people that are speaking, we are tired towards the end of the meeting. it destroys the idea of public comment and takes power away from it. and it's not giving it to anyone else. it's just stripping power and effectiveness of public comments, just kind of throwing it away. having said that, it also, i feel, is manipulative to people that hold conservative values because we have to sit through the entire board meeting and just listen to leftist this and that, socialist this and that
5:39 pm
and it feels very manipulative and very san francisco-like, but what can i expect? i didn't choose to live here. also i would like to say that i think that some of these reforms with the police department need to be looked at better. , following just a trend, just jumping on the train to cut funding to the police departments, i think this is a very dangerous fad that's going to backfire and i think that san francisco should look at this much slower and make more plans and work with the police departments to reform. i have had interactions with the police department. i have been told by police officers that i deserved to be beat because i'm a bad person. i have also been told by police
5:40 pm
officers -- i've been told very nice things. >> thank you, speaker. thank you for your comments. each member gets up to two minutes to provide public comment to us. welcome to the next speaker. >> question: hello. this is gilbert chriswald, district 8 and i would like to speak about transit or the lack thereof. transit, we need to open muni, the s-line and the subway. we cannot wait until the end of august for muni to open the subway. we need the subway system open now and if you can't put on the trolleys, put a bus on the f-line. the bus stop at guerro and
5:41 pm
market is still closed and needs to reopen. the bus stop at debose and market is still close. we need to open it. i have to walk 20 minneapoli 20o catch a bus just to go to the castro and by the way, happy pride month. you can't get to the castro on the l or t because it doesn't stop at guerro and debo second e. se. we have to walk to church street to catch a bus and this is unacceptable. we need to open muni immediately. everything is opening with the restaurants and stores opening, we need muni to restore service immediately. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
5:42 pm
>> question: i'm harry bernstin bernstein. i have a couple of comments. first, thank you to president yee for his commitment. he said that the project would not go ahead if parking problems were not resolved. they are recapped parking at 220 units and absolute maximum of 450 and the need for replacement parking is 900 to 2300 and there's a lot to do there. i do want to mention that there is currently a sequa appeal on
5:43 pm
the project and this will be reviewed by the board coming up soon. part of it is that there is not a definition, proper definition of current conditions. because the impact of the double development on the college, city college has not been worked out. and also, i would like to mention that i heard today at the puc meeting that 33% of the affordable housing will be subsidized by the puc and 17% will be subsidized by the city from the $600 million bond, prop position a. so for what is being given to them, the city is not getting very much for it. so it would be better to use the alternative proposal for city college to buy the land and to
5:44 pm
have 500% affordable units and that way, you would not have to turn it from public land to private land. that's just one possibility. so miss russell, in her presentation -- >> thank you, speaker. next speaker, please. there are about 13 individuals in the queue and about four who would actually like to speak. welcome, caller. we can hear you. (indiscernible).
5:45 pm
>> you might want to mute your background, sir, if you can. >> question: am i on the list now for speaking? >> yes, it's your turn, sir, welcome. >> question: thank you. could you give me a 30 second notice when my time is about to run out? >> i certainly will. >> question: this is the executive director of library users association and i wanted to speak on the library. our library in san francisco which is one of the most wealthy on a per capita basis in the whole country and is by far the richest on a per capita basis in its size category has not opened any service for the public other than the virtual services and a very diminished phone reference service. what that means is, basically,
5:46 pm
that 100,000 or more people in san francisco who do not have access to the internet, plus additional ones who don't like it or don't want it are unable to get any library service whatsoever other than extremely limited service, no books, no magazines and no -- and, basically, no everything. meanwhile, the library is the endlessless touting the wonderful services and that is fine. it's talking about how it is built up and improved its virtual service while it's done nothing for over 100,000 people that the cities report the digital, equity strategic plan has said, most people don't have access. of course, as you can imagine, united states show from a survey they made for that the poorest
5:47 pm
people of color, the oldest, those are least able to access the internet. it's a disaster for civic, for all connections, personal, job, family and so on. i would like to comment on city college. the administration is tearing down, basically getting rid of actively getting rid of fort mason and dis-mantliing things at city college and there's another campus, as well. the supervisors, i hope the supervisors will take an interest in preserving this tremendous asset which is being destroyed. >> thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. i'll just state that there are 12 listeners and two individuals in the queue. welcome, caller.
5:48 pm
>> question: good afternoon. so in chicago, over father's day weekend, there were 14 day people killed in shootings, compared over the last 24 in may. on the other hand, 104 people were shot this week, compared to the 84 weekend. so it goes in the windy city where political people treat mayhem as something they would rather not talk about. this past weekend, the dead included a 13-year-old girl shot in the next at her home according to the chicago sun times and meanwhile, shootings are soaring in new york city after police disbanded crime units to help keep guns off the street. roughly 600 officers were reassigned as part of the shutdown of the stop and that became targeted at progressives and court cases. good things those folks don't
5:49 pm
live in the high crime neighborhoods. new york and chicago have strict gun laws, but don't blame the police. they're cautious in enforcing them these days. the price will be more violent crime. by the way, five people were shot in the tenderloin yesterday. thank you. >> thank you for your comment, sir. before the next caller, i'll say there's 12 listeners. if you are interested in getting in line to speak, just make sure you press star 3 on your phone and you'll enter the queue and listen to the system as it will prompt you as it is your time to speak. next speaker, please. welcome. >> question: hi. so a number of individuals have discussed the system and i would
5:50 pm
like to remark on it. by the way, i believe i live in district 2. first of all, i would like to remark that before this week, i never even realized that people could go to -- could attend board of supervisors' meetings and i feel this is something that should be more widely advertised to residents of the city because certainly, i think i was in more active in local politics and i know there was a venue beyond simply emailing my supervisor or calling if i knew that i could actually attend meetings and make comments. i would have felt more emparamedic aempoweredas a citi.
5:51 pm
also, the schedule on the website had a more of a time frame because, for example, there was a time that was noted when comments could be made where i could have tuned out and did something else and called back in or when the relevant discussions were. also, for people who have addressed the issue of defunding the police and i believe there's an article in sf gates about how after v ar valejo defunded their police force, shootings went up.
5:52 pm
i'll stop there. >> thank you for your comments. i would love you to talk to any caller who would call our office and walk them through how the process works (415)554-5184 and thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. i understand there's one more in the queue. again, this is the last call for speakers who want to get into the queue, press star 3. welcome. >> question: hi. i'm an old-time taxi driver and i want to remind your guys t tht we've had the coronavirus years and years.
5:53 pm
(indiscernible). >> make a promise to buy them back. the buying rejected and the people losing right and left. please renew this medallion. go to the detail and find out the taxi commissioner or taxi directory what they are doing to us. this cannot continue any more. the taxi business is dead and we are stuck with the $250,000 payment. it's not working. please, help us. i appreciate it.
5:54 pm
please help, help. >> thank you for your comments, sir. operations, the next caller please. >> question: i'm mohamed. hello? yes, welcome. i'm a long-time taxi driver and a medallion holder that i purchased from mta about ten years ago, nine years ago. and i have been making my payment since, you know, business start going down and down and down and we've been having trouble with the bank. we've been having trouble dealing with the company, mta and we don't have -- we can't afford to pay any payments, either the bank or the mta is helping us with debt and the payment is kind of high.
5:55 pm
unemployment payment will cover food and maybe a little bit of the rent but we're behind in every bill we have. we were forced to purchase the medallion, not an option and now the mta is giving medallions for free. wthey are giving it for free. so we are the ones that got trapped with the $260,000. we didn't pay that in cash. we're financing that for 20 to 25 years. we've been in trouble with the banks and we tried to call the bank to get a break with too monttwomonths or three months' . they said the bank did not help. if they pay this money, the bank will consider this as a positive move from mta to help the drivers. so we ask the supervisors and the city of san francisco to help these taxi drivers
5:56 pm
including me and thousands of them who are trapped in this medallion thing. and now, the medallion is going high and there is only 43300 medallions left. the city is waiting for everybody to lose the money we move. i'm 60 years old and i was waiting for retirement. >> question: i just got off work. i'm a volunteer councillor at the housing right's committee and so my heart is heavy.
5:57 pm
but i'm glad people are calling and asserting their rights and wondering what they are. and i think right now, what has to happen immediately regarding all of these various housing projects is to press the pause button. we're in the covid time, all bets are off and even the developers are saying, ors, this haoh, thishas been in the permig process forever. you know something? it has to be paused right now. i'm thinking of the balboa reservoir and the last meeting where only one displaced student called in after we have evicted people, we've displaced them and then we want them to take all of this transit in. out of 1100 units, 150 set aside for faculty, doesn't matter if they're a faculty sleeping in their cars and we know there are
5:58 pm
and 150 units set aside for teachers. what an insult! what an insult! we have to press pause because the developers know they'll need for elevators so people can be socially distant as they go to the top floors and honest to god, we have to halt. we've never seen a time like this before and my hearts go ot to taxi drivers. i grew up with people who drove taxi and it was once a way to earn a living and now it's not. anyway, thank you for listening. >> thank you for your time. operations, another caller in the queue. >> question: can you hear me? >> welcome, join us. >> question: i'm dana anderson and i would like to draw this
5:59 pm
body's attention to another issue of racial justice, namely that of the city's continued criminalization of unhoused people. as i'm sure you're aware, black people represent a wildly disproportionate amount of the homeless population here in the city and currently, the city is negotiating a settlement with uc hastings which involves us hey continuation to cleanse the area of this. i encourage this body to force the city to force hastings to
6:00 pm
force a lawsuit and not settle. thank you. >> i believe operations, that concludes public comment here. >> that completes the queue. mr. president, no more speakers in the queue. >> seeing for more public comments, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, let's go to the philadelphia committee reference, agenda 39-55. >> items 39-55 were introduced without reference to committee and a unanimous vote is required for resolutions on first reading today. alternatively, a member of the resolution to go to committee. (indiscernib